Varifocal glasses
Discussion
She has just got her first pair of varifocal glasses from a well know high street optician.
When she tried them on at home she noticed there was blurry bits on both lenses. I can actually see and manage to photograph that marking on the lenses with my phone's camera.
I took the photograph from one side before realising that it's actually 17H and a small circle that is etched into the lens.
Surely that can't be right?
When she tried them on at home she noticed there was blurry bits on both lenses. I can actually see and manage to photograph that marking on the lenses with my phone's camera.
I took the photograph from one side before realising that it's actually 17H and a small circle that is etched into the lens.
Surely that can't be right?
I just had my first pair of glasses ever, needed just readers and Vision reallyfast indeed talked me into varifocals for 400 quid!
Anyway, when the arrived they were utterly shocking, just awful, everything wobbled and the reader part was so narrow, I had to move my head to read a laptop, the focus was about 2 inches only in middle of screen.
I took them back and they remade them all, the eyetest was done again and found to be identical, but the new ones are completely different, far far better? But are they worth 400 notes, are they f
k!! I should have had basic bifocals for less than half that I think.
So take them back and moan is my advice.
Anyway, when the arrived they were utterly shocking, just awful, everything wobbled and the reader part was so narrow, I had to move my head to read a laptop, the focus was about 2 inches only in middle of screen.
I took them back and they remade them all, the eyetest was done again and found to be identical, but the new ones are completely different, far far better? But are they worth 400 notes, are they f
k!! I should have had basic bifocals for less than half that I think. So take them back and moan is my advice.
Like everyhting in life, there are huge quality and price differences for Varifocals.
Ive been wearing VF's for at leats 8 years now, and make sure I buy the best I can buy.
The cheaper lens have smaller areas of true clarity in the transitional areas.
Ive just ordered my latest specs this last week.
I spec'd (!) Essilor Physio2 varifocals, with a 1.67 thinning applied and Crizal Saphire coating.
My local Specsavers had quoted me nigh on £630 using these, but eventually internet price matched - to an agreed £349 fitted to my new Oakley frames I supplied to them.
https://www.essilor.co.uk/lenses/varilux/varilux-p...
Higher quality VF's have the smaller OOF areas.....
Ive been wearing VF's for at leats 8 years now, and make sure I buy the best I can buy.
The cheaper lens have smaller areas of true clarity in the transitional areas.
Ive just ordered my latest specs this last week.
I spec'd (!) Essilor Physio2 varifocals, with a 1.67 thinning applied and Crizal Saphire coating.
My local Specsavers had quoted me nigh on £630 using these, but eventually internet price matched - to an agreed £349 fitted to my new Oakley frames I supplied to them.
https://www.essilor.co.uk/lenses/varilux/varilux-p...
Higher quality VF's have the smaller OOF areas.....
I specced the highest priced ones possible from Vision Express, with the widest possible FOV.
Took no time to get used to them for day-to-day stuff and they're good for work, reading, TV etc, but they're st for driving - I can no longer use the mirrors without significant head-turning - my peripheral vision is always blurred.
Seeing as my old distance prescription hasn't changed (just losing really close vision), I've gone back to using my old single vision glasses for driving.
Took no time to get used to them for day-to-day stuff and they're good for work, reading, TV etc, but they're s
t for driving - I can no longer use the mirrors without significant head-turning - my peripheral vision is always blurred.Seeing as my old distance prescription hasn't changed (just losing really close vision), I've gone back to using my old single vision glasses for driving.
It's specifically the etched 17H markings on the lenses that are the major issue. She knows she will need time to adjust to the new glasses, but the 17H etched marks will always be there and hard to ignore.
Zoom in on my small image sized photo from a mobile phone and you can see them.
She's conscious that they are there. It's towards the outside on the lenses, but not that far out and it's on the centre line.
Having Googled it a previous PH thread shows up. I really can't believe this can be normal.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=88...
Zoom in on my small image sized photo from a mobile phone and you can see them.
She's conscious that they are there. It's towards the outside on the lenses, but not that far out and it's on the centre line.
Having Googled it a previous PH thread shows up. I really can't believe this can be normal.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=88...
Edited by Driver101 on Wednesday 19th June 18:32
Driver101 said:
It's specifically the etched 17H markings on the lenses that are the major issue. She knows she will need time to adjust to the new glasses, but the 17H etched marks will always be there and hard to ignore.
Zoom in on my small image sized photo from a mobile phone and you can see them.
She's conscious that they are there. It's towards the outside on the lenses, but it's on the centre line.
Having Googled it a previous PH thread shows up. I really can't believe this can be normal.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=88...
My lenses have a very tiny (gold-ish) Zeiss logo right at the edge. I think you've got a manufacturing error (not picking the right blank, or not positioning it right in the grinder, etc) - that makers mark should be at the edge, well out of normal line of sight.Zoom in on my small image sized photo from a mobile phone and you can see them.
She's conscious that they are there. It's towards the outside on the lenses, but it's on the centre line.
Having Googled it a previous PH thread shows up. I really can't believe this can be normal.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=88...
JonChalk said:
My lenses have a very tiny (gold-ish) Zeiss logo right at the edge. I think you've got a manufacturing error (not picking the right blank, or not positioning it right in the grinder, etc) - that makers mark should be at the edge, well out of normal line of sight.
It must surely be? She will need to take them back.
As DKL mentioned above, the engraved circles are there for marking-up purposes, to determine the position of the optical centres/distance heights.
There will normally be corresponding circular engravings on the same horizontal plane, near the nasal side of each lens unless the wearer has a particularly small temple width and/or pupillary distance, in which case they may be cut away during the glazing process.
The 17 denotes that the reading add is +1.75 and is a quick and easy way for us to check what this value is (if the engraving was 22, it would mean +2.25. If the engraving was 37, it would mean +3.75, etc etc).
Very, very few varifocal lenses are devoid of any engravings and unfortunately, some are more noticeable than others.
Some of the Kodak lenses from 10 or so years back had engravings you could almost see from space.
(Okay, not quite but they were very conspicuous.)
You say your wife is aware of the engravings. Do you mean she can see them when she's wearing her glasses?
From your pic, they look reasonably close to the temporal edge and I'd be very surprised if she can see them whilst wearing the frame.
In the unlikely scenario that the temporal engravings were too far towards the pupil centres, your wife wouldn't be able to see very much at all, as the distance centre of the lens would be set way too far inwards, towards her nose.
Maybe the supplier can recommend a lens with less obvious engravings, but there's a very good chance they'll still be there and 'find-able' if one goes looking for them. I'd recommend that she takes them back and speaks to a dispensing optician, if possible.
There will normally be corresponding circular engravings on the same horizontal plane, near the nasal side of each lens unless the wearer has a particularly small temple width and/or pupillary distance, in which case they may be cut away during the glazing process.
The 17 denotes that the reading add is +1.75 and is a quick and easy way for us to check what this value is (if the engraving was 22, it would mean +2.25. If the engraving was 37, it would mean +3.75, etc etc).
Very, very few varifocal lenses are devoid of any engravings and unfortunately, some are more noticeable than others.
Some of the Kodak lenses from 10 or so years back had engravings you could almost see from space.
(Okay, not quite but they were very conspicuous.)
You say your wife is aware of the engravings. Do you mean she can see them when she's wearing her glasses?
From your pic, they look reasonably close to the temporal edge and I'd be very surprised if she can see them whilst wearing the frame.
In the unlikely scenario that the temporal engravings were too far towards the pupil centres, your wife wouldn't be able to see very much at all, as the distance centre of the lens would be set way too far inwards, towards her nose.
Maybe the supplier can recommend a lens with less obvious engravings, but there's a very good chance they'll still be there and 'find-able' if one goes looking for them. I'd recommend that she takes them back and speaks to a dispensing optician, if possible.
That would be fairly normal and expected, to be honest. There's always going to be 'peripheral soft-focus' when wearing varifocals.
Head positioning is everything. It always helps if you're looking straight at what you want to view. Eccentric viewing means you'll be looking through a part of the lens that isn't your prescription, essentially.
Varifocals are convenient but include compromises - they're trying to do loads of different jobs within one pair of lenses. The wearer, by and large, has to make an effort to adapt and get along with them.
2 Smoking Barrel's post above is great and really relevant. In the first 1-2 weeks of wearing varifocals, a lot of wearers will experience a few strange effects and think, 'if this is how it's going to be, I can't live with this!'
But the brain soon filters out the stuff it doesn't want to see.
For any new wearers out there, it's really worth sticking at.
Head positioning is everything. It always helps if you're looking straight at what you want to view. Eccentric viewing means you'll be looking through a part of the lens that isn't your prescription, essentially.
Varifocals are convenient but include compromises - they're trying to do loads of different jobs within one pair of lenses. The wearer, by and large, has to make an effort to adapt and get along with them.
2 Smoking Barrel's post above is great and really relevant. In the first 1-2 weeks of wearing varifocals, a lot of wearers will experience a few strange effects and think, 'if this is how it's going to be, I can't live with this!'
But the brain soon filters out the stuff it doesn't want to see.
For any new wearers out there, it's really worth sticking at.
Mine have a circle and S22 on each lens about 15mm from the outer edge and a circle and x 9 a few mms in from the nose. They've very faint though (lens are coated) and I certainly don't see them while wearing the glasses.
We (both wife and I) got our first varifocals from Specsavers having both worn specs for short sight for many years. The dispenser there seemed particularly switched on, and we (at great expense) had Essilor Panamic lenses in the everyday pair and another pair made up with Pentax (which apparently means Specsavers own lenses, they bought the Pentax name) with photochromic lenses. In use, neither of could tell the difference, and the glasses just worked perfectly from the moment we put them on.
However, no oher glasses we've had since has quite been the same. My next pairs were also from Specsaves but the dispenser had left and someone else convinced me that if the Pentax lenses had seemed fine then I should have those for both pairs. They were terrible, I'm told becuase they'd been made with a 'split prism'. They remade both pairs without question but they never felt just as "right" as the first pairs. Pricing got very confusing but even for both pairs they were half the price of the first pairs I'd had (£300 ish for both pairs, vs £600ish).
My wife replaced hers with some from Costco using Essilor Physio lenses. Similar issue with her - they just never felt right, and Costco's dispenser wasn't helpful in trying to resolve. Wife thinks the centres aren't in the right place.
We (both wife and I) got our first varifocals from Specsavers having both worn specs for short sight for many years. The dispenser there seemed particularly switched on, and we (at great expense) had Essilor Panamic lenses in the everyday pair and another pair made up with Pentax (which apparently means Specsavers own lenses, they bought the Pentax name) with photochromic lenses. In use, neither of could tell the difference, and the glasses just worked perfectly from the moment we put them on.
However, no oher glasses we've had since has quite been the same. My next pairs were also from Specsaves but the dispenser had left and someone else convinced me that if the Pentax lenses had seemed fine then I should have those for both pairs. They were terrible, I'm told becuase they'd been made with a 'split prism'. They remade both pairs without question but they never felt just as "right" as the first pairs. Pricing got very confusing but even for both pairs they were half the price of the first pairs I'd had (£300 ish for both pairs, vs £600ish).
My wife replaced hers with some from Costco using Essilor Physio lenses. Similar issue with her - they just never felt right, and Costco's dispenser wasn't helpful in trying to resolve. Wife thinks the centres aren't in the right place.
I am on my 3rd pair of varifocals and they were outrageously expensive at over a £1000! Luckily the insurance company paid most of this pair.
Always had Zeiss lenses, the first pair were fantastic from day 1, the second were not as good and took more getting used to. These ones again are excellent from day 1.
This pair came from a different optician who basically said the only lenses I could have which were better were by Nikon but it couldnt be guaranteed I would get on with them as well as the Zeiss lenses.
Cost comes from the frame which are Lindberg and the lenses. But glasses are ridiclously light
Always had Zeiss lenses, the first pair were fantastic from day 1, the second were not as good and took more getting used to. These ones again are excellent from day 1.
This pair came from a different optician who basically said the only lenses I could have which were better were by Nikon but it couldnt be guaranteed I would get on with them as well as the Zeiss lenses.
Cost comes from the frame which are Lindberg and the lenses. But glasses are ridiclously light
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff