best eyeglass lenses for extreme myopia?

Hi there,

Here's my prescription:

OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172

PD is 63. Also I have quite large eyes, if that makes any difference.

In the past I have tried a variety of lenses:

- Zeiss Lantals (pretty heavy).
- Seiko 1.67 Super SV (probably the best lens I've tried so far).
- Nikon 4 1.67 (too much minification of objects -- everything looks about
30% smaller). Also quite a bit of chromatic abberation.

I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some good
ones? I've heard good things about Optima HyperIndex 1.66. What exactly do
they mean by "back aspheric?" Does this mean the back of the lens is flat?
I'm currently in Nikon 4 lenses which I think are "front aspheric," (the
front of the lens is flat).

thanks so much,

CA

In article <FwX8f.355798$tl2.155454@pd7tw3no>,
"camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Here's my prescription:
>
> OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
> OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172


> I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some good
> ones?

I don't know that much about lenses, despite having worn glasses for 45
years. I tend to think that they are all the same. I do know that
wearing them with a prescription like yours isn't wonderful. I was -12D
at the worst.

It was suggested several times that I try soft contacts. I was adamant
in refusing. My sister got contacts, and it just wasn't something I was
going to deal with.

Later I developed cataract. There were a number of options, but if I
got what I wanted, glasses would cause double vision. I could eliminate
that by wearing a patch over one eye. Neither the double vision nor the
patch sounded like a way to go. It would be a while before surgery was
justified, so the doctor suggested trying contacts in the meantime.
They wouldn't cause double vision.

I tried them and they were so much better than glasses.

They don't work for everybody, and they are a major hassle, first to
learn how to use, and then the maintenance (putting them in, taking them
out and cleaning them). I would highly recommend giving them a try. I
got some glasses as a backup, and the glare and reflections were so
horrible that I only wore them a few times. They were really heavy and
expensive (the high index lenses).

--
Dan Abel
(E-Mail Removed)
Petaluma, California, USA

"Dan Abel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dabel-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <FwX8f.355798$tl2.155454@pd7tw3no>,
> "camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> > Here's my prescription:
> >
> > OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
> > OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172
>
>
> > I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some
good
> > ones?
>
> I don't know that much about lenses, despite having worn glasses for 45
> years. I tend to think that they are all the same. I do know that
> wearing them with a prescription like yours isn't wonderful. I was -12D
> at the worst.
>
> It was suggested several times that I try soft contacts. I was adamant
> in refusing. My sister got contacts, and it just wasn't something I was
> going to deal with.
>
> Later I developed cataract. There were a number of options, but if I
> got what I wanted, glasses would cause double vision. I could eliminate
> that by wearing a patch over one eye. Neither the double vision nor the
> patch sounded like a way to go. It would be a while before surgery was
> justified, so the doctor suggested trying contacts in the meantime.
> They wouldn't cause double vision.
>
> I tried them and they were so much better than glasses.
>
> They don't work for everybody, and they are a major hassle, first to
> learn how to use, and then the maintenance (putting them in, taking them
> out and cleaning them). I would highly recommend giving them a try. I
> got some glasses as a backup, and the glare and reflections were so
> horrible that I only wore them a few times. They were really heavy and
> expensive (the high index lenses).
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Petaluma, California, USA

Yes, contacts certainly are a vast improvement over glasses. I've worn them
for over 20 years, but I can no longer tolerate them due to dry eyes. LASIK
is out for the same reason. My only options are intraocular lenses (I'm not
willing to risk the surgery yet), and glasses. I've had my fair share of
improperly fitted lenses and want to get it done right this time. Hence my
post to this group . . .

Thanks for replying . . .

"camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Dan Abel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:dabel-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <FwX8f.355798$tl2.155454@pd7tw3no>,
>> "camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Here's my prescription:
>> >
>> > OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
>> > OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172
>>
>>
>> > I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some
>good
>> > ones?
>>
>> I don't know that much about lenses, despite having worn glasses for 45
>> years. I tend to think that they are all the same. I do know that
>> wearing them with a prescription like yours isn't wonderful. I was -12D
>> at the worst.
>>
>> It was suggested several times that I try soft contacts. I was adamant
>> in refusing. My sister got contacts, and it just wasn't something I was
>> going to deal with.
>>
>> Later I developed cataract. There were a number of options, but if I
>> got what I wanted, glasses would cause double vision. I could eliminate
>> that by wearing a patch over one eye. Neither the double vision nor the
>> patch sounded like a way to go. It would be a while before surgery was
>> justified, so the doctor suggested trying contacts in the meantime.
>> They wouldn't cause double vision.
>>
>> I tried them and they were so much better than glasses.
>>
>> They don't work for everybody, and they are a major hassle, first to
>> learn how to use, and then the maintenance (putting them in, taking them
>> out and cleaning them). I would highly recommend giving them a try. I
>> got some glasses as a backup, and the glare and reflections were so
>> horrible that I only wore them a few times. They were really heavy and
>> expensive (the high index lenses).
>>
>> --
>> Dan Abel
>> (E-Mail Removed)
>> Petaluma, California, USA
>
>Yes, contacts certainly are a vast improvement over glasses. I've worn them
>for over 20 years, but I can no longer tolerate them due to dry eyes.

Lemme' jump in here: I have severe dry eyes (Schirmer's <5mm at 5
minutes OU; Tear Breakup Times <5s OU) with all four puncta
cauterized, but I wear soft contact lenses. I use (Soothe) drops
regularly throughout the day, avoid all the usual things that bother
us dry eye people, wear Panoptx sunglasses when needed for harsh
environments, and use Genteal gel at night.

Are you in worse shape than me, dry eye wise? If not, perhaps there
are other lenses, or other procedures (punctal plugs/Restasis/??),
that would allow you to continue to wear the contact lenses.

I have to imagine that this would still be your preference, no?

Best of luck. I understand the difficulties you're facing.

>LASIK
>is out for the same reason. My only options are intraocular lenses (I'm not
>willing to risk the surgery yet), and glasses. I've had my fair share of
>improperly fitted lenses and want to get it done right this time. Hence my
>post to this group . . .
>
>Thanks for replying . . .
>

--
Live simply so that others may simply live

"Robert Martellaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:57:25 GMT, "camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
> >Hi there,
> >
> >Here's my prescription:
> >
> >OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
> >OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172
> >
> >PD is 63. Also I have quite large eyes, if that makes any difference.
> >
> >In the past I have tried a variety of lenses:
> >
> >- Zeiss Lantals (pretty heavy).
>
> The 1.9 index of refraction Lantal is the thinnest. 1.74 is the thinnest
> plastic. Both are unavailable in the US due to our FDA's impact resistant
> requirements.

I'm in Canada, so these are available here. Most dispensers have
recommended the Nikon 5 1.74 lenses to me, but I am leery of them for the
reasons I listed below. But if you think they were just improperly fit,
then perhaps I will go with them again. I don't understand why it is so
difficult to get it right . . . Would you happen to know the abbe value of
the nikon 5 lens?

>
> >- Seiko 1.67 Super SV (probably the best lens I've tried so far).
> >- Nikon 4 1.67 (too much minification of objects -- everything looks
about
> >30% smaller). Also quite a bit of chromatic abberation.
> >
>
> The Nikon lens was improperly fit.
>
> >I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some
good
> >ones? I've heard good things about Optima HyperIndex 1.66. What exactly
do
> >they mean by "back aspheric?" Does this mean the back of the lens is
flat?
>
> Not flat, but flatter. Single vision lenses have to be "cast" if back
aspheric
> or atoric. They are not available in your Rx.
>
> >I'm currently in Nikon 4 lenses which I think are "front aspheric," (the
> >front of the lens is flat).
>
> Front aspheric designs have little to offer in your Rx because the "best
form"
> base curve is already nearly plano (like plate glass). Can't get much
flatter
> than that!
>
> One lens that should be on the table is the Hoya 1.7. Best Abbe number
> (measurement of dispersion-higher is better) of all the extra high index
lenses
> at 36.

I will check if the Hoya is available here, although I have never heard it
mentioned, so I have my doubts.

>
> Small changes in lens positioning will make significant changes in visual
> comfort. Find someone who knows how to fit this lens power, then talk lens
> designs.

I will do that, although I find it difficult to find opticians experienced
with fitting high myopes. It is especially disheartening when you hand them
your prescription and they say, "Wow!" Sigh . . .

>
> >thanks so much,
> >
> >CA
>
> Your welcome.
>
>
> Robert Martellaro
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Optician/Owner
> Roberts Optical
> (E-Mail Removed)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a
very narrow field."
> - Niels Bohr

thanks again,

CA

"Neil Brooks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dan Abel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:dabel-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> In article <FwX8f.355798$tl2.155454@pd7tw3no>,
> >> "camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Here's my prescription:
> >> >
> >> > OD: Sphere: -12.00 Cyl: -0.75 Axis: 066
> >> > OS: Sphere: -12.50 Cyl: -1.00 Axis: 172
> >>
> >>
> >> > I just need single vision lenses. Perhaps someone could suggest some
> >good
> >> > ones?
> >>
> >> I don't know that much about lenses, despite having worn glasses for 45
> >> years. I tend to think that they are all the same. I do know that
> >> wearing them with a prescription like yours isn't wonderful. I
was -12D
> >> at the worst.
> >>
> >> It was suggested several times that I try soft contacts. I was adamant
> >> in refusing. My sister got contacts, and it just wasn't something I
was
> >> going to deal with.
> >>
> >> Later I developed cataract. There were a number of options, but if I
> >> got what I wanted, glasses would cause double vision. I could
eliminate
> >> that by wearing a patch over one eye. Neither the double vision nor
the
> >> patch sounded like a way to go. It would be a while before surgery was
> >> justified, so the doctor suggested trying contacts in the meantime.
> >> They wouldn't cause double vision.
> >>
> >> I tried them and they were so much better than glasses.
> >>
> >> They don't work for everybody, and they are a major hassle, first to
> >> learn how to use, and then the maintenance (putting them in, taking
them
> >> out and cleaning them). I would highly recommend giving them a try. I
> >> got some glasses as a backup, and the glare and reflections were so
> >> horrible that I only wore them a few times. They were really heavy and
> >> expensive (the high index lenses).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Abel
> >> (E-Mail Removed)
> >> Petaluma, California, USA
> >
> >Yes, contacts certainly are a vast improvement over glasses. I've worn
them
> >for over 20 years, but I can no longer tolerate them due to dry eyes.
>
> Lemme' jump in here: I have severe dry eyes (Schirmer's <5mm at 5
> minutes OU; Tear Breakup Times <5s OU) with all four puncta
> cauterized, but I wear soft contact lenses. I use (Soothe) drops
> regularly throughout the day, avoid all the usual things that bother
> us dry eye people, wear Panoptx sunglasses when needed for harsh
> environments, and use Genteal gel at night.
>
> Are you in worse shape than me, dry eye wise? If not, perhaps there
> are other lenses, or other procedures (punctal plugs/Restasis/??),
> that would allow you to continue to wear the contact lenses.
>
> I have to imagine that this would still be your preference, no?
>
> Best of luck. I understand the difficulties you're facing.
>

Well, I think I've got you beat :-) My Schirmer's is <1mm at 5 minutes,
although I couldn't tell you what my Tear Breakup Time is. I have had one
(lower) puncta plugged, to see if it made a difference; it didn't. I
suppose I could look into getting upper and lower puncta plugged or
cauterized, though . . .

I occasionally wear my contacts (Proclear Biocompatables, is there something
better?) and marvel at the crystal clear vision, with none of the distortion
that comes with glasses (also I look a helluva lot better) :-) But then the
cloudiness and irritation set in, and back to the coke-bottles I go.
Although I shouldn't complain TOO much, what with high-index lenses\\ and
small frame-sizes, I can get a fairly acceptible pair of glasses.

thanks,

CA

> >LASIK
> >is out for the same reason. My only options are intraocular lenses (I'm
not
> >willing to risk the surgery yet), and glasses. I've had my fair share of
> >improperly fitted lenses and want to get it done right this time. Hence
my
> >post to this group . . .
> >
> >Thanks for replying . . .
> >
>
> --
> Live simply so that others may simply live

"Robert Martellaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:05:35 GMT, "camelid" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>
>
> >I'm in Canada, so these are available here. Most dispensers have
> >recommended the Nikon 5 1.74 lenses to me, but I am leery of them for the
> >reasons I listed below. But if you think they were just improperly fit,
> >then perhaps I will go with them again. I don't understand why it is so
> >difficult to get it right . . . Would you happen to know the abbe value
of
> >the nikon 5 lens?
>
> 1.74 is 33, 1.67 is 32, and 1.9 is 30. If the lenses are positioned
properly
> dispersion shouldn't be an issue with single vision lenses.
>
> >I will check if the Hoya is available here, although I have never heard
it
> >mentioned, so I have my doubts.
>
> They make a 1.74 also. Decrease in edge thickness over 1.7 is about 5%.
1.7 is
> less expensive. 1.70 is available world wide.
>
> >I will do that, although I find it difficult to find opticians
experienced
> >with fitting high myopes. It is especially disheartening when you hand
them
> >your prescription and they say, "Wow!" Sigh . . .
>
> They should be saying "you've come to the right place, I have a lot of
> experience filling this type of Rx." The only person saying "wow" should
be the
> client when they see how good the glasses look.
>
> Here's how to minimize the lens thickness. With a PD of 63 (make sure to
get a
> monocular PD measurement-each eye separately) pick a lightweight full
metal
> frame with a dark color and a 42 or 43mm eye size and a 21 to 22mm DBL
(distance
> between lenses). A rounder frame will increase the vertical field of
vision. Use
> the highest index that satisfies your pocketbook and the desired weight of
the
> glasses. Don't polish or roll the edges but consider a light tint on the
edge.
> Use an anti-reflection coating. 1.67 index will be about 5.5mm thick at
the
> temporal edge, 1.74 about 5mm thick and 1.9 about 4mm. Ask for the
thinnest
> center thickness possible (about .8 to 1.2mm).
>
> Hope this helps

Yes, that helps a lot. I will print this off and take it with me when I
shop for new glasses. Thanks!

>
>
>
>
> Robert Martellaro
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Optician/Owner
> Roberts Optical
> (E-Mail Removed)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a
very narrow field."
> - Niels Bohr