It isn't the indexing that provides the quality, it is that in most cases you can get better lenses by paying more combined with the fact the the "low end" noninedexed glasses have measurable defects--I have measured them myself with the curvature gizmo. Also, lexan lenses have a higher degree of distortion away from the centers, at least in the samples I have seen. Just like with camera lenses, you can get get better quality--not a big difference, but a difference. I never get the cheap plastic lenses anymore. I used to buy glass, but there isn't much of a market for them, and the high end ones are good. Glass is heavy, but you won't see a plastic lens on an SLR. However, since you work in a lab I defer to your judgment--I am just a picky consumer. dt
At 01:41 PM 11/30/2009, you wrote: > I use single vision intermediate Rx specs for reading music, but I >need to experiment with a bifocal on the intermediate so I can see close up >while tuning, setting frets, etc. (This would be like wearing trifocals >without the distance portion of the lenses, just intermediate and near.) In >lens power terms, I wear a +2.00 diopter addition for near; so my >intermediate lenses are +1.00 D different than my distance specs. I work in >an ophthalmic optical lab, but it's the old story of the cobbler going >bare-foot--never get around to my own glasses! > Unless you have a very high Rx, I wouldn't worry about high index >materials: They don't provide clarity, just the cosmetics of a thinner >lens. > >Regards, >Leonard Williams > >On 11/21/09 5:08 PM, "Anthony Hind" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Lutenists > > I was having problems sending messages from my usual mail, so I > > am trying out my Yahoo Mail. > > Rather than just making a test, I wonder whether any of you can help me > > relating to suitable glasses for reading music. > > I understand that the usual progressive glasses are almost useless, > > because of their narrow field of view, and it has been suggested that I > > try degressive lenses (close to middle distance). > > Have any of you tried these? I was told that they maintain an excellent > > field of view, and could be as good, or better than single purpose > > (music reading or computer) lenses. > > This obviously means, I will also need either long view glasses or > > progressive lenses for normal outdoor use. > > Any experience with these degressive lenses would be of interest to me. > > Regards > > Anthony > > > > -- > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
