Opinions needed

[Crolegion]

Heloo guys. I'm new to the site and i work as an optician in Croatia for 6 years and i do every thing from selling repairing and finishing lenses.Since i wanted to spread my knowledge litlle over the world i decided to join Optiboard and share some experience in optics and search for some answers and opinions.As first thread i wanted some of your opinions and i'll make myself as example. Do you recomend 1.6 on lower perscriptions. Reasons why i ask is i always make myself 1.6 lenses.my perscription is
R: 0.00 -0.50 ax 10*
L: 0.00 -0.50 ax 170*.
I wear Drivesafe from Zeiss and on second pair Rodenstock Solitaire plus 2 protect.Reasons why i open this subject is the coatings and clarity. I used to wear 1.5 with same Ar coatings but it seems when the same coatings are applied to 1.6 it just seems better clarity and cleaning of the lenses itself plus the 1.6 is more resistant.thats my opinion and i would like some of your opinions. and one more thing. Do you think its normal for me to sell to other people 1.6 on lower perscriptions if they can afford it because from my example is worth it because of strength of the lens and vision in my example. i really nedd your opinions or am i wrong in my experience and im imagining it.

[mervinek]

I would use a Trivex material over a 1.60 due to Abbe value. Trivex is much more durable as well.

[Crolegion]

Trivex is not adopted in my country as outside. Here the polycarbonat is more practiced material but i dont work with it.

[mervinek]

Wow! No Trivex? Well... in that case, I would agree. I would offer a lens with clearer optics and just explain the cost difference. Educate the patient so they can make the best decision for themselves. The only thing would be impact resistance with drill mounts etc. Poly would be better. Trivex is best, but if it's not available, you just have to do the best with what is available. I see no problem with offering a high index lens to a lower Rx if you explain why you are recommending it.

[Crolegion]

I make my customers everything clear for what are they buying and i dont like poly. But as far 1.6 lens i had no trouble drilling it and shattered parts problem. Zeiss always recomendes me 1.6 variant for drilling and high clarity.

[Quince]

Wow! No Trivex? Well... in that case, I would agree. I would offer a lens with clearer optics and just explain the cost difference. Educate the patient so they can make the best decision for themselves. The only thing would be impact resistance with drill mounts etc. Poly would be better. Trivex is best, but if it's not available, you just have to do the best with what is available. I see no problem with offering a high index lens to a lower Rx if you explain why you are recommending it.

I agree completely- if you need a third opinion. It sounds like you are covering all your bases if you are offering an upgrade that has proven it's benefits in your personal experience and explaining the pros and cons. Not sure if this is a substrate matched AR but that could have something to do with why you like it better on 1.6.

And welcome to OptiBoard!!

[Crolegion]

We are taking about stock 1.5 rodenstock solitaire plus AR and from Zeiss duravision platinum AR and same stock AR on 1.6 It's same persicription and same frame. But somehow cleaning the lens itself and clarity always seems better on 1.6.

[obxeyeguy]

We are taking about stock 1.5 rodenstock solitaire plus AR and from Zeiss duravision platinum AR and same stock AR on 1.6 It's same persicription and same frame. But somehow cleaning the lens itself and clarity always seems better on 1.6.

That very simply is the AR, not the material. Optics in 1.6 are not as good as cr39, period. Only benefit I see for 1.6 is in drilled for a little better strength, seeing trivex not available.
Jmho

[Crolegion]

Is it posiblle that AR coatings stick and work better on 1.6 than 1.5
Unfortunately ZEISS doesnt have Trivex or Poly.
Basicaly what are you trying to say is i can see better on 1.5 than on 1.6 because of Abbe number. And i should recomened 1.5 over 1.6 on full plastic frame because theres no need in any way for 1.6 considering lower perscription

[obxeyeguy]

Is it posiblle that AR coatings stick and work better on 1.6 than 1.5
Unfortunately ZEISS doesnt have Trivex or Poly.
Basicaly what are you trying to say is i can see better on 1.5 than on 1.6 because of Abbe number. And i should recomened 1.5 over 1.6 on full plastic frame because theres no need in any way for 1.6 considering lower perscription

Many ar treatments are good, some are bad. You are comparing 2 different apples, rodenstock and zeiss. Try the zeiss ar on cr, should give you the best results. I still don't see this as a material issue, and I'm not familiar with those specific ar's, but a great ar on poly with that rx will give as good of a result, probably better, as a not so great ar on cr39.

[Quince]

Basicaly what are you trying to say is i can see better on 1.5 than on 1.6 because of Abbe number. And i should recomened 1.5 over 1.6 on full plastic frame because theres no need in any way for 1.6 considering lower perscription

My office has a mixed opinion on this. The higher the RX (especially cyl) the more someone should notice the difference in Abbe value. BUT everyone eyes are different and some people are more or less sensitive.

[Hayde]

With respect to the differing opinions here, I think poly is getting a bad rap. The OP is specifically asking about low powers, and the (very small) ABBE differential between poly:1.60 just isn't going to come into play. If Trivex is unavailable, I'd go with the shatter-resistant option with the next-best odds of longevity...at a lower cost than 1.60 to boot.

[LENNY]

Nothing is wrong with regular plastic! By the way how much these lenses go for in Split?