Lens Recommendations?
i am ordering new glasses soon. my rx is:
OD -9.25 x -0.50 x 170
OS -7.75 x -0.75 x 177
PD 33/33
OC 18
the frame is from tura. ted baker b124. 51-18-135.
i am thinkin about staying in an asph. high index 1.67 w/ AR. i don't see that much of difference in lens thickness w/ the 1.74 and the price differential does not seem to be worth it.
would you recommend anything else? would a satin polish be recommended? thanks in advance...
What is the "B" on that ted baker?
the B size is 25.
I would suggest a Trivex with satin edge polish. You may should also look into www.billybrock.com hec ould add a lot of pizzaz to the lenses! You are sure to get alot of questions and ohhhhs, and ahhhhs.
Don't waste your money on 1.66/1.67 or 1.70 or 1.74.
Hell, your lenses are thick..lets face it!
Why not go for clearer vision and add a little glitz, bells and whistles!!!
I would keep the frame and lenses, with a 1.5mm decentration, I would also decenter it up 1/2 of what it would need to place the oc dead in front of your pupil. Alize clearguard or Carat Advantage, or Exceed would do you fine, edge polish if you like, satin edge if you don't like the clear edge. It's a very sharp looking frame, and without seeing your face, I think it will look great. Just did the same frame with -6's and it turned out beautiful, the man who purchased it is a lawyer and loves them. Keep the 1.67 though, or it will be thicker and heavier with trivex, just more impact resistant.
Brendan Bohl, ABOC
http://bbohl71.wix.com/vizionz
Ok, lets look at this.
Edge thickness:
Right Lens---------------------- Left Lens-
Trivex = 8.3 ---------------------7.1
1.67 = 6.8 -----------------------5.9
1.70 = 6.5----------------------- 5.7
1.74 = 6.3 -----------------------5.5
The very best scenario gives you a 2mm thickness savings. At what cost visually? Again, lets face it..the lenses are thick. Also, how much is a millimeter or two worth to you?
Do a Trivex Aspheric, a fantastic AR coat, a very slight roll and satin polish, add a little "who's your Daddy" on the lens and see what happens!
Or, spend the bucks on 1.74, and rest assured..you did the best you could?
:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:
Last edited by Fezz; 06-22-2007 at 07:41 PM.
I thought we weren't supposed to answer consumers questions here. But since we did, I will add my 2cents.
Get a little 44mm round, John Lennon type frame. Your edge thickness will be cut in half. They will be the thinnest and lightest lenses you have ever had.
I have worn Trivex and 1.67, and there is no visual difference. To me 2mm thinner makes it look much betterOriginally Posted by Fezz
Would you also say that there is no visual difference between lets say Trivex and poly? Or poly and 1.67? We have all heard the drama about visual clarity in poly, which has about the same ABBE value as 1.67. Would you suggest poly for this situation?
No, it is too thick. An aspheric poly would do fin in usual RX's. Again another material I have worn. I think we nitpick about the clarity, since I have not met a person in my dispensary (includes employees) who can tell the difference between them.
Why would you suggest something as thick as glass? You may as well suggest cr39. This is bad advice.
my old pair was a giorgio armani 272. i could not stand the reflection of the rings (from the bevel) on the edge of the frame. eventually, i just took a sharpie and colored in the bevel and i finally felt comfortable wearing them in public. instead of the white reflections off the bevel, they were now solid black. i read somewhere in this forum about bevel coloring w/... coloring pens? i am not familiar w/ this technique at all... do u know what i can get more information on it?
I would go asph 1.67, if you wear thickies you know it does make a difference. I wear poly in my everday glasses and they are fine, I have a -4.75 and I hardly ever see the TCA in my lenses unless I look for them. The threshold for TCA is 0.1 so for all materials to meet this threshold:
TCA = Prism / abbe
TCA = Power * dec / abbe * 10
Power = TCA * abbe * 10 / dec
now if the lens is placed 27mm from the center of ocular rotation, a 30o rotation would give us:
tan(30o) = dec / 27mm
dec = tan(30o) * 27mm
so now if we replace the dec in our original TCA equation:
Power = TCA * abbe * 10 / tan(30o) * 27mm
now if we were to look at the different materials by their abbe value we can determine the range of Rx to fit into these lenses:
CR-39
Power = 0.1 * 56.8 * 10 / 0.577 * 27 =3.65 Diopters
Trivex
Power = 0.1 * 45 * 10 / 0.577 * 27 =
Spectralite
Power = 0.1 * 47 * 10 / 0.577 * 27 =
Polycarbonate
Power = 0.1 * 30 * 10 / 0.577 * 27 =
Seiko 1.67
Power = 0.1 * 32 * 10 / 0.577 * 27 =
These figures do show that TCA should be a concern in higher power lenses, especialy when the peripheral area is of concern.
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
I'm a -12 and change.
Trust me - no 1.67.
Try Hoya 1.70 - these are the thinnest I've ever had and they still have a lot of clarity similar to Spectralite (though not as good as Trivex) although their chromatic abberration seems to be more on the blue end of the spectrum.
And they have SHV, though no photochromic yet.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
hmm. what would be the reasoning between the 1.67 and 1.70? that doesn't seem to be too much of a difference...
What you are getting is well worth it. (1.66/1.67 Aspheric.) Polished edge under the right circumstances looks nice too. I would not roll the edge at all.
1.74 is nominally better if you want the thinnest you can get in the USA.
Trivex is bad choice with your RX strength and NOT a viable option. Trivex is thicker than Polycarbonate.
No, I think Fezz is onto something...
Why NOT maximize the edge thickness with Trivex and have Billy Brock jewels embedded ON THE EDGE of the lens!?!
Perhaps pink stones?! Cool look...
Two Thumbs up for the good Doc!!
DRK-Brilliant!
Finally somebody has seen thru my tongue-in-cheek recommendation!
It may actually be a fairly neat look!
Bravo!
:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:
Or put two grooves in the edge and paint the grooves alternateing between clear and a color in the front groove and a solid color in the back groove so from the front it looks patterned.
That Fezz is a picasso. :)
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
He isn't a consumer.
I hear you on the small round frame. We had a patient with a rx of about -11 in a 44 eye roundish plastic frame. I have seen -3's look thicker. When she wanted new glasses she went to some fancy place to buy a frame and brought it to us for the lenses(she had vsp). We did 1.74's but they came out much much thicker due to the wider frame.
I recommend the 1.74 if the price isn't too much for you. Two mm in thickness is a huge difference in my opinion. My daughter wears 1.74 and the optics are great she says.
The optics aren't necessarily great, she has just never had great optics. I deal with a lot of high myopes, I did a myodisc for a patient once that the manager and the boss thought looked horrible and I just kept saying it will look beautifull to her, and sure enough she loved them and sent her father also high myope to get the same thing. If you look at the threshold for TCA in the above posts some Rx's will never get a lens material that will meet these thresholds, doesn't mena that you can't dispense them lenses, just means you can make it clearer or thiner in some cases.
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
Yes, she has. :) She has had cr-39, 1.6, and poly. Sure, glass has the best optics, but she sees very well through her 1.74's. She also wears contacts and can compare her vision with contacts (which is excellent) to the optics of any lens.
I can also wear any material with no problems. My sunglasses are cr-39 and my regular glasses are poly and 1.6. I can see very well with all of them.
Not in thickness, but the Hoya 1.70 has a significantly higher ABBE, though not as high as Trivex.
This can be illustrated like this, though broadly interpreted:
You can look at a glass chandelier, then look at a similar leaded crystal chandelier.The leaded crystal chandelier looks nicer, all sparkly and rainbowy, while the glass chandelier looks more clear and not as rainbowy. High ABBE looks more like the glass chandelier, 1.67 and poly look more like the crystal chandelier.Now, which would you rather look through?
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
Sorry. Yes I see now. It would give you more to work with.
I must say that as a high myope (-6) the 1.74 lenses are most certainly worth the cost.
In my store, the price diff is only $20 but the 1.74 must include Crizal Alize (not sold w/o) so you must compare with 1.67 and Alize.
Anyone with your Rx and high-index in general should have AR, so this should not be a concern.
Anyway, my high index 1.74 lenses are fantastic. Optical clarity is outstanding and the edge is THIN!
And after reading Harry's post, let me say for the record I also have N&D contacts, 1.67, 1.60, and poly to compare.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks