Less acuity with IOL than with OEM lens

Today, 12 days after cataract surgery, I tried using birding optics
with the new eye.
I looked through my 8x binoculars and 40x spotting scope.
I saw reasonably well through this eye until 18 months ago, and
through the other (still unoperated) eye until 9 months ago, so I
remember how things looked.


The resolution is poorer than it was through my biological lens.


Fine details of objects seen through both the binocs and the scope
never look tack-on sharp; I turn the focus wheel past the right point
by mistake, looking for focus that doesn't exist.


Of course, the view is a zillion times better than with the cataract
(!!). The fact that the doctor was able to get a partly liquified and
partly hardened lens out of my eye without any serious medical
problems (AFAIK) is a huge relief, as good as I could hope for.


Regardless, I still must get a second lens in my other eye, which is
not such a mess.
And a lot of what I do is look through microscopes and telescopes at
small insects and distant birds, trying to see fine detail.


So it seems reasonable to wonder whether another type of IOL might do
any better. Mine is the Alcon SA60AT (non-aspheric).


I wonder if the imperfect resolution is the result of spherical
aberration (the IOL is about +0.20 um and my cornea before surgery was
about +0.15).


Or whether it's because I used to be farsighted and am now nearsighted
(they targeted -0.5D; I ended up -1 D). Perhaps if I were still
hyperopic, things magnified would be sharper.


Or whether acuity inferior to that of the original human eye is common
to all IOLs, such that another kind would be no different.

Anyone know?

cheers,
Liz
Indianapolis