Ring effect on myopes

[drk]

We have a job for the typical young woman -6.00 myope who lives in her contacts and just needed something el cheapo for that other one hour of the day. So we ordered naked poly and it went into a slightly larger than optimal, simple injected-molded (or something very cheap-feeling and light) black plastic frame from our Asian friends at Essilux.

Super light, super cheap, super effective.

The only thing that doesn't look optimal is the ring effect. I don't understand how to make a mirror, but it must involve polycarbonate on a black background! I did check the edge polish, and it's only a satin, and I looked for a Mongo-special on the safety bevel, but its light and appropriate. It's just the optical quality of a thicker edge in a black plastic bevel.

Question: since polycarb can't be tinted, and whereas in a case like this no AR was ordered, for the sake of argument is there a way to minimize this effect with, say, a "LenZ PenZ" (copyright...Hilco Vi$ion) or simply a black sharpie (classy optician work, right)?

Or, is there a novel way to treat the bevel, itself? Like with white-out? (The acetone would melt this sucker like cotton candy in a fat kids mouth, I know.) Or something else?

[ChrisBowers]

roll and polish for a different look

[Kujiradesu]

So if we remove all the fluff: were talking about a -6.00 DS (OU?) polycarbonate lens in a larger plastic frame (Rectangular?) with a satin edge finish. Without seeing it in person my guess is the thicker material at the edge is accentuating and reflecting the light in a very noticeable way. Anything you do to the outside finish of the lens will look cosmetically unappealing. Painting it, sharpie marker, roll, roll & polish, whatever, it'll look worse then what you have and wont solve the root issue. Only thing you can do to change what you're experiencing would be to choose a smaller and rounder frame where the eye is dead center. Other option is just to dispense it, your client is only wearing these at night after taking off her CLs and went bare bones cheap hopefully she already knows this pair isnt going to win a beauty contest.

[Kujiradesu]

[drk]

Kujir, of course you're right. Plus, nice pics. Sorry for fluff.

[Uncle Fester]

If this is just your trained eye noting the issue I'd just dispense it first then offer ever more expensive options if it comes back.

It's amazing how problems get dismissed as out of pocket costs increase for stumbling to the bathroom at night glasses.

[AngeHamm]

slightly larger than optimal

That's all you gotta say. High RX, big frame, this is the inevitable result. Try to sell 1.67 instead of poly in this case?

[Kujiradesu]

That's all you gotta say. High RX, big frame, this is the inevitable result. Try to sell 1.67 instead of poly in this case?

If you choose a bad frame you cant fix it with material. Will it be thinner? Yeah, marginally. If you refer back to my second photo (larger frame) the difference between poly and 1.67 is almost 0.5mm. A negligible difference. This is something that many opticians never investigate because they leave something they were told early in their careers unexamined. Below maybe -9.00 (give or take), 1.67 is a band-aid on gunshot wound. The frame is 80% of lens thickness and weight.

Now try telling someone who only wears their glasses to walk from their bathroom to their couch to watch tv for an hour that they need to spend an additional $100 to reduce their lenses thickness by 0.5mm and the pair will be 2g heavier as a result.

[drk]

If you choose a bad frame you cant fix it with material. Will it be thinner? Yeah, marginally. If you refer back to my second photo (larger frame) the difference between poly and 1.67 is almost 0.5mm. A negligible difference. This is something that many opticians never investigate because they leave something they were told early in their careers unexamined. Below maybe -9.00 (give or take), 1.67 is a band-aid on gunshot wound. The frame is 80% of lens thickness and weight.

Now try telling someone who only wears their glasses to walk from their bathroom to their couch to watch tv for an hour that they need to spend an additional $100 to reduce their lenses thickness by 0.5mm and the pair will be 2g heavier as a result.

<obligatory Morgan Freeman meme>
"He's not wrong, you know."

[AngeHamm]

If you choose a bad frame you cant fix it with material. Will it be thinner? Yeah, marginally. If you refer back to my second photo (larger frame) the difference between poly and 1.67 is almost 0.5mm. A negligible difference. This is something that many opticians never investigate because they leave something they were told early in their careers unexamined. Below maybe -9.00 (give or take), 1.67 is a band-aid on gunshot wound. The frame is 80% of lens thickness and weight.

Now try telling someone who only wears their glasses to walk from their bathroom to their couch to watch tv for an hour that they need to spend an additional $100 to reduce their lenses thickness by 0.5mm and the pair will be 2g heavier as a result.

Sure. But in my experience, the patient is more likely to become fixated on The Frame They Want than any other aspect of eyewear selection, so they may be more willing to spend $100 for 1.67 than they are to pick a different look.

[drk]

"He's not wrong, either, you know."

[Kujiradesu]

Sure. But in my experience, the patient is more likely to become fixated on The Frame They Want than any other aspect of eyewear selection, so they may be more willing to spend $100 for 1.67 than they are to pick a different look.

IMHO especially if cost is an issue, 1/2mm thinner and 2-3g heavier for $100 more is not a trade most people are willing to make if they have all the facts. When one of my clients fall in love with a frame, I sit with their frame and Rx and calculate for them what the edge thickness and weight will be. Setting clear expectations is key. If they know from the jump that their lenses will be thick as bricks, then were all on the same page nobody is in for a surprise. However, if you tell them that all they've got to do is spend $100 and their lenses will be *magically thinner* but at the end they're still thick as a brick then you'll have a very unhappy client.

[Kujiradesu]

"He's not wrong, either, you know."

Respectfully, I disagree. Its the difference between squeezing a client for all they're worth, and dealing with them in good faith.

When helping a client choose a frame and lens options: the outcome or end state is to charge money for product and services rendered. Yes that is true, or else none of us would be in business. Before we get to that part though, we owe a responsibility to our clients to equip them with the advice and guidance to make an informed decision. In this case, the client is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes the value of some decrease in edge thickness. Some clients when presented with a thickness reduction of 0.5mm (not 5mm; 5 tenths of a millimeter) will say, "money is no object, and even that small thickness difference is worth it to me." On the other hand, some will see the same difference and say, "that doesnt seem like very much difference at all. I think I'll save my money." The important thing is in both scenarios that the client is in control of what that thickness difference means to them and if the price is worth the benefit. They're not just taking my word for it. They are empowered and I know that when they receive the finished product they wont be disappointed.

[AngeHamm]

IMHO especially if cost is an issue, 1/2mm thinner and 2-3g heavier for $100 more is not a trade most people are willing to make if they have all the facts. When one of my clients fall in love with a frame, I sit with their frame and Rx and calculate for them what the edge thickness and weight will be. Setting clear expectations is key. If they know from the jump that their lenses will be thick as bricks, then were all on the same page nobody is in for a surprise. However, if you tell them that all they've got to do is spend $100 and their lenses will be *magically thinner* but at the end they're still thick as a brick then you'll have a very unhappy client.

Clear communication, education, and creating reasonable expectations are of course top priorities. But it has been my experience that there is a small subset of patients who are bound and determined to get The Frame They Want​ regardless of anything you tell them. At a certain point you make recommendations based on what you're stuck with after the patient stopped listening to you.

[Kujiradesu]

Clear communication, education, and creating reasonable expectations are of course top priorities. But it has been my experience that there is a small subset of patients who are bound and determined to get The Frame They Want​ regardless of anything you tell them. At a certain point you make recommendations based on what you're stuck with after the patient stopped listening to you.

At a certain point you have to stop arguing with strangers on the internet. That point is now.

[Elvis Is Alive]

The lens thickness calculator from this very site is a great tool that I use on occasion where thickness is a concern. You can easily compare thickness differences for different lens materials with a given frame and PD without having to do your own calculations.

There are many optician-patient discussions regarding thickness/price value. There are far too few optician-patient discussions regarding thickness/clarity value. I've seen far too many eyeglasses made with 1.67 or higher index where Trivex would have been optically superior for a fraction of a millimeter additional thickness.

Clearly the easiest way to reduce thickness for high myopes is smaller eyesize and bridge size combinations. Small round frames being ideal and large rectangles being the worst choices. Any good optician should understand that and have that discussion before any frame selections are made.

[Kujiradesu]

There are far too few optician-patient discussions regarding thickness/clarity value. I've seen far too many eyeglasses made with 1.67 or higher index where Trivex would have been optically superior for a fraction of a millimeter additional thickness.

I think youre right on this point. However, the clarity/chromatic aberration/abbe discussion can get a little esoteric for a layperson. Usually you can feel out the people motivated by "maximum clarity" and steer them in the right direction without having to talk about the above.

Also worth saying that a few other factors that can effect overall clarity beyond material are base curve, asphericity, and image shell position relative to the far point sphere (these can also have an effect on thickness too). Steeper base curve often can improve clarity across more of the central portion of the lens, but can negatively impact thickness. Asphericity and free form surfacing can also widen the area of optimal clarity in the center of the lens and reduce thickness at the edge; however, this will increase cost as we know. Positioning the lens optimally to make image shell align with the far point sphere can go a long way toward helping your client see with much more comfort and clarity (as many of us have found when troubleshooting a pair of high minus lenses fit on pupil center, with 1 degree of pantoscopic tilt).

Frame size is a factor in all of these considerations. Always.
Price is usually a factor. They may have to give something up, even though they want or need it.
Also, there are diminishing returns when attempting to increase the utility/size of the central lens area of clarity. Particularly the fact that the eye tends to only turn 30 degrees (15mm) before the head will turn and reorient the eye.

In a perfect world we should be using some combination of frame selection, material, base curve, fitting point, asphericity/freeform, and ingenuity to give each client optimal clarity. Often were left with a need to be resourceful when the client opts for whatever is cheaper.

[jefe]

The lens thickness calculator from this very site is a great tool that I use on occasion where thickness is a concern. You can easily compare thickness differences for different lens materials with a given frame and PD without having to do your own calculations.

There are many optician-patient discussions regarding thickness/price value. There are far too few optician-patient discussions regarding thickness/clarity value. I've seen far too many eyeglasses made with 1.67 or higher index where Trivex would have been optically superior for a fraction of a millimeter additional thickness.


Clearly the easiest way to reduce thickness for high myopes is smaller eyesize and bridge size combinations. Small round frames being ideal and large rectangles being the worst choices. Any good optician should understand that and have that discussion before any frame selections are made.

1.60 MR-8 would have about the same optical clarity as trivex with a little less thickness.

[Barry Santini]

Stock, aspheric 1.67 w/AR are little more cost than poly
that might be the path.

Barry

[drk]

At a certain point you have to stop arguing with strangers on the internet. That point is now.

We need astute posters like you, but you are too new to know the good guys from the bad ones. Andrew is the former.

[optical24/7]

I’m one of the bad guys….

[dazz]

Without seeing it in person my guess is the thicker material at the edge is accentuating and reflecting the light in a very noticeable way. Anything you do to the outside finish of the lens will look cosmetically unappealing. Painting it, sharpie marker, roll, roll & polish, whatever, it'll look worse then what you have and wont solve the root issue

I've seen someone suggest here before to use graphite powder on the lens edge.
Maybe someone who's tried that can comment on the effect.

[AngeHamm]

Stock, aspheric 1.67 w/AR are little more cost than poly
that might be the path.

Barry

That was my thinking. I would never have even mentioned poly to a patient with this RX who had chosen a larger frame. Sometimes I'll even do the 1.67 upgrade at the poly price if both are available as a stock lens because we want our patients modeling our premium product more than we want to squeeze a few more bucks out of them.