Color Fringes with new glasses

I am 51. I started wearing +1.25 glasses about 10 years ago, 1.25/1.50
bifocals 5 years ago, and my new glases are 1.75/1.75 with +.25
astigmatism.

The new glasses have orange and blue fringes in the distance portion.
The oculist adjusted them and they are a bit better, but the fringes
are still there. The reading portion is fine, and the fringes are only
when viewed through the very top part of the lens.

The oculist says it is common, though less so with the antiglare
coating I got, and I will get used to it. I suppose they are rather
stronger than my old lenses, so maybe that is why I haven't had it
before. What you think?

"Mike Tyner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%2DYe.2740$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
>
> "toller" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> The new glasses have orange and blue fringes in the distance portion.
>
> It's called chromatic dispersion, and it varies with different materials.
> Impact-resistant polycarbonate is notoriously prone to it.
>

Yes, they are polycarbonate. The oculist thought that was the right
material for my presciption and lense size.

> In lenses, blue light bends slightly more than red, as if the index of
> refraction is different for each different color. In some materials, the
> spread is greater than others, as indicated by a constant called the "Abbe
> number." The Abbe number for polycarbonate is 30, and conventional "CR-39"
> is 58; higher numbers are better and indicate less chromatic dispersion.
>

> Bottom line, it won't get better but you may get used to it. If they're
> shop glasses it's better to put up with it. If you don't use power tools,
> you may want a different material.

I do wear them while using power tools, so maybe it is the best choice.
Thanks.
>
> -MT
>
>

"Toller" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:yBFYe.7673$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I do wear them while using power tools, so maybe it is the best choice.
> Thanks.
>>
>> -MT
>>
If you want safety glasses with excellent vision, then get Trivex lens
material. This is sold as Hoya Phoenix,and Younger Trilogy lens materials.
The only downside is that Trivex is not as thin as polycarb, but it is very
light. If your Rx is 1.75, then Trivex would be more than thin enough.

You will probably have to get Trivex at an independent optician that carries
either Hoya or Younger (not likely at a large chain store). I would phone
around town before visiting any specific optician.

Don't ever let anyone talk you into polycarb for driving. If you want a
separate pair of glasses for your shop work, then polycarb may be fine. The
odds of you being injured or killed by poor polycarb vision when driving is
much higher than the likelihood of being injured by using power tools with
regular lenses (unless your job is use power tools). Polycarb kills.

> Don't ever let anyone talk you into polycarb for driving. If you want a
> separate pair of glasses for your shop work, then polycarb may be fine.
> The odds of you being injured or killed by poor polycarb vision when
> driving is much higher than the likelihood of being injured by using power
> tools with regular lenses (unless your job is use power tools). Polycarb
> kills.
Well, you have my attention. Why does polycarb kill?
I only see the color (and they are all that bad) through the top quarter of
the lense, and I wouldn't expect to see much traffic there. And they are
still satisfactorily sharp despite the color fringes.
The reading part, which is the most powerful, is fine; no color fringes at
all

They reflect a faint blue/green image; I presume that is the anti-glare
coating? It seems to be pretty much the same all over.

As someone opposed to polycarb myself, I think the case was somewhat
overstated. I suppose you could dream up a scenario where the severe
chomatic aberration of polys could distort peripheral vision enough to
cause an accident. Pretty much a stretch, IMO.

The blue/green reflection is just the selective wavelengths reflected
off by the AR coating. Nothing more. Normal.

w.stacy, o.d.


Toller wrote:

>>Don't ever let anyone talk you into polycarb for driving. If you want a
>>separate pair of glasses for your shop work, then polycarb may be fine.
>>The odds of you being injured or killed by poor polycarb vision when
>>driving is much higher than the likelihood of being injured by using power
>>tools with regular lenses (unless your job is use power tools). Polycarb
>>kills.
>
> Well, you have my attention. Why does polycarb kill?
> I only see the color (and they are all that bad) through the top quarter of
> the lense, and I wouldn't expect to see much traffic there. And they are
> still satisfactorily sharp despite the color fringes.
> The reading part, which is the most powerful, is fine; no color fringes at
> all
>
> They reflect a faint blue/green image; I presume that is the anti-glare
> coating? It seems to be pretty much the same all over.
>
>

Polycarb kills? Only if your glasses impale your forehead when you are
struck by a steel bar going through your skull. Geez, lighten up on
the hyperbole. The way I describe the distortion of polycarb to a
typical patient is to remind them that airplane windows are made of
polycarbonate. Their strength is amazing, and they can take a
tremendous impact without breaking. But, as you know, when you look
out the edge of the window, the optics are distorted enough to make the
houses or the clouds look wavy and distorted.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Polycarb kills? Only if your glasses impale your forehead when you are
> struck by a steel bar going through your skull. Geez, lighten up on
> the hyperbole. The way I describe the distortion of polycarb to a
> typical patient is to remind them that airplane windows are made of
> polycarbonate. Their strength is amazing, and they can take a
> tremendous impact without breaking. But, as you know, when you look
> out the edge of the window, the optics are distorted enough to make the
> houses or the clouds look wavy and distorted.
>
Polycarb has killed and severely injured many people while driving because
of poor peripheral vision, than it has saved from non-industrial accidents.
So yes, polycarb kills.

If one needs safety glasses for working in an industrial environment, that
is justified, but I would not use them for driving.

Mark A wrote:
>>
> Polycarb has killed and severely injured many people
> while driving because of poor peripheral vision, than it
> has saved from non-industrial accidents. So yes, polycarb
> kills.

How did they poll the dead people?

-Quick

Mark, Mark...put down the hash pipe and wake up and smell the burning
CR-39. Are you aware of the fact that poly lenses are the "lens of
choice" for ALL children's eyeglasses at Lenscrafters, as they are
concerned about children being injured at play? I know of large
pediatric optometry and pediatric ophthalmology practices that SPECIFY
polycarbonate lenses on every prescription that they write. Period.
Every script demands poly lenses.

To say that the peripheral abberation of poly is "dangerous" is
dangerous hyperbole. I have thousands of happy patients wearing poly
progressive lenses in their rimless frames, and we have a a 10%
remake/rejection rate. We put poly in every drilled rimless that
leaves our practice, and that amounts to about 30 pairs of poly lenses
a week. 27 of those 30 pairs are worn successfully. The other three
probably read your diatribe!

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Mark, Mark...put down the hash pipe and wake up and smell the burning
> CR-39. Are you aware of the fact that poly lenses are the "lens of
> choice" for ALL children's eyeglasses at Lenscrafters, as they are
> concerned about children being injured at play? I know of large
> pediatric optometry and pediatric ophthalmology practices that SPECIFY
> polycarbonate lenses on every prescription that they write. Period.
> Every script demands poly lenses.
>
> To say that the peripheral abberation of poly is "dangerous" is
> dangerous hyperbole. I have thousands of happy patients wearing poly
> progressive lenses in their rimless frames, and we have a a 10%
> remake/rejection rate. We put poly in every drilled rimless that
> leaves our practice, and that amounts to about 30 pairs of poly lenses
> a week. 27 of those 30 pairs are worn successfully. The other three
> probably read your diatribe!
>
OK, if a child does not drive, then probably no serious harm done. But
Trivex would be better.

For the adults with progressive poly lenses, probably the reason not many
complain is that most of them are killed in traffic accidents shortly after
leaving your office.