Hello all, I've had this question in the back of my mind for years bothering me and just discovered this board where I can ask other opticians what they think so theres many more to follow. The question I have now are what are the specific downsides of CR-39 over polycarbonate? Other than impact resistance, lens thickness(?), and price, it doesn't seem like the value of poly for some patients is worth it. At this new office I'm working at we have a doc that strictly will not let their patients be put in a polycarbonate lens. I can see the value of it, and how it's such an easy sell, but I guess my big question would be is how much worse is CR-39 *actually* compared to poly? I started off working in the optical industry at visionworks where we were told to push, push, push, but now it seems like their are several instances where polycarbonate is actually a detriment, and not a direct upgrade like i've been saying for years now. If the patient has a low Rx, doesn't care about impact resistance (i.e they are computer glasses that are only at the computer) is it actually a disservice to put that patient in a polycarbonate lens? I feel like I should know the specifics being three years in, but i've just been told so many different things by so many different offices. What would you say on the topic? What about HI 1.67 for patients where poly would be fine, but they get more clarity? How bad are the chromatic aberration actually such that patients would really notice?
Also just kind of a general discussion on materials. I feel like everything I know has been flipped upside down like Will Smith in the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
Bookmarks