Are high-index 1.67 lenses worth the extra money?

I'm trying to decide if getting $70 high-index 1.67 lenses are worth
the extra money.

My prescription:

Right:
sphere: -3.250
cylinder: -0.750
axis: 172

Left:
sphere: -1.500
cylinder: -0.250
axis: 180

I went to Costco today to get some eyeglasses. The guy selling the
glasses was pushing for the $70 1.67 lenses. He said that the right
lens will look REALLY thick if I get the $20 regular plastic lenses. He
said that since the frames I brought in were kind of big lengthwise,
the thickness of the right lens would really stand out. Going on his
advice, I got the 1.67 lenses.

After a couple of hours, I started having second thoughts about getting
the more expensive lens. I wasn't too sure if the 1.67 lenses were
worth the extra $50. I postponed my order for now on the phone so that
I could make a more intelligent decision. Now I'm trying to decide
between regular plastic lenses (CR-39, I think) and high-index 1.67
lenses.

I was doing some searches on Google Groups, and I read that CR-39
lenses have better visual clarity than the thinner lenses. If that's
true, then CR-39 lenses seem like the better option.

I plan on getting lenses for the following glasses. The size of the
frame is 50-18-140

http://tinyurl.com/b3dyo

I don't know how thick the right lens will look. I plan on getting the
lenses rolled & polished, so that should reduce the thickness a bit.
Based on the prescription above, will the right lens look like a coke
bottle in the frame I brought in?

 

The higher the index, the worse the optical quality of the lens. CR-39 is
1.50 index. The only exception is polycarb 1.59 which is worse than even
1.67 index.

For your Rx, you definitely do not need, and do not want, 1.67 index lenses.
You could use 1.60 but no higher than that, and a mid-index like 1.54
Spectralite (only on Sola lenses) would be fine. CR-39 would be acceptable,
but would be a bit heavier and thicker.

If Costco does not have what you need, try Wal-Mart Optical. I believe they
carry Sola Spectralite.

To review, here most of your options:

1.50 regular plastic CR-39
1.53 Trivex (safety lenses, excellent optics) from Hoya or Younger
1.54 Sola Spectralite (excellent choice) from Sola only
1.56 mid index from certain other companies
1.59 polycarb (safety lenses - crappy optical quality)
1.60 Sola Finalite (better than most other 1.60 lenses) from Sola only
1.60 High index lenses from many companies
1.66/1.67 Very high index from many companies.

 

I tend to agree. I think for his Rx a Trivex or 1.56 would be about
right, and anything over 1.6 is ridiculous.

w.stacy, o.d.

 

Sola Spectralite seems like a good compromise between optical quality and
thickness. I'll call my nearest Wal-Mart tomorrow and check if they carry
them and how much they cost. Hopefully, they're not too expensive.
Otherwise, I'd have to go with the plastic lenses. I can handle a little
thickness, as long as it isn't very noticable from a distance.

 

If the Costco people get a bigger commission from selling higher-priced
options, that would explain a lot. When I postponed the order, the guy was
really urging me to stick with the thinner 1.67 lenses before he gave in.

As for the frames I brought in, they're rather thin-rimmed, so I don't know
if the thicker lens would go by unnoticed.

 

I have another question; this one concerns polished edges. Will polished
edges affect optical quality in any way? I read in another newsgroup that
this isn't recommended sometimes, but no specific reason was given.

 

If you have rimless frames, polished edges can sometimes allow light to
enter the edge of the lens, which can be a distraction. I guess the same
thing could happen to a lesser degree on frames with very thin edges, but I
am not an expert on this subject.

 

Is the reduction in thickness compared to CR-39 significant enough to
justify the extra cost of Trivex or Spectralite lenses? Would the
difference be like night & day for my prescription?

I never knew there were so many lens options. Before today, I only thought
there was thick plastic, thin, and extra thin.

 

I didn't think about the weight of the lens that way before. It should've
been obvious to me. I'll ask Wal-Mart if they carry Spectralite lenses. I
don't think Costco had Spectralite as an option. If Wal-Mart doesn't have
it, I'll have to go with CR-39 lenses from Costco. From what I've
learned so far, CR-39 and Spectralite seem like the two best options when
considering optical quality and price.

 

Just so that you ask for the right thing, the lens manufacturer is Sola, and
the lens material is Spectralite 1.54 index.

 

Got it, thanks.

 

I had polished edges once and never again! Of course, I have a very
high minus (-9.5 and -10.5) and with the polished edges there was so
much light bouncing around and it looked like a deep tunnel in my
lenses!

With my Rx before the high-index lenses came out, the bottom edge of
the lens was always resting on my cheek. My son, who has a high minus
also (but not as high as mine - I think he's about a -6) was told he
didn't want a high-index lens because the quality wasn't as good, so he
got the one with the lower index and was *not* happy since he couldn't
keep his lenses on his face.

My husband, who's a -1 and -2, doesn't have a high-index lens and is
quite happy (it was a struggle to get him to switch from glass to
plastic, though, and he's really pleased with the lighter weight of the
plastic over the glass)

Sherry

 

Mark A put fingers to keyboard and typed...

If the 'white ring effect' is not desired, polishing edges can improve the
look of the lenses, but ONLY if the anti-reflection coating is applied
AFTER polishing.

 

Actually the optician at Costco gave you excellent advice. The
regular plastic (CR-39) is 28.00, and the High Index 1.67 is the Seiko
lens at 74.95. Costco opticians are among the most experienced and
dedicated in the industry. Costco is one of the few companies that DO
NOT pay any incentives or commissions to their employees.
Although your RX is not abnormally thick, a frame with a large
effective diameter will yield a thicker edge, and further pronounce
the thickness difference between your 2 lenses, however a 50 eyesize
frame doesn't seem very large. The Seiko 1.67 is also an aspheric
designed lens.

 

Dave,
Costco does not carry Trivex any longer, and while Spectralite is
an excellent choice they don't carry that either. The Seiko 1.67 may
be overkill, but at 74.99 it's priced less than most opticians charge
for mid index lenses. Costco does offer an aspheric poly-c lens for
49.99, but I would avoid that material. Your optician offered you the
best product he had to offer. I can guarantee you that he receives NO
incentives for up-selling products. I wear the Seiko 1.67, I don't
notice any loss of clarity or chromatic abberation. My Rx is only a
-2.75, I like the way the aspheric lenses mesh with the eyewire of my
very thin frames.

 

I called Wal-Mart today, and the Spectralite lenses were somewhere around
$115. I just went with the $20 CR-39 at Costco. If I don't like the way the
lenses look, the salesperson said that I could have them replaced with
their thinner $70 1.67 lenses. Of course, I'd have to pay the difference in
price between both lenses. Hopefully, my lenses won't look too thick.

 

Yeah, I was concerned about the optical quality and price of the high index
lenses, so I ended up going with CR-39. True, the 1.67 lenses are a bargain
at $70, but I was looking to save as much money as possible, and 1.67
seemed like overkill for my Rx. If the $20 CR-39 lenses end up looking too
thick, I guess I can justify spending the extra $50 for the thinner lenses
as long as the optical quality is as you said.

 

You forgot to mention that the abbe value (and hence optical quality) of
1.67 is much lower than mid-index or CR-39 lenses.

 

Just curious -- appearance seems almost more important to you than improved
vision and I wonder why. I find I look lots better in glasses, but contacts
offer a lot of convenience that glasses lack, even if the vision is better.

They also provide protection against flying objects, tree branches, etc. Us
clumsies appreciate things like that

--
Cheers,
Bev
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
It is just a bicycle. It is not dedication and bugs
in your teeth and dust and rain and mud. It is not
madness and harmony and glory and rhythm. It is not
muscle and flesh and sweat and lycra and wind.
It is just a bicycle. -- Bianchi
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*

 

For me, optical quality is #1, cost is #2, and appearance is #3. CR-39
seems to have the best optical quality from what I've read, and it's the
cheapest, so that's what I ended up purchasing. However, they're thicker
than all the other options available.

Yeah, I guess I'm a bit preoccupied with how thick my right lens will look.
I didn't think much of it at first, but those salespeople at Costco kept
saying that the plastic lenses, particularly the right lens, won't look
good in the frame I brought in. I think I look good in those frames, and
I'm hoping that the plastic lenses will look decent enough in those frames.

There I go again rambling on about lens thickness. Maybe you have a point
about the importance I'm placing on appearance.