Bifocal/Progessive lenses

[samkent]

How did progressive lenses ever make it to the market? Why do people accept these things as an “improvement”?

I’ve reached the age where one pair of glasses doesn’t work for all distances. Lately I’ve been using 3 different pairs of dime store readers. TV – computer – reading.

So when I saw the ad on tv for 2 pair of single vision for $69.95 including exam I jumped. When I walked in and inquired I decided to start my upgrades.
$15 extra for the back of the eye exam, which requires the drops to dilate the eye. Ok fine since it’s been 10 years since the last thorough check.
$99.95 for bi focal. Ok it’s understandable since there is extra work.

But then the thought of progressive hit me. No more grabbing a different pair since I still need correction for 3 distances. Ahh one pair to do it all. Just a simple tilt of the head up or down. All for the low prices of $235 for two pairs! What the heck I’m worth it. So I took the plunge into progressive without knowing the real story.

My assumption (I know) was that they took a 2x blank ground the lower half into 4x in a gradual progression. Or possibly a 4x blank into 2x. Nope that’s not what you get. I don’t know how they do it but it doesn’t turn out like you would expect. Only a thin strip in the lower half of the lens is useable. The lower sides are out of focus at ALL DISTANCES.
And I do mean a thin strip. If I focus on the 6 and 7 on my keyboard the 8 and 5 start getting out of focus. By the time you get to the ‘backspace’ and ‘1’key are unreadable.

Why is something like this ‘acceptable’ to the public? Are they so vain to give up the line that they put up with bobble head syndrome? If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny to watch me check my stocks on the computer. Boing, boing, boing. I only have a 2 inch circle in focus on the screen before I have to bobble my head. And to read a book I must move my head from side to side as only the center of the page is in focus. They are useless.

Any suggestions?

[Strange]

Seems like some people get on with them and others don't. I didn't and took advantage of the 30 day, money-back guarantee (without which, I would never have tried them). But a friend was raving about them the other day. YMMV.

[ngc3314]

It may depend on your prescription. I went with progressives since I couldn't stand the line of bifocals, and the optometrist said adjusting the other way would be harder. They're fine for me reading or at the monitor, with plenty of lateral area in focus. However, after ~3 years I still dare not look at my feet while going down stairs, because my feet appear to not be where my brain says they are. I have heard that brass players often get a second pair of glasses, because the need to tip the head at the right angle to see the music may interfere with either having the embouchure or the instrument at the right angle.

[Chuck]

I was happy with mine that I got in the 1990's but they were expensive and my eyes were changing fast requiring a new prescription too soon. I didn't want to pay that much again so I just got distance glasses and used an older, weaker pair of glasses for reading. Now I get distance glasses and reading glasses every few years.

[profloater]

At first my visual field was swimming and the carpet viewed through the reading part of the lens especially so. However my brain compensated in a few days as predicted so I cn waer these progressives all the time. What I find surprising is that when I take them off my brain instantly resets to the no glasses mode without confusion. At the start I could never catch a thrown ball with the new glasses, now I can with them on or off. It seems the brain has learned two modes and can switch between them! At the start I insisted on a pair of reading only glasses for the ritual of sitting down to read, and the known small area of the progressives for reading but I never used them. The biggest problem is close work above my head when I cannot get used to being out of focus. I have to lift the glasses to perch on eyebrows and they will not stay there!

[samkent]

It still doesn't make sense that the lower/reading portion is so narrow. It's fine to check your watch but you can't really read with it. It should be at least as wide as bi focals.

[bassguy61]

I had a pair of regular bifocals prescribed a couple of years ago. Wore them for a few days, then went back to my old single vision... LOL! The thing I couldn't adapt to was, when looking at distance, the feeling that the lower part of my lenses were smeared and filthy. Drove me nuts! Do you ever get to where that isn't mentally noticeable? I need to go back soon, and bifocal of some type would be the right thing, just not sure about the transition...

[grapes]

And I do mean a thin strip. If I focus on the 6 and 7 on my keyboard the 8 and 5 start getting out of focus.

It still doesn't make sense that the lower/reading portion is so narrow. It's fine to check your watch but you can't really read with it. It should be at least as wide as bi focals.

I see that "narrow" is in the horizontal direction. That's weird, and I don't see why that should be. I think you got some glasses that were not made correctly, or, at least, they don't act like my pair.

Why is something like this ‘acceptable’ to the public? Are they so vain to give up the line that they put up with bobble head syndrome?

Now, you're just lashing out.

Any suggestions?

Instead of expecting the public to do something about it, you should.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

they are very hard to get used to....I don't like them either...even made the mistake of getting transitions as part of the package....not total junk, but close...

if someone could come-up with glasses that could somehow electronically change as you needs change...ie. Geordi LaForge artificial eyes if you will...."that" would be a great invention...maybe lens that could be reshaped or manipulated...a fluid inside the lens...or maybe something like the mirrors on the large telescopes?

[samkent]

I figured it out!
They don't grind the lenses.
They take a low power lens and heat the bottom and put a kink where your pupil is for reading. I noticed it by looking at the top edge and then the bottom edge. The protrusion is clearly visible on the bottom. That's how they get the extra magnification. And it also explains the side distortion.
If you look online this distortion is there on all progressive lenses and people have to get used to it. I guess most people are willing to accept the flaws in the manufacturing process just to get rid of the lines.

I will be going back to the store. If they can't expand the 'in focus' area then I hope to get a refund.

[grapes]

If you look online this distortion is there on all progressive lenses

Can you provide a link? I'd like to look at that.

[Trebuchet]

In addition to differences in prescription, there are major differences in manufacturers. My first pair of progressives, 20 years ago, were fine except that I had to adjust a bit to walking down stairs. For the second pair, I tried to save a few bucks and got them at the warehouse store. Big mistake! They gave me tunnel vision; I couldn't see anything off-axis without moving my head. After listening to me gripe for a couple of weeks my wife walked up and took them right off my face and handed me the old ones.

I then went back to the optician at the eye doctor's office. They recommended the Varilux brand. When they came in, she told me as she was putting them on me for the first time that it might take some time to adjust to them. It did. About five seconds. They were perfect. I've gotten nothing else since. More expensive, but worth every penny.

Having said that, I'll mention that I used to be extremely nearsighted and couldn't focus on anything more than six inches out. As I've gotten old(er), my eyes have changed so that I now see perfectly at typical reading and screen distances. I generally take my glasses off so I don't have to tilt my head back.

[samkent]

http://www.caryfamilyeyecare.com/Con.../definity.aspx

Here is a link that shows the distorted areas of all standard progressive lenses.
The dark patches are distorted. Both left and right sides of each lens.
I'll have to look into the expensive ones. But how much is it worth compared to 3 pairs of dime store readres? I thought $230 wasn't bad for 2 pair but if I have to spend that much for one. I'm not sure.

[Swift]

I've been wearing progressive lenses for at least 10 years and I like them. I'd be happier if I didn't need them and could get away with a single focus pair, but I rather have them than be constantly switching glasses. As others have said, they take getting used to, it depends a lot on what your prescription/problem is, and I think a higher quality does make a difference.

[PetersCreek]

Another progressive user here and I like mine. My previous frames were on the small side, which made using progressives more difficult but I went with a slightly larger frame this last go-round...as well as "digital" lenses and Transistions. The digital lenses do seem to help with off-axis acuity. The only beef I have with the Transistions lenses is that they don't work when I'm driving, because modern windshields and windows block UV, which is what activates the Transitions lenses. I recently learned that Transisitions offers another product call DriveWear that responds to a wider spectrum, as well as being polarized. I'll have to check it out next time I renew my prescription.

[Buttercup]

If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny to watch me check my stocks on the computer. Boing, boing, boing. I only have a 2 inch circle in focus on the screen before I have to bobble my head.

Lol!! Sorry, but yes I did laugh -- rather heartily. Needed that.

[swampyankee]

I've been using progressive lenses for about a decade, after spending a couple of years taking my glasses off to read. I like them. My sister, on the other hand, hates them.

[Nowhere Man]

Raises hand for progressives. When I first went bifocal, I found that gradually I had to tilt my head back so I could focus on the computer screen. Being a programmer, I look at the screen a lot. Next year I got a pair of readers as well.

Now I use the readers when I'm inside (home, work), and the progressives for outside work, driving, and long meeting rooms.

Fred

[ToSeek]

I switched to progressives about two years ago and am very happy with them. In fact, when I first put them on I thought they'd done something wrong because they didn't seem that different. It wasn't until they shoved a fine-print magazine in front of me that I realized that it was an improvement. Once I started walking around, it got a little harder for a while, but I got used to them and have been fine ever since.

As others have said, I think that if you're having problems, that's to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of your particular glasses, not the whole concept.

[rigel]

I went from bifocals to progressive about 10 years ago. With bifocals I was always updating the prescription every year or two. I am still using the same 2 pair of progressive (2 for 1) from 10 yres ago. My eyesight is barely deterirating. Maybe in a couple years I will a new set.

[swampyankee]

I don't understand all this problem with stairs and feet. Why do people suddenly have problems with stairs when they change to progressive lenses or bifocals?

[Tensor]

I used Bifocals for ten years. My eyesight was terrible. When I was younger, it was 20/250 right eye, 20/450 left eye, both nearsighted. Last year, I found the "close" part of the bifocal started getting out of focus for reading. So, I went in and got a new pair. Well, now I could see fine for reading, but the computer was now out of focus. So, I took them off for working on the computer. As this past year went on, I found I don't need them for anything closer than 6-7 feet, which means I pretty much don't wear the glasses in the house. I'm not sure I'm going to bother with another pair until my eyes figure out where they want to be.

[Bearded One]

I've learned that there are different types of progressive lenses. I had to reject one pair, they had to have new lenses made by another company that were more my "style". The original lenses had the problems you describe.

[Trebuchet]

I don't understand all this problem with stairs and feet. Why do people suddenly have problems with stairs when they change to progressive lenses or bifocals?

It's going downstairs that's the problem. You tend to look down through the lower part of the lens, the close-up portion. It throws your depth perception off for a while. Most people get adjusted to it quickly enough.

[swampyankee]

It's going downstairs that's the problem. You tend to look down through the lower part of the lens, the close-up portion. It throws your depth perception off for a while. Most people get adjusted to it quickly enough.

Ah...that's why I don't have a problem. I move my head to look through the main part of my glasses, and don't look where I'm putting my feet on the way down.

[DoggerDan]

How did progressive lenses ever make it to the market?

They met a need.

Why do people accept these things as an “improvement”?

Because people could finally see clearly at a distance as well as up close without switching pairs.

I’ve reached the age where one pair of glasses doesn’t work for all distances. Lately I’ve been using 3 different pairs of dime store readers. TV – computer – reading.

Then you know the pain.

So when I saw the ad on tv for 2 pair of single vision for $69.95 including exam I jumped. When I walked in and inquired I decided to start my upgrades.
$15 extra for the back of the eye exam, which requires the drops to dilate the eye. Ok fine since it’s been 10 years since the last thorough check.
$99.95 for bi focal. Ok it’s understandable since there is extra work.

But then the thought of progressive hit me. No more grabbing a different pair since I still need correction for 3 distances. Ahh one pair to do it all. Just a simple tilt of the head up or down. All for the low prices of $235 for two pairs! What the heck I’m worth it. So I took the plunge into progressive without knowing the real story.

My assumption (I know) was that they took a 2x blank ground the lower half into 4x in a gradual progression. Or possibly a 4x blank into 2x. Nope that’s not what you get. I don’t know how they do it but it doesn’t turn out like you would expect. Only a thin strip in the lower half of the lens is useable. The lower sides are out of focus at ALL DISTANCES.
And I do mean a thin strip. If I focus on the 6 and 7 on my keyboard the 8 and 5 start getting out of focus. By the time you get to the ‘backspace’ and ‘1’key are unreadable.

Mine work much better than that.

Why is something like this ‘acceptable’ to the public?

It wouldn't be acceptable to me. Consider taking them back for a full refund.

[ngc3314]

It's going downstairs that's the problem. You tend to look down through the lower part of the lens, the close-up portion. It throws your depth perception off for a while. Most people get adjusted to it quickly enough.

I think the reason is that the out-of-focus image of one's feet through the near-focus part of the lens has a different angular scale than the in-focus distant area one usually looks though, and therefore your visual perception of each foot's location differs from the kinesthetic location from the muscles and nerves. This wouldn't happen with single-prescription lenses because the brain accommodates pretty quickly to a single scale factor for vision (as well as more complicated mappings, like the diabolical experiments with inverting spectacles). Indeed, it only seems to be a problem when looking through the lower part of the lens, although there are few chances to look that far down with the top part of the lenses.

[DonM435]

I've been wearing line-free trifocal lenses for about ten years and have no trouble with them, so long as the little nose-pads are adjusted to push the lenses up a bit. When these slump, I find myself tilting my head back to get focus, a signal to get these adjusted. No problem watching my feet go down the stairs (which I just tested -- normally, I don't look).

Early on with a new pair, I noted that a rectangular flat object looked somewhat bowed up close, but no more: I must have accomodated.

Occasionally, I react to some darker object at the corner of my eye, which turns out to be an artifact of the lenses when there's in fact nothing there.

[PetersCreek]

Early on with a new pair, I noted that a rectangular flat object looked somewhat bowed up close, but no more: I must have accomodated.

My main problem is astigmatism but a few years ago, the optometrist had to throw in some correction for presbyopia, which was different for each eye. After getting that first prescription, rectangular objects...say, a sheet of paper...had a distinct trapezoidal appearance until the old brain adjusted to the new eyes.

[samkent]

I went back to the establishment on Tuesday and the lady there sat me down and remeasured the distanced between my pupils and remarked the lens of the glasses. She is going to have a different company make the lenses. And it will be a different material as well.

They did have what they called 'precision grind’. But that was another $100. It makes me wonder if those that complain get an upgraded set for free.