Comments on: A focal point on glasses.

Question: A focal point on glasses.

Gordion Knott — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:46:04 -0800

Glasses-and-contacts wearers: I've just been outfitted with my first pair of distance-vision specs, and the world is crystal clear again. The problem is, everything in a 1 meter radius is a blur. What to do?

I've worn reading glasses for years, but this is my first experience with distance lenses. The blurriness makes it necessary to remove the distance glasses when I'm in a restaurant or at a meeting with people sitting close.

Of course, I could upgrade to bifocals or progressive lenses. But (as far as I know) these would only give me a small area of near-distance correction at the bottom of the lens, and fail to solve the problem of blurriness when interacting with people at face-level.

I'm a total spectacles newbie, as you can see from my nomenclature-impaired description here. Basically, my vision sucks. I need reading correction for books and the 'net, distance correction for driving and DVDs, and something in between to handle the one-meter radius around me.

I'd like an all-around, single pair solution, of course, but I don't know what to buy.

Oh, and (I don't know if this is even possible for my case) I'd like to try contacts, too. Eventually. . .

What kinds of prescription lenses--and contacts--should I investigate, given these issues?

By: amro

amro — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:57:45 -0800

Sounds like a job for trifocals.

By: sararah

sararah — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:13:44 -0800

There are bifocal contacts although I cannot vouch for how well they work (I only wear single vision glasses/contacts). The other option is contacts + readers.

Seems odd the eye doctor would not have identified your mid-range vision difficulties during your office visit. You'll probably need another eye exam to determine the power at that range...maybe a different doc?

By: katrielalex

katrielalex — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:20:47 -0800

I think the idea of progressive lenses, or varifocals as I know them, is that you don't have to worry about the separate regions of the lens -- you naturally use the right sections once you've adapted to them. So if I understand correctly, the mid-distance (say 1m or so) will be right in the middle of the lens, which is what you'd expect.

Ask your optician?

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:05:04 -0800

Sounds like presbyoptia. Very common, usually after your distance vision has declined for a while.

You have several choices. 1) two pairs of glasses, one for reading, one for distance; 2) progressive or bifocal lenses; 3) combining glasses and contacts; or 4) there are new contact lenses that incorporate two prescriptions, and once you get used to them they are better than bifocals or progressive lense glasses, in my opinion.

And yes, you need to go back to the opthamologist/optometrist and get re-tested with this specific issue on the table.

By: Class Goat

Class Goat — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:05:07 -0800

I carry two pairs of glasses, one for distance and one for reading.

By: that girl

that girl — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:41:19 -0800

I wear glasses for distance but not for anything close (computer-y, reading, within that meter radius).

I mostly just wear the distance glasses when I need them for distance, just like you would wear the reading glasses only for reading-like-activities. Wear them for driving, or for watching a show, but just don't the rest of the time?

By: JimN2TAW

JimN2TAW — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:12:12 -0800

Your vision/glasses experience is completely normal.

I have a pair of distance glasses for distance only, for example for long-distance driving or viewing the IMAX.

I also have a pair of progressive glasses. You're mistaken about them. The standard ones have several different focal regions, distance at the top, a small reading area at the bottom (the larger the lens overall, the larger it will be), and intermediate region(s) for looking at people across the table, which I believe is the problem we're addressing.

Finally, I have 2 pairs of "work" glasses, one at home and one I carry with me. They go by the tradename ACCESS. They have a large bottom half that's good for a couple of feet (for computer and papers on my desk) and a top half that's good for up to about 10 feet out. (In other words, the work glasses are not good for distance).

Sounds like you will be fine with a pair of progressive glasses. And I'd recommend getting largish lenses so that your reading area won't be too tiny.

By: tommasz

tommasz — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:18:26 -0800

I have soft contacts, one is a distance lens, one is a close-up lens. I've heard it called "monovision", but not everyone uses that name. I tried bifocal hard contacts for a while, and although they worked very well, I always knew I was wearing them. I also have astigmatism, and these soft lenses handle that fairly well, too.

It takes getting used to and you may not, ever. But for me it solved the problem of wearing contacts and having to use reading glasses at the same time.

By: Susurration

Susurration — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:12:08 -0800

Just try slipping them down your nose a little and reading/focusing without them for short-distances. That is what I am doing while typing this suggestion ...:-)

By: Araucaria

Araucaria — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:31:52 -0800

Hitting your 40s? Welcome to the club.

I second JimN2TAW on progressive lenses. My first time around, I got excessively fashionable skinny glasses (too short from top to bottom). Until recently, the cheaper progressives had a T shaped region of good adjustment. The top bar of the T is for distance vision, and the vertical trunk of the T grades down for near vision. But the extra area to the sides of the trunk was no man's land, and with those short glasses, walking down stairs would be like entering Alice in Wonderland.

This spring, I sprang for fashionable black horn-rim style specs, but the main advantage was (1) they're taller, so the progression from top to bottom isn't as jarring, and (2) the merge areas on the sides of the T are handled much better now than just a couple of years ago.