Re: Progressives for high astigmatism

On 21 Nov 2003 22:40:26 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (eb) wrote:

>Thank you for your explanations Mark and Robert.  Wouldnt my lenses be
>kind of thick in cr39?  I dont want to look like a geek in them. 

The temporal and nasal edges should be quite thin. The thick part of the lens is
at the top and bottom. If the frame is small and somewhat rectangular the
vertical narrowness will diminish the thickness. An atoric lens will also reduce
the thickness. This lens should not look thick.

>Robert, Thank you for giving me prices for Multigressiv.  Seems like I
>would be able to use this lens in a "smaller" frame. Do you ever use
>Hoya Summit ECP?  It seems like another likely lens I could be able to
>use, based on another thread.  It would probably be a little less
>expensive. 

With your Rx (+1.00 add) most current progressive designs will work well.
Because of the high cyl power I would avoid lenses that are more aspheric than
others i.e. Varilux Panamic and Rodenstock Life 2. Alternatively the atoric
Multigressiv will provide better vision and comfort than all the rest.


>Robert do you recommend the AR coating specifically for my
>>prescription?  If yes, why would I need the AR compared to other
>>prescriptions?  I heard AR coating is hard to maintain and the
>>expensive ones like Crizal will make the lenses unuseable if they are
>>scratched, whereas the cheaper ones could be reapplied.  How much
>>would Crizal coating cost?  Txx.
>>
>>EB
>>

Back surface reflections on a high cylinder minus lens will be more noticeable
than on other lenses. Coated (if not all) lenses should be cleaned with soap and
water. Cost is about $80. 

Hope this helps




Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
  - Richard Feynman