What type of contact lense provides the best resolution?

I'm 57 years old. I wore Fluroperm 151 lenses 24x7 without problem
from 1995 until last year. About 12 months ago, an optometrist
recommended that I switch to O2Optix because they are an aspheric
lense. He said that I would see better with aspherics because (if I
remember his spiel correctly) they focus all the wavelengths of light
onto a single point better than the lenses I was wearing. Is this
generally considered to be true or not?

Although I noticed an immediate improvement in my vision with the
lenses he fitted me with, I believe that may have been entirely due to
the updated diopter. Now, I only have one more pair of O2Optix lenses
left and I probably need a new prescription too. (I now need stronger
reading glasses than the ones I've been using.)

I am looking for advice on what type of contact lenses offer many
people my age the best vision. I've had good results from both RGPs
and high water content soft lenses, but I prefer to add reading
glasses as needed rather than monovision and I'm not keen on
multifocals.

The aspheric design of O2 Optix is meant to correct spherical
aberration, not chromatic aberration.
Theoretically, correcting higher order aberrations like spherical
aberration should produce increased acuity but in practice most
patients don't really notice any improvement in acuity with aspheric
versus spherical lens designs. It strikes me as an academic argument
used to market certain lens brands rather than a real-life benefit to
improved vision.

IMHO, if you don't mind carrying around reading glasses, and if good
acuity is your primary goal, then I would recommend a comfortable
contact that fully corrects you for distance rather than using
monovision or multifocal lenses. If you find RGPs to be
satisfactory, they work quite well. In the realm of disposable soft
contacts I would recommend using a silicon hydrogel-type lens and I am
pretty keen on Coopervision's new Avaris brand lens that is a silicon
hydrogel plastic that is further modified to also possess a high water
content. I have been wearing these lenses myself for the last week
and have fit a couple of patients in them too. So far they seem quite
promising (and not too expensive either). Another good lens is Acuvue
Oasys. O2 Optix are OK but a significant number of my patients
complain that they are not as comfortable as they would prefer.

Here's a reference on aspheric lens designs:
http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=12770

======

On Jun 11, 7:54 pm, Bob Simon <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I'm 57 years old. I wore Fluroperm 151 lenses 24x7 without problem
> from 1995 until last year. About 12 months ago, an optometrist
> recommended that I switch to O2Optix because they are an aspheric
> lense. He said that I would see better with aspherics because (if I
> remember his spiel correctly) they focus all the wavelengths of light
> onto a single point better than the lenses I was wearing. Is this
> generally considered to be true or not?
>
> Although I noticed an immediate improvement in my vision with the
> lenses he fitted me with, I believe that may have been entirely due to
> the updated diopter. Now, I only have one more pair of O2Optix lenses
> left and I probably need a new prescription too. (I now need stronger
> reading glasses than the ones I've been using.)
>
> I am looking for advice on what type of contact lenses offer many
> people my age the best vision. I've had good results from both RGPs
> and high water content soft lenses, but I prefer to add reading
> glasses as needed rather than monovision and I'm not keen on
> multifocals.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:52:09 -0700 (PDT), (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>The aspheric design of O2 Optix is meant to correct spherical
>aberration, not chromatic aberration.
>Theoretically, correcting higher order aberrations like spherical
>aberration should produce increased acuity but in practice most
>patients don't really notice any improvement in acuity with aspheric
>versus spherical lens designs. It strikes me as an academic argument
>used to market certain lens brands rather than a real-life benefit to
>improved vision.
>
>IMHO, if you don't mind carrying around reading glasses, and if good
>acuity is your primary goal, then I would recommend a comfortable
>contact that fully corrects you for distance rather than using
>monovision or multifocal lenses. If you find RGPs to be
>satisfactory, they work quite well.

Thanks for the reply and for the reference to the "fact or fiction"
article. Since you mention RGPs first, I presume you believe that
this type of lens is the best option to optimize my vision. Is this
correct?

As I mentioned in my original post, I wore Fluoroperm 151s for over a
decade without problems. Now that I am considering switching back to
RGPs, can you tell me if there are any specific lenses that you prefer
to the Fluoroperms?

Thanks!

Bob Simon


>In the realm of disposable soft
>contacts I would recommend using a silicon hydrogel-type lens and I am
>pretty keen on Coopervision's new Avaris brand lens that is a silicon
>hydrogel plastic that is further modified to also possess a high water
>content. I have been wearing these lenses myself for the last week
>and have fit a couple of patients in them too. So far they seem quite
>promising (and not too expensive either). Another good lens is Acuvue
>Oasys. O2 Optix are OK but a significant number of my patients
>complain that they are not as comfortable as they would prefer.
>
>Here's a reference on aspheric lens designs:
>http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=12770
>
>======
>
>On Jun 11, 7:54 pm, Bob Simon <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> I'm 57 years old. I wore Fluroperm 151 lenses 24x7 without problem
>> from 1995 until last year. About 12 months ago, an optometrist
>> recommended that I switch to O2Optix because they are an aspheric
>> lense. He said that I would see better with aspherics because (if I
>> remember his spiel correctly) they focus all the wavelengths of light
>> onto a single point better than the lenses I was wearing. Is this
>> generally considered to be true or not?
>>
>> Although I noticed an immediate improvement in my vision with the
>> lenses he fitted me with, I believe that may have been entirely due to
>> the updated diopter. Now, I only have one more pair of O2Optix lenses
>> left and I probably need a new prescription too. (I now need stronger
>> reading glasses than the ones I've been using.)
>>
>> I am looking for advice on what type of contact lenses offer many
>> people my age the best vision. I've had good results from both RGPs
>> and high water content soft lenses, but I prefer to add reading
>> glasses as needed rather than monovision and I'm not keen on
>> multifocals.

On Jun 12, 5:34 pm, Bob Simon <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:52:09 -0700 (PDT), p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The aspheric design of O2 Optix is meant to correct spherical
> >aberration, not chromatic aberration.
> >Theoretically, correcting higher order aberrations like spherical
> >aberration should produce increased acuity but in practice most
> >patients don't really notice any improvement in acuity with aspheric
> >versus spherical lens designs. It strikes me as an academic argument
> >used to market certain lens brands rather than a real-life benefit to
> >improved vision.
>
> >IMHO, if you don't mind carrying around reading glasses, and if good
> >acuity is your primary goal, then I would recommend a comfortable
> >contact that fully corrects you for distance rather than using
> >monovision or multifocal lenses. If you find RGPs to be
> >satisfactory, they work quite well.
>
> Thanks for the reply and for the reference to the "fact or fiction"
> article. Since you mention RGPs first, I presume you believe that
> this type of lens is the best option to optimize my vision. Is this
> correct?
>
> As I mentioned in my original post, I wore Fluoroperm 151s for over a
> decade without problems. Now that I am considering switching back to
> RGPs, can you tell me if there are any specific lenses that you prefer
> to the Fluoroperms?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob Simon
>
> >In the realm of disposable soft
> >contacts I would recommend using a silicon hydrogel-type lens and I am
> >pretty keen on Coopervision's new Avaris brand lens that is a silicon
> >hydrogel plastic that is further modified to also possess a high water
> >content. I have been wearing these lenses myself for the last week
> >and have fit a couple of patients in them too. So far they seem quite
> >promising (and not too expensive either). Another good lens is Acuvue
> >Oasys. O2 Optix are OK but a significant number of my patients
> >complain that they are not as comfortable as they would prefer.
>
> >Here's a reference on aspheric lens designs:
> >http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=12770
>
> >======
>
> >On Jun 11, 7:54 pm, Bob Simon <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> I'm 57 years old. I wore Fluroperm 151 lenses 24x7 without problem
> >> from 1995 until last year. About 12 months ago, an optometrist
> >> recommended that I switch to O2Optix because they are an aspheric
> >> lense. He said that I would see better with aspherics because (if I
> >> remember his spiel correctly) they focus all the wavelengths of light
> >> onto a single point better than the lenses I was wearing. Is this
> >> generally considered to be true or not?
>
> >> Although I noticed an immediate improvement in my vision with the
> >> lenses he fitted me with, I believe that may have been entirely due to
> >> the updated diopter. Now, I only have one more pair of O2Optix lenses
> >> left and I probably need a new prescription too. (I now need stronger
> >> reading glasses than the ones I've been using.)
>
> >> I am looking for advice on what type of contact lenses offer many
> >> people my age the best vision. I've had good results from both RGPs
> >> and high water content soft lenses, but I prefer to add reading
> >> glasses as needed rather than monovision and I'm not keen on
> >> multifocals.

fluoroperm is a good material.

I have no preference for RGPs over soft lenses. The downside of RGPs
is that they are not comfortable to most patients although some, like
you apparently, have no problems with them. Also, they can pop-out of
your eye occasionally. Otherwise, they work quite well and can be
pretty cost-effective (they last for a long time). Less than 4% of
contact lens wearers use RGPs mostly because of the comfort problems.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:42:37 -0700 (PDT), (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On Jun 12, 5:34 pm, Bob Simon <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:52:09 -0700 (PDT), p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >The aspheric design of O2 Optix is meant to correct spherical
>> >aberration, not chromatic aberration.
>> >Theoretically, correcting higher order aberrations like spherical
>> >aberration should produce increased acuity but in practice most
>> >patients don't really notice any improvement in acuity with aspheric
>> >versus spherical lens designs. It strikes me as an academic argument
>> >used to market certain lens brands rather than a real-life benefit to
>> >improved vision.
>>
>> >IMHO, if you don't mind carrying around reading glasses, and if good
>> >acuity is your primary goal, then I would recommend a comfortable
>> >contact that fully corrects you for distance rather than using
>> >monovision or multifocal lenses. If you find RGPs to be
>> >satisfactory, they work quite well.
>>
>> Thanks for the reply and for the reference to the "fact or fiction"
>> article. Since you mention RGPs first, I presume you believe that
>> this type of lens is the best option to optimize my vision. Is this
>> correct?
>>
>> As I mentioned in my original post, I wore Fluoroperm 151s for over a
>> decade without problems. Now that I am considering switching back to
>> RGPs, can you tell me if there are any specific lenses that you prefer
>> to the Fluoroperms?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Bob Simon
>>
>> >In the realm of disposable soft
>> >contacts I would recommend using a silicon hydrogel-type lens and I am
>> >pretty keen on Coopervision's new Avaris brand lens that is a silicon
>> >hydrogel plastic that is further modified to also possess a high water
>> >content. I have been wearing these lenses myself for the last week
>> >and have fit a couple of patients in them too. So far they seem quite
>> >promising (and not too expensive either). Another good lens is Acuvue
>> >Oasys. O2 Optix are OK but a significant number of my patients
>> >complain that they are not as comfortable as they would prefer.
>>
>> >Here's a reference on aspheric lens designs:
>> >http://www.clspectrum.com/article.aspx?article=12770
>>
>> >======
>>
>> >On Jun 11, 7:54 pm, Bob Simon <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm 57 years old. I wore Fluroperm 151 lenses 24x7 without problem
>> >> from 1995 until last year. About 12 months ago, an optometrist
>> >> recommended that I switch to O2Optix because they are an aspheric
>> >> lense. He said that I would see better with aspherics because (if I
>> >> remember his spiel correctly) they focus all the wavelengths of light
>> >> onto a single point better than the lenses I was wearing. Is this
>> >> generally considered to be true or not?
>>
>> >> Although I noticed an immediate improvement in my vision with the
>> >> lenses he fitted me with, I believe that may have been entirely due to
>> >> the updated diopter. Now, I only have one more pair of O2Optix lenses
>> >> left and I probably need a new prescription too. (I now need stronger
>> >> reading glasses than the ones I've been using.)
>>
>> >> I am looking for advice on what type of contact lenses offer many
>> >> people my age the best vision. I've had good results from both RGPs
>> >> and high water content soft lenses, but I prefer to add reading
>> >> glasses as needed rather than monovision and I'm not keen on
>> >> multifocals.
>
>fluoroperm is a good material.
>
>I have no preference for RGPs over soft lenses. The downside of RGPs
>is that they are not comfortable to most patients although some, like
>you apparently, have no problems with them. Also, they can pop-out of
>your eye occasionally. Otherwise, they work quite well and can be
>pretty cost-effective (they last for a long time). Less than 4% of
>contact lens wearers use RGPs mostly because of the comfort problems.

Thanks! Now that I think about it, I had a bigger problem with dust
with the hard than the soft lenses and I've had contacts pop out
before but it is rare and cost-effective sounds good to me. My key
question is do both types optimally improve one's vision?

Also, I got an eye infection after sleeping with my soft contacts but
never had this problem with the fluoroperms so I presume they are
better in this regard.