Lens for -10

[Golden Dragon]

I am -16D and have myodisc lens which i find great improvement on previous glasses with normal lenses. I have a friend who is -10D. He is going to buy new glasses soon and wonders if myodiscs would be preferable to him and whether to enquire with his optometrist about them? Would you recommend myodiscs or would hi index be better at this rx? I have previously worn 1.7 glass but found this heavy. I ask this question because I had to make a request for myodiscs, they were not recommended intially.

[For-Life]

I am -16D and have myodisc lens which i find great improvement on previous glasses with normal lenses. I have a friend who is -10D. He is going to buy new glasses soon and wonders if myodiscs would be preferable to him and whether to enquire with his optometrist about them? Would you recommend myodiscs or would hi index be better at this rx? I have previously worn 1.7 glass but found this heavy. I ask this question because I had to make a request for myodiscs, they were not recommended intially.

There is now the 1.74 in plastic. It is a good lens.

[QDO1]

I am -16D and have myodisc lens which i find great improvement on previous glasses with normal lenses. I have a friend who is -10D. He is going to buy new glasses soon and wonders if myodiscs would be preferable to him and whether to enquire with his optometrist about them? Would you recommend myodiscs or would hi index be better at this rx? I have previously worn 1.7 glass but found this heavy. I ask this question because I had to make a request for myodiscs, they were not recommended intially.

out of professional interest - have you tried the 1.7 rodenstock blended lenticular? if so, how did you find it?

[Golden Dragon]

Lens is zeiss tital 1.7 lenticular. I have found this lens much better than 1.7 glass - there are drawbacks of course but overall I think the lens is much better than 1.7 glass in normal lens, due to much reduction in weight and thickness.

[QDO1]

Lens is zeiss tital 1.7 lenticular. I have found this lens much better than 1.7 glass - there are drawbacks of course but overall I think the lens is much better than 1.7 glass in normal lens, due to much reduction in weight and thickness.

thanks. This is not a recommendation, but the Nikon PHP Pointal glass(1.83) and the new Ziess 1.9 glass lenses are pretty thin. The Nikon is "in stock"!!! in the UK which is pretty good for a -16 patient! - yes I said in stock, at the manufacturer - which means a 1 - 2 day turnaround

[Jacqui]

As an American (kind of), I would reccomend the 1.67 with AR Coating. It should be in stock also.

[Optical_1]

You don't need myodisks.....1.67 with an AR coating will look fine with a -10.00.

[Jedi]

As an American (kind of), I would reccomend the 1.67 with AR Coating. It should be in stock also.

Seconded.

[Happylady]

There is a 1.74 avalible in the U.S. now. I would suggest that if he wants the thinnest lenses. It comes with Crizal Alize AR which is one of the best.

[Golden Dragon]

Thank you for all replies. I am very happy with the myodisc lens as it is great improvement on previous glasses and I feel I see quite well. I may consider 1.83 or 1.9 in the future however.

My friend with -10 rx has been wearing 1.6 and was surprised by how much lighter my myodisc lens are compared to old glasses and was interested to know if he should also enquire after them - although it seems they are not needed.

Out of interest at what rx would you normally recommend myodiscs? As I said before I had to request them for -16. I'm concerned I'd still be wearing really heavy glasses if I hadn't asked!!

[C-10]

I just fitted up an 1.74 Zeiss Organic Rx -20.75 +3.00 x 180 used an 44 eye no myodics loks reat had to keep frame small.

[Golden Dragon]

Mt friend has decided to go for 1.67 AR - he was advised by optometrist to get 1.74 as he was told the 1.67 will be quite thick but could not afford these!

I am very happy with my myodisc lenses but have heard the unblended myodisc will give better vision - is this true and are they worth considering in the future? I am interested in 1.9 in the future also - is distortion a problem with this lens?

[QDO1]

Mt friend has decided to go for 1.67 AR - he was advised by optometrist to get 1.74 as he was told the 1.67 will be quite thick but could not afford these!

I am very happy with my myodisc lenses but have heard the unblended myodisc will give better vision - is this true and are they worth considering in the future? I am interested in 1.9 in the future also - is distortion a problem with this lens?

1.9 is glass, and has fairly bad chromattic aberation problems. but all things being equal, is a option if the frame size is small

[Matthew]

There is a product that I routinely make with -15 to -20 patients.

You can request a Double Concave 1.67.

The results are absolutely amazing.

[QDO1]

At -10 there are a range of options that are good. The trick is to get the balance between "the problems" of a lens, and the "benefits"

Problems could be weight, lens form, reflectivity, chromatic abberation, and other distortions

The key to getting a job like this right is to make sure the frame is right, and ALL of the measurements are spot on, and the prescription altered for position of wear. The role of a professional dispenser is to weigh up the pro's and cons of the lens options and reference them to the specific patients needs/occupation etc. whilst taking into account what the patient is used to wearing, in terms of base curve asphericity and material

[For-Life]

We did a -12 last week with a 1.67. I wanted to use a 1.74, but she wanted to be cost sensitive, because she mostly wears contacts. So we used a 1.67 in a very small frame. It looked decent. I would have still prefered to use a 1.74 though.