or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Digital Progressive Lenses. Is there a difference
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Digital Progressive Lenses. Is there a difference

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 

Well it is ski gear related; I may wear these glasses while skiing.

 

I've finally decided that I no longer want to take off my glasses to read, perhaps a little late, but I'm stubborn.

 

So, I went out and got a prescription.  I'm looking for thin lenses, progressive (no-line bifocals) lenses with anti-reflective coating.  You might think that would be enough, but you would be wrong.

 

2nd stop was Cosco.  They informed me that even with those limiting parameters, they still had three lenses to choose from: basic, standard and digital.  They even had a chart to show how aberrations distortions affected less of the lens as the price went up.  Trouble is the chart also showed higher level lenses that Cosco did not carry.

 

Phoned back the first stop.  They could sell me a better lense (at a higher price), they have "a Hoya Free form Protegity"...

 

Hakim has a better lens too; they have something called Optixx Premium digital free form. (but I managed to get a quote for the 1.6 index, not the 1.67, but I can live with a 0.07/167 difference in refractive index)

 

 

Lens crafter's has a "1.67 high index digital progressive."

 

Wallmart has many levels of something something called Accolade (I think).

 

Of course no one has any comparative info on any of the various lenses (I suspect they are all slightly different)

 

So how am I to tell which one is better and which one is a rip off?  Is the Cosco digital the same as wallmart's best?

 

Is the Optixx the same as the Hoya free form?

 

The frames are in the store and I can see them; the lenses must be ordered.

 

It's easier to buy skis.hopmad.gif (and these are going to end up costing more than any pair of skis I've ever bought).

 

Anybody got any insight?

 

 

 

 

post #2 of 38

My only insight is I recently got some of the digital progressive lenses and immediately noticed upon putting them on that they had 0 getting use to period like my old pair of progressives.  I hadn't worn glasses in over a month as I had lost my old pair, so it wasn't like my eyes were use to glasses.  The vision with them is very good. Mine are for reading and maybe driving at night.

post #3 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post

My only insight is I recently got some of the digital progressive lenses and immediately noticed upon putting them on that they had 0 getting use to period like my old pair of progressives.  I hadn't worn glasses in over a month as I had lost my old pair, so it wasn't like my eyes were use to glasses.  The vision with them is very good. Mine are for reading and maybe driving at night.


Thanks liv2 ski,

Do you remember where you got them and what they were called, besides "digital"?

 

post #4 of 38

Can't really comment on or compare the options. I just got new glasses with varifocal lenses. I got regular glasses through the office of my eye doctor. I also want sunglasses and went to Lens Crafters. Ordered some Ray Bans with "digital" lenses. I have now idea what digital means with respect to lenses but the I really like the sunglasses. Not cheap but I feel like they are better than the varifocals I purchased through the eye doctor.

post #5 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post


It's easier to buy skis.hopmad.gif (and these are going to end up costing more than any pair of skis I've ever bought).

 

Anybody got any insight?

 

 

Love the pun.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post

My only insight is I recently got some of the digital progressive lenses and immediately noticed upon putting them on that they had 0 getting use to period like my old pair of progressives.  I hadn't worn glasses in over a month as I had lost my old pair, so it wasn't like my eyes were use to glasses.  The vision with them is very good. Mine are for reading and maybe driving at night.

 

I've tried progressives a total of three times.  I can't stand them.  After this last pair I went to way cheaper bifocals.  I need them mostly for reading but have noticed that at a distance I'm relying on the shape of words to figure it out more than reading.  Things are starting to get blurry.

 

If you haven't used progressives before, I strongly recommend you find a way to try them.  You end up with sort of a cat eye vision window.  Forget moving your eyes to see something.  You have to keep your view out the front of the lens because that is the only place the prescription is.  Way more peripheral vision with bifocals.  If your planning on skiing with them, I would expect that everything will be blurry except what is right in front of you.  Remember, you have to turn your head to see it.

 

I'm also back to keeping several pairs of glasses all over the place.  One pair for up close and one for computer reading.  I carry the bifocals just in case I'm somewhere I don't have my walmart cheaters.

 

So everyone is different and appreciates progressive lenses differently.  I have them so much that I would rather constantly switch glasses (which annoys the crap out of me) than wear progressives.  I even was getting warranty work on my frames and the girl at the doctors office made a mistake and sent the lenses with the frames back to the manufacturer.  No problem.  The doctor's office will replace them free of charge.  These were progressive with transition lenses and every type of coating you can think of.  I told them I would rather have a pair of bifocals (didn't like the transitions either).

 

I also have a phobia about things in my eyes.  I'm even considering contact lenses for a year to see if I would be able to handle Lasik surgery and having one eye for reading and the other for distance.  I would rather face my phobia than use progressives.  They've been thrown across the room more times than my "work" black berry.

 

Hopefully, you'll have better luck than I did.

 

Ken
 

 

 

post #6 of 38

I have had two kinds of progressive bifocals - expensive ones from lenscrafters and cheap ones from 39dollarglasses.com.  I like the cheap ones better (they are $79 - only basic single-vision glasses are $39).

 

The ordering process tells you implicitly what the key parameters to proper operation are.  

 

All glasses need the lateral separation between your pupils, which oddly is NOT part of your prescription.  Usually the fashion consultant in the front room does it after the doctor is done.  I found it pretty easy to measure with a ruler and  a wall-mounted mirror.

 

The other question is whether you wear your glasses low, average or high on your face.  It is critical to put the bifocal transition in the right place.  

 

The glasses style matters too.  The ones I don't like are a sunglasses, with a partial wrap-around look.  That may be why they don't work that well.  One big annoyance is that I find it difficult to look over my shoulder before changing lanes when driving with  them.  I don't notice that with my cheap glasses, which are a normal moderate sized flat lens.

 

If you have a strong prescription, expensive lenses made from high-index material is worth it (allowing thinner and lighter).  But you don't.

post #7 of 38
Thread Starter 

Update:

 

I got tired of shopping and ordered some "Premium Endura ARC (hard Coat +AR + Hydrophobic), Premium Freeform 1.67 " lenses from Hakim Optical. 

 

I'll let you know how I like them.

 

The Optician measured my pupil position.  I'm not sure if these are the "best" lenses; another shop had some that were the latest generation, just came out 8 months ago..yada, yada, yada, but as you say, MDF, my prescription isn't that strong and I liked these frames better (plus the there were some pricing games going on at the other place that I wasn't winning).

post #8 of 38

Sorry Ghost,  I just came back to this thread and saw your question.  I didn't keep the receipt, but I can tell you they were not cheap.  Really a nice improvement over my old progessives for eye comfort and ease of use going from reading to distance.  Sounds like you paid some bucks too, so I hope you like them.

post #9 of 38

FWIW, I bought my first progressive lenses from Lenscrafters about 6-8 months ago.  It isn't much of a progressive lens (1.0), the weakest they make.  If you buy Ray Ban frames, then LensCrafters will send your order out to Ray Ban for an additional charge and have them make the lens as well.  The folks at LensCrafters told me that RayBan makes a better digital, progressive lens than anything LensCrafters has available.  I've been quite happy with mine, including my peripheral vision.  It took me about a week to get used to them.  They actually have 3 different focus points, long/driving distance, computer screen distance (3 feet or so) and reading distance.  I don't notice it at all anymore.  Very happy with them, no issues or concerns, and the frames are sturdy.  Price was a bit over $500, but my vision insurance paid about half of it.

 

I used to ski in glasses, now I ski in contacts (just started last season).  Using contacts avoids fogging issues and the new "moist" and "breathable" contact lenses don't dry out when I'm skiing like the earlier models did.

 

STE

post #10 of 38
Thread Starter 

Thanks.  I ended up with "free - form" digital lenses; hopefully the extra expense will be worth it.

 

The guy at Wallmart mentioned the contact lenses when I noticed the prescription diving masks (more like goggles in size, but including the nose for pressure equalization) and asked if they had prescription goggles. 

 

For the money, disposable contacts under goggles sounds like the way to go. 

 

With glasses under goggles, I have a problem with fogging.  Glasses alone, even the large aviator style, don't really provide enough wind relief for me at speed (in the old days, when I used to ski a lot faster, goggles, on occasion, needed the vent holes taped up to stop my eyes from tearing up.  Fogging has always been a problem for me).

post #11 of 38

There are prescription goggles.  The cheaper ones have a spring-clip insert inside, the more expensive ones actually have power in the goggle surface.  My son used them for a few years before he got contacts, and they worked pretty well. I can prolly find the URL if you are interested.  But contacts are definitely better.  I've been using them for years and they are well worth it, in spite of dryness issues I have had (I'm thinking of investigating newer types at my next eye doctor appt.)

 

One annoyance is I need reading glasses over my contacts, so I have to either dig them out or trust the cashier when I buy something with a credit card.  And I can't read a paper trail map very well.  One thing I've heard of is small stick-on plastic reading glass lenses, which I have seen advertised in a snorkelling/scuba context.  I'd like to try putting them off to the side of my ski goggles -- I don't need them often, so it is OK if they are uncomfortable to use.

post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Thanks.  I ended up with "free - form" digital lenses; hopefully the extra expense will be worth it.

 

The guy at Wallmart mentioned the contact lenses when I noticed the prescription diving masks (more like goggles in size, but including the nose for pressure equalization) and asked if they had prescription goggles. 

 

For the money, disposable contacts under goggles sounds like the way to go. 

 

With glasses under goggles, I have a problem with fogging.  Glasses alone, even the large aviator style, don't really provide enough wind relief for me at speed (in the old days, when I used to ski a lot faster, goggles, on occasion, needed the vent holes taped up to stop my eyes from tearing up.  Fogging has always been a problem for me).

Ghost, glasses under anything is the suck.  If you can deal with them wear contact lenses or just get lasik as I did about 10 years ago and just use glasses for reading,

post #13 of 38

Ghost,

 

I always had problems with fogging when I wore glasses under goggles.  Like you, I can't just wear prescription sunglasses to ski because my eyes get dried out/tear up. 

 

I am now using two different models of disposable contacts, one cheaper and available in a bigger size that the Dr. thought would fit me better, the other a bit more expensive and more breathable but only available in one size.  Both varieties work much better for me (in terms of dry-eye) than older model disposable contacts did.  Acuvue Moist is the cheaper of the two contact lenses.  It is available in 2-3 different sizes to fit different eyes.  The newer one is Acuvue TrueEye, which is more breathable and seems to work a bit better for me.  However, the TrueEyes are only available in one size (or were when I bought them 9 mos ago).  I find that I can ski in either of these lenses under my standard ski goggles (Smith Knowledge).  Once or twice a day I have to use rewetting drops.  I have also skied in Panoptyx/7Eye Sunglasses with my new disposable contacts on in the spring.

 

Good luck finding something that works for you.

 

STE

post #14 of 38
Thread Starter 

Ok, so I got what Hakim Optical told me was "Optix digital freeform" progressive lens, supposedly their best available.  Here's the review.

 

As near as I can figure it, it seems to me like they have a pretty good scam going.  They sell you a lens that they no doubt make a good 400% profit on for hundreds of dollars.  The lens they give you has all the faults their advertising points out that "regular" progressive lenses are supposed to have.  You try it for a couple of weeks and decide that you don't want to live with the narrow corridor of clear focused vision with everything else very blurry.  You find it's easier to read over the glasses than tipping your head at just the right angle to get the page in focus for reading.  Your normal vision would have to be the same as Ray Charles's to consider the view through these glasses an improvement.  Not to worry though, they have an exchange policy.  Guess what? The exchannge does not include any price adjustment.  I just payed an extra couple of hundred dollars for a single vision lens.  Oh well, at least I got a good deal on the titanium frames.

 

I can't speak to other supposedly high end digital progressive lenses, but Sir Hakim's didn't work for me.  My experience is pretty much the same as L&AirC's.  Luckily I have a five year old pair of glasses to wear at work that I can see fine with up to about 20 feet and that don't interfere with reading. 

post #15 of 38

Ghost,

 

How strong is the "progressive" part of your progressive lenses?  Mine might not bother me b/c they're not all that "progressive" (meaning that the up-close reading lens isn't that much stronger than the distance lens).  That might be the difference in our experiences.  Or, the Ray Ban digital progressive lenses might really be superior.

 

The peripheral vision on my Ray Ban digital progressives is very good.  After a week or two of getting used to it, I'm quite happy with the peripheral vision quality (which can be a problem with progressive lenses).

 

STE

post #16 of 38

hi  Ghost

 

I am the an Optician, I working in the optical business for 20 years, I see all the difference change in progressive, all the sale representative told there lens is best,

but I only trust the  brand name product that I sell to my customer, for example, Essilor or Nikon, both have very good digital progressive design.

 

yes, they are expensive, but they work good

post #17 of 38

Ghost,

 

My youngest sister is an optometrist and I've worn glasses for 35 years.

 

Nikon over Essilor....better hard coat (lasts longer, doesn't wear at edges and start to peel about 1-1/2years).  Progressives can take a while to get used to (took me 6 months).  Digital progressive have a wide and better field of view. Instead of a grind to get the progressive portion the lens is stippled to achieve the optical results, good system. 

 

Ultimately depends on personal preference as to which progressive works best for you (currently mine are non digital, my wife's are...I can see the difference and I'm not sure its for me, but then again it might just require 6 months to adjust again).

 

For skiing I wear contacts.  Less limiting on the goggles.

post #18 of 38

Hey there Ghost,

 

I haven't been lurking around much on the boards here as we had a rather sucktastic season, and it ended far too early...but I'd like to offer any and all advice I can.  As a certified optician myself (I look to be the second one in this thread - *waving*) I can tell you I've dispensed and/or personally used a myriad of products over the years, and they are not all created equally.  New products come out all the time as well.  Fogging with an Rx insert in a goggle has all but been eliminated (with the right product used).  So has the "swim" effect that has been so prevalent in progressive lens design for the past century or so.  There most certainly IS a difference in digitally designed and created lenses...but whether or not a particular individual will notice that difference depends greatly on their Rx, frame (or goggle) choice, quality of fit and measurements, intended uses, and perhaps most importantly of all - patient expectations.

 

I'd be most happy to give a call and do my best to answer any questions I'm able.  Feel free to pm me with a number and time if you'd like.  One other thing to bear in mind is that product selection can vary quite a bit from one country to another, ie: what you find in Canada will vary from what is offered and available in the USA, Europe, Australia etc...  So what works for one individual in a given location and activity may not be available where you're located - even moreso with the chains, big box retailers and the like.  With that said, there are usually some comparable features and product lines from most of the better lens manufacturers.

 

Again, if I can help out in any way, please let me know.

 

All the best!

 

Brian~ (Uilleann)

post #19 of 38
Thread Starter 

Thanks for replies.  I'm not spending another red cent on glasses unless these ones break.

 

Just for the curious, Here's my prescription:

R-EYE: - 3.75-0.25X045                 ADD: +2.50 Add2: +

L-EYE: - 3.75-0.75X152                  ADD: +2.50          +

 

Not exactly sure what all the numbers mean. 

 

BTW, new glasses are a lot smaller than my old "Aviator" style glasses and don't fog up as much under goggles.

post #20 of 38

In short, the numbers you show tell me that your optician had better bring their A-game to the design, and dispense of your specs in order to give you the best vision.  It's not hard by any means, but can end up being a complete nightmare for you if they're asleep at the wheel.  Do stay in touch and if I can help in any way - even post glasses being made, I'm happy to do so in any way I can.

 

Best!

 

Brian~

post #21 of 38

Brian, you offered to assist another poster in figuring out info on the best progressive lenses.  Would you assist me in this daunting task?  I'm just a typical consumer, not an optical professional.  I've done a lot of research in my quest to buy the best lenses.  If you are available please let me know and I'll post my specific questions.  Thank you, Nancy Perrine

post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Perrine View Post

Brian, you offered to assist another poster in figuring out info on the best progressive lenses.  Would you assist me in this daunting task?  I'm just a typical consumer, not an optical professional.  I've done a lot of research in my quest to buy the best lenses.  If you are available please let me know and I'll post my specific questions.  Thank you, Nancy Perrine


Hi Nancy,

 

Sorry for the late reply!  Summer is keeping me plenty busy with a mile long list of Honey-Do's around the house, and of course the optical dispensary during the week.  I would absolutely be happy to help in any way I can.  Send me a PM here with either/or email/phone and I'll be in touch straight away.  Hope your summer is treating you well. 

 

Cheers

 

Bri~

post #23 of 38

Hello Everyone,

  I am new to this forum, found it interesting and thus; wanted to share my 2 cents with the rest of the group.  Firstly, I always recommend my patients to use Single Vision in their ski goggles or other sports eyewear as well.  Of course even in single vision the question arises; "Will I benefit from a digital lens?"

  A digital lens hold many benefits for the intended patients (those whose Rx will clearly take advantage of the difference in a Properly measured, manufactured, and fit digital lens) but, those benefits will only be experienced at the maximum potential if the fitter understands how to properly measure and compensate an Rx for what is called; "In-situ".  Why is this?

  As a lens's position is changed (where or how) it sits in front the eye, the effective Rx can differ from the prescribed Rx.  For new fitters just reading this consider those patients which the "In-situ" method should be used.  If you learn early on your patients will truly appreciate you for it.  Few Examples:  Certainly any thick lens patients', patients who are either anisometropic or antisometropic, also those patients with large amounts of and/or oblique astigmatic corrections.  Example: Consider a patient who is extremely hyperopic (Hint, you can prove this to yourself by observing through your lensometer a high plus lens  from your trial set).  As an increasing amount of (non-compensated for) pantoscopic tilt, retroscopic tilt, and/or large amounts of face-form are added; induced cylinder and altered spherical power now become part of the effective Rx.

  Moving on from single vision to progressive lens designs and the question as to whether there is a difference between digital and standard progressive lenses; the absolute answer is yes but, again whether or not there is a benefit to the patients comes down to: "It depends".  It depends on: The patient's refractive error, the patient's habitual Rx and lens design, and the experience level of the fitter.  Example: If a patient comes in who has been wearing the Varilux Comfort since its conception; would your first inclination be to fit them in a hard designed digital?  Well, no - of course not because they have spent their prebyopic life in a quality soft designed lens.  So, rather than simply considering which lens name is bigger branded consider the actual design itself of each.  And fitters, don't be afraid to show topographical maps to explain your decision for choosing a particular lens design for your patient.  Most times they will appreciate your giving of a through explanation for your recommendation.

  For those reading this that are not practitioners; I recommend that you take from this that you should feel free to ask your practitioner to explain their reason for recommending a specific design and during the measuring process (if choosing digital) you should expect that practitioner to measure much more than simply the distance between your pupil centers.

  I hope my posting will be helpful for many of you.  I do not know when I will have free time again to check for any responses or questions to my post as; I rarely find free time away from patients or clinic.  They tend to be my first priority.  But, I will try to check back in the future.  I hope everyone is enjoying a wonderful New Year and please be safe:  wear UV protection on your skin and over your eyes, so that we can prolong our meeting due to UV damage (cataracts, pterygium, pinguecula, etc....) if at all possible.

post #24 of 38

MY FIRST PAIR OF PROGRESSIVES WERE VARILUX WHEN I WAS 40 YEARS OLD. AS THE YEARS PROGRESSED I HAVE TRIED ONLINE COMPANIES, (AWFUL) MANY TIMES COSTCO.

I HAVEN'T BEEN HAPPY SINCE MY VARILUX.

 

I AM HAVING AN EYE EXAM IN FEBRUARY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET THE BEST. VARILUX? CRSTAL?

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK I SHOULD ASK FOR?

 

THANK YOU

MARILYN

post #25 of 38

Hi Marilyn,

  Check with the dispensary where you purchased your Varilux lenses at.  Most likely you were fit in a Varilux Comfort which as mentioned earlier is a soft design progressive.  Varilux now offers a digital progressive based off that soft design Comfort lens.  The beauty of its soft design is that it really opens up the intermediate.  The advantage of its digital form over its previous design will be one, its tolerance and two the smoother blended curves creating the progression will open that intermediate and reading even more so than you are already so pleased with.  Make sure that if you chose to go digital; find a dispenser who will take all the proper measurements needed by Varilux to provide you with the best (most accurately) custom designed lens that specific to you and the frame you selected.  I hope this is helpful and that everyone is enjoying the mountains.  Don't forget to protect yourself from UV and when choosing an anti-reflective ask your dispenser for an anti-reflective coating with a great amount of high-energy visible blue absorption (which is also responsible for causing UV damage).  Have an AWESOME week everyone.

post #26 of 38

I highly recommend staying away from Lenscrafters.  I bought new glasses from them last March, progressive tri-focal, coated, photochromic.  I should have walked out when they said they make no special adjustment in the progression if you use a computer a lot, and I do at work.  The middle distance band is VERY narrow and just about drove me nuts trying to find get things in focus sometimes.  I finally got my eyes checked again in December and have a different Rx so I need new glasses.  I did not go back to Lenscraters.  If all you need is single vision, I'm sure they're fine, but not for progressive focus.


Edited by mtcyclist - 1/20/13 at 12:01pm
post #27 of 38

After my first glasses which I am at Lens Crafters, I have learned so much. First the Italian firm Luxottica owns Lens Crafters, Pearl Vision, Ray Ban, and the Eye Med Vision Care. Luxottica makes almost all the frames. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n This is a good 13 minute of your time to watch. There is also different grades of progressive but you pay more for the better grade which gives you more vision field. None of the progressive work well with the computer. I will need a seperate pair of glasses which are more like trifocals having a field for the desk (reading), computer screen and then when I look up. After all of this......I was very happy when I was using $12 reading glasses from Walmart!!! I am very unhappy with the progressive. So, what I will be doing is NOT buying another prescription but get the 2.5 readers (or the strength my doctor recommends) for when I am on the computer. My old ones aren't strong enough.


Edited by Anne TE - 2/19/13 at 11:35pm
post #28 of 38

I have worn glasses for the last 37 years and have been wearing progressives for last 4 years. Part of the problem is proper lense alignment for them to work and you getting used to them.  Some people never do.  It took me about 2 to 3 months to get used to the progressives.  I wear contacts while skiing and them I carry a cheap set of readers so that my arms aren't too short. 

 

Something interesting to know (please forgive me if I use the wrong terminology)  as the index rating goes up (ie thinner lenses) the clarity goes down.  As the lenses get thicker the clarity goes down so it is fine balance between these items.

 

Lenses I prefer the NIKON lenses, which I've worn for the last 8 years.  The are hands down far better than anything I've worn as I change my lense every 2 years and can show you the difference between them and other brands.  The hard coat and anti glare lasts and does not peel or flake.

post #29 of 38

Although this is an older post, I thought I would contribute my opinion as I am an optician.  The short answer is yes, a digital progressive will almost always result in higher patient satisfaction over a conventional design.  Here is why:  conventional progressives are surfaced (ground) using forms that are designed with limited complexity.  Inherent limitations to conventional progressives include peripheral distortion, especially at the near viewing zone.  Digital progressives significantly reduce these peripheral distortions by creating a much more complex lens surface that basically steers more light rays in the right direction.  Digital progressives are also about 6 times higher resolution (I.E. more accurate to your prescription).  With my own patients, I observe a lot of hesitation to spend more to step up to a digital, but those that do are really happy with their decision.  

 

The big box stores like Costco and Walmart will probably try to sell you 20 year old conventional progressive model, like those mentioned by the OP.  They do this because lens companies sell these really cheap to them and they move high volumes of them.  Try to find an independent optical that carries lenses from Shamir, Essilor, or perhaps Hoya or Zeiss.  It is important to note that digitally surfaced lenses are available to both single vision wearers and even lined bifocal/trifocal wearers.  I wear digital single visions and love them.  

 

A few recommendations:

 

As mentioned, you are probably best off wearing a single vision distance correction for skiing- whether glasses under goggles, or lenses mounted in a goggle carrier.

If you want a do it all pair, look hard at the Varilux Definity (Varilux Definity 3 is digital).  This excellent lens has a sliver of distance at the bottom for a clearer view of the ground when glancing down.  The Shamir Golf is an interesting option too.  The Shamir Autograph II and Hoya Lifestyle ID are also amazing lenses, but don't have the groundview feature.

Definitely choose an impact resistant material (polycarbonate or trivex) for skiing.  Trivex is better optically but polycarbonate is thinner.  High index (1.67, 1.70) works well for high corrections, especially very nearsighted people, but are likely not as impact resistant.  

Whatever lens you choose, use a nice anti-reflective treatment like Hoya EX3 or Crizal Avance, because if you are wearing glasses under your goggles, you will have light bouncing around between lens surfaces, and you will catch a lot of glare and reflections without AR.  I hope this helps!

post #30 of 38

Great to see a fellow optician/skier on the boards.  smile.gif

 

While I agree with much of what has been said here already, there is one underlying factor that cannot be understated.

 

Fit.

 

You wouldn't drop upwards of a grand on those new Fisher Vacuum boots without seeking out the proper skill and knowledge to fit them properly and precisely to YOU - and you should never do the same with glasses either.  Unfortunately, when it comes to glasses, there is no national standard of competency, or guarantee of skill level or ability to fit glasses for all opticians nationwide.  We won't even bother talking about the online glasses nightmare of 'DIY' fit your own glasses in the bathroom mirror with a sharpie and your cell phone camera!  eek.gif

 

Regardless of what lenses you decide to use for your downhill adventures, be sure to find a qualified dispenser that knows their stuff.  And will guarantee the product and the fit.  Also wise to ask about back end support, scratch warranties, and of course how they are able to take care of you when/if you have a visual issue.  It's one thing to have a little blur sitting behind a desk and staring at a computer.  It's another entirely at 40-50 mph down a backcountry chute.

 

Cheers!

 

Brian~
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Digital Progressive Lenses. Is there a difference