|
Grex > Consumer > #82: Vision choices - Trifocal vs progressive lenses. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
mcpoz
|
|
Vision choices - Trifocal vs progressive lenses.
| 
May 13 01:31 UTC 1997 |
I have recently changed from trifocal lenses to "progressive" lenses and am
very pleased with the results. I never thought of posting a question and
asking all of you for your experience in this area, but I would never go back
to trifocals. The progressive do not have any demarcation. The only drawback
is that you have to turn your head pretty much in the direction of what you
are looking at to get the benefit of closer vision areas. At first it seemed
to be an inconvenience, but within a week or so, it seemed completely natural.
Anyone else have a preference in this area?
|
| 9 responses total. |
e4808mc
|
|
response 1 of 9:
|
May 13 21:08 UTC 1997 |
slight digression, but I switched from far-vision contact lenses, plus reading
glasses, to one far-vision lens in my left eye and a close up lens in my
(dominant) right eye. Although I was sure I'd be back within the week to
exchange them, I've actually been *very* pleased with this solution. Does
anyone know how this would compare to progressive lenses.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 2 of 9:
|
May 14 01:43 UTC 1997 |
I have heard of that system and amazingly, people get used to it. I would
think you would lose your binocular vision at distance, and thus your depth
perception. Somehow your brain changes gears and looks through the left for
distance and through the right for near objects. It seems like being one-eyed
for either case.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 9:
|
May 14 05:36 UTC 1997 |
Was that the optometrists..er..doctor's recommendation? I've always been
concerned about any perceived difference in the vision between my eyes,
and try to use them equally in most things (except for the eye with which
I use a loupe).
|
mary
|
|
response 4 of 9:
|
May 14 14:27 UTC 1997 |
I tried progressives once, for about three weeks, and hated them.
They made me nauseous. I use "classic" bifocal lenses at work and
reading glasses as needed at home.
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 9:
|
May 14 16:35 UTC 1997 |
I've had better luck with progressives. My first pair made me
nauseous too for a few days, but I adjusted.
For me, bifocals are a necessity, as I need correction for both
distance and near vision.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 6 of 9:
|
May 14 20:07 UTC 1997 |
The recommendation was from my optomotrist. I've had no problems with depth
perception. There wasn't even an adjustment period. I think it's because you
are still using binocular vision, just that one set of data are
preferrentially processed. When I put my hand over the "wrong" eye there is
no parallax shift, just a slightly clearer image.
|
gracel
|
|
response 7 of 9:
|
May 15 16:03 UTC 1997 |
I remember that for some years my mother had two sets of glasses, because
the standard bifocals were so inconvenient when playing the piano, and I
often helped her find where she had left one set or the other.
As for this generation: I've met more than one person who tried to change
from standard bifocals to the progressive kind, didn't like it, and
changed back. But Dave & I both started with the progressive kind and
had no real problems.
|
srw
|
|
response 8 of 9:
|
May 24 06:09 UTC 1997 |
My wife switched to progressives, and they made *her* nauseous too, for a
while. She got used to them, and uses them for most things, because of the
advantages they offer. For certain activities, though, she prefers to use
monofocals that provide distance-only vision, because the peripheral vision
is so much better. Road-driving is one example of such activity.
|
remmers
|
|
response 9 of 9:
|
May 24 11:58 UTC 1997 |
I need monofocals when I'm looking at something close up that
fills a large part of my field of vision -- e.g. looking at the
computer screen or reading music. I have a pair of reading
glasses just for those two activities.
|