lens thickness and weight + (rimless) frames

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by Halász Balázs, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. Hello Everybody!

    I'm looking for the best possible (aspheric) lens (thinnest, lightest, best
    possible optics) available. Here in Hungary, the available lens are from
    Zeiss, Hoya, (Essilor)and Sola. (This is the order probably) The problem is
    that i cannot find all information regarding edge thickness, centre
    thickness, weight at a given diopter (minus (myope)) and lens diameter, so
    it is not possible to me to compare them. I would be happy if you could
    supply me with these informations about the following lens: (i didn't want
    to include lens with higher index values in the list, because of their low
    Abbe (is it very bad?the finishing (coat) of the lens affect it?)):

    Zeiss Clarlet 1.6 AS
    Hoya Eyas 1.6 AS
    Sola Finalite 1.6 AS (read here some info on that. CentreTickness is 1.1mm?)

    That is the list.You can extend it if you can :eek:)

    And something about the frames too...Is there a frame out there, that won't
    slip down my nose (when i sweat)? I'm thinking of a special anatomic arm
    configuration or other alternatives.( The weight is the first factor in that
    i guess) By the weight :eek:). Are rimless frame good or bad? I've read about
    Hoya's so called Pinfeel. What do you think of that?Is it worth?

    Thanks in advantage,

    Halász Balázs, Aug 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Halász Balázs

    Mark A Guest

    The lens thickness depends on your particular Rx as well as the lens
    material. Although center thickness can usually be determined (with your
    specific Rx), the edge thickness usually depends on the frame selected since
    the lens is cut to fit the frame. If you just want the edge thickness for
    comparison purposes of the various materials, that is OK, but the actual
    edge thickness will depend somewhat on the frame size and lens placement in
    the frame.

    To select the right frame, talk to various opticians about your problems
    with slippage and then use the one that seems to know how to solve the
    problem. It's not just a frame issue (although the frame is a factor) but it
    also depends on how the optician adjusts the frame for you face. Don't use
    an optician that does not wear glasses or is too young to have any good
    Mark A, Aug 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dear Mark!

    We are coming closer... :eek:) , but I still do not know the edge thickness (at
    a given Rx (diopter) and diameter). I guess (now) that it is not that
    important anyway, the differences should not be significant. (still
    interested in these small differences) The lightest is possibly the
    Finalite, and it has a high Abbe
    (but Zeiss Clarlet 1.6 AS has an Abbe of 42 as far as I know. Look here:
    b25ff/49d8bc7d3541db94c1256bc00039d9bb?OpenDocument )
    Information on the Hoya lens are on the site: www.hoya.co.uk for example
    with a simulation of the thickness and weight within given values. I like

    I understand the importance of frame fitting, but that is not easy and
    enough. Here I didn't find an optic shop, where you can select the frame by
    size from a catalog. (Of course you also have to try it on.) The shape of
    the frame is just on thing, the more important is its anatmoic fitting. You
    menitioned the importance of the temples. The old fashioned temples had
    cable ends.Why?Because the nose pads were invented in 1920.Until that, the
    temple had to hold the "whole" frame. (I found that, as I was searching the
    ttp://www.eyeglasseswarehouse.com/20th-century-eyeglasses.html -nice site)
    I also had earlier (12 years ago or more, when I began to wear) spectacles
    with cable ends. I must say I didn't like them, because I didn't have to
    (want to) wear glasses all the time. But now I understand its importance and
    benefits. The coating of the temples and the nose pads (silicone) are also
    highly considerable.

    One more question. Which manufacturers coating is the best (most durable and
    best optics)?
    Halász Balázs, Sep 1, 2003
  4. Halász Balázs

    Terry Horton Guest

    Sola ASL 1.6 - abbe 42, density 1.22g/cm3
    Zeiss MR7 1.6 - abbe 36, density 1.36g/cm3
    Hoya Eyas 1.6 - abbe 41, density 1.32g/cm3

    Seiko Super Luscious 1.6 - abbe 42, density 1.22g/cm3
    My recent experience with SPX/titanium Silhouette frames with Sola
    ViZio 1.66 and Hoya SummitECP 1.7 lenses, is that these combinations
    are so light that the gentle pressure of the temples at the sides of
    my head is sufficient to hold them in place in normal use (but not for
    sports, where I wear a cord).
    Hoya claims for their new Super HiVision AR coating a scratch
    resistance of 12.43 on the Bayer abrasion test, compared with a
    resistance of 12-14 for glass. Noteworthy for rimless is Hoya's 1.7
    material for which they claim a tensile strength 3 times that of
    CR-39. Hoya offers this material/coating combination with a two-year
    warranty against breakage in drill mount frames, a policy without peer
    when I was searching for new lenses a few months ago.. Both products
    were at the time available in the SummitECP progressive and scheduled
    to be released in other Hoya designs during 2003.
    Terry Horton, Sep 1, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.