Ciba Focus Progressives vs B & L Purevision multifocals

I have been wearing Focus Progressives for about 5 years. I wore no
prescription glasses before that but used reading glasses as necessary. I
opted for contacts when the presbyopia was forcing me to have constant
correction at about 59 years of age.

I think it took me longer than average for my brain to sort out the clearest
image from the simultaneous choices given it. In about two weeks I could
read everything close and far. I have a +1.75 left and +1.5 right
correction, btw. I noticed everything was improving and at about six weeks
I was totally satisfied.

I wanted to try Purevision and my eye doctor got me a pair of trial lenses.
I had two immediate "wows" - one good and on bad.

First, the near vision was even better than the Ciba Focus Progressives,
but, secondly, distant was so bad, I could not read road signs over about
50' away. After a follow up exam, he lowered each by one notch. +1.5 and
+1.25. This helped some, but the distant vision is still too blurry.

So, my question is: do they use such different methods of correction that
my brain is having a difficult time adjusting or re-adjusting? Like
center-near on one and not the other, or aspheric design on one and
concentric ring on the other?

I guess I should wear them for a couple of weeks before I give up. Right
now, I only tried them one day, and went back to my Ciba lenses.

TIA for any advice.

marc

"mvstx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:LNj%k.10963$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have been wearing Focus Progressives for about 5 years. I wore no
>prescription glasses before that but used reading glasses as necessary. I
>opted for contacts when the presbyopia was forcing me to have constant
>correction at about 59 years of age.
>
> I think it took me longer than average for my brain to sort out the
> clearest image from the simultaneous choices given it. In about two weeks
> I could read everything close and far. I have a +1.75 left and +1.5 right
> correction, btw. I noticed everything was improving and at about six
> weeks I was totally satisfied.
>
> I wanted to try Purevision and my eye doctor got me a pair of trial
> lenses. I had two immediate "wows" - one good and on bad.
>
> First, the near vision was even better than the Ciba Focus Progressives,
> but, secondly, distant was so bad, I could not read road signs over about
> 50' away. After a follow up exam, he lowered each by one notch. +1.5 and
> +1.25. This helped some, but the distant vision is still too blurry.
>
> So, my question is: do they use such different methods of correction that
> my brain is having a difficult time adjusting or re-adjusting? Like
> center-near on one and not the other, or aspheric design on one and
> concentric ring on the other?
>
> I guess I should wear them for a couple of weeks before I give up. Right
> now, I only tried them one day, and went back to my Ciba lenses.
>
> TIA for any advice.
>
If I had problems like that I would go for glasses!

Thanks for the input, but I don't want glasses. I get almost as good as
vision as with glasses with the CIBA's without scratched lenses, dirty
lenses, misplaced glasses, sat on frames, etc. I don't think I ever want
the 'advantage' of glasses.

I will stay with Focus Progressives and occasionally try other similar
products to see how they work for me. B&L didn't pass the test.

"jack" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ghume2$5qn$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "mvstx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:LNj%k.10963$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I have been wearing Focus Progressives for about 5 years. I wore no
>>prescription glasses before that but used reading glasses as necessary. I
>>opted for contacts when the presbyopia was forcing me to have constant
>>correction at about 59 years of age.
>>
>> I think it took me longer than average for my brain to sort out the
>> clearest image from the simultaneous choices given it. In about two
>> weeks I could read everything close and far. I have a +1.75 left and +1.5
>> right correction, btw. I noticed everything was improving and at about
>> six weeks I was totally satisfied.
>>
>> I wanted to try Purevision and my eye doctor got me a pair of trial
>> lenses. I had two immediate "wows" - one good and on bad.
>>
>> First, the near vision was even better than the Ciba Focus Progressives,
>> but, secondly, distant was so bad, I could not read road signs over about
>> 50' away. After a follow up exam, he lowered each by one notch. +1.5 and
>> +1.25. This helped some, but the distant vision is still too blurry.
>>
>> So, my question is: do they use such different methods of correction
>> that my brain is having a difficult time adjusting or re-adjusting? Like
>> center-near on one and not the other, or aspheric design on one and
>> concentric ring on the other?
>>
>> I guess I should wear them for a couple of weeks before I give up. Right
>> now, I only tried them one day, and went back to my Ciba lenses.
>>
>> TIA for any advice.
>>
> If I had problems like that I would go for glasses!
>

The Purevision lenses would probably be better for your eyes--as being
silicon hydrogel, let more oxygen in.

I'm surprised that Purevision is still the only si-hy multifocal available.
With an increasing number of si-hy regular lenses available, even a few now
in toric versions, why still only one multifocal version? For instance--Ciba
has two silicon hydrogel lenses out--Focus Night and Day (I believe still
the highest oxygen transmissibility (dk/t) available),and AirOptix. (Also
now, Airoptix Aqua, so perhaps three.) Airoptix now available in toric as
well. Why not multifocal?

One would think that with the phenomenon of the aging baby-boomers, there
would be an increase in multifocal models available, new multifocal
technologies, etc. but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case, at
least as of now.

On Dec 13 2008, 7:53*am, "mvstx" <nos...@4me.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the input, but I don't want glasses. *I get almost as good as
> vision as with glasses with the CIBA's without scratched lenses, dirty
> lenses, misplaced glasses, sat on frames, etc. *I don't think I ever want
> the 'advantage' of glasses.
>
> I will stay with Focus Progressives and occasionally try other similar
> products to see how they work for me. *B&L didn't pass the test.
>
> "jack" <j...@yahoo.org> wrote in message
>
> news:ghume2$5qn$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "mvstx" <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
> >news:LNj%k.10963$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> >>I have been wearing Focus Progressives for about 5 years. *I wore no
> >>prescription glasses before that but used reading glasses as necessary.*I
> >>opted for contacts when the presbyopia was forcing me to have constant
> >>correction at about 59 years of age.
>
> >> I think it took me longer than average for my brain to sort out the
> >> clearest image from the simultaneous choices given it. *In about two
> >> weeks I could read everything close and far. I have a +1.75 left and +1.5
> >> right correction, btw. *I noticed everything was improving and at about
> >> six weeks I was totally satisfied.
>
> >> I wanted to try Purevision and my eye doctor got me a pair of trial
> >> lenses. I had two immediate "wows" - one good and on bad.
>
> >> First, the near vision was even better than the Ciba Focus Progressives,
> >> but, secondly, distant was so bad, I could not read road signs over about
> >> 50' away. *After a follow up exam, he lowered each by one notch. +1.5 and
> >> +1.25. *This helped some, but the distant vision is still too blurry..
>
> >> So, my question is: *do they use such different methods of correction
> >> that my brain is having a difficult time adjusting or re-adjusting? *Like
> >> center-near on one and not the other, or aspheric design on one and
> >> concentric ring on the other?
>
> >> I guess I should wear them for a couple of weeks before I give up. *Right
> >> now, I only tried them one day, and went back to my Ciba lenses.
>
> >> TIA for any advice.
>
> > If I had problems like that I would go for glasses!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Getting good distance and good near with a MF contact lens requires a
little compromise. Did your doctor try modified mono vision, using
the multifocal in both eyes but optimizing one for distance and one
for near? I find good success with the B&Lwhen fitting older
presbyopes by using a low add in the dominant eye and a high add in
the near eye. Worth a try.

Dr Judy