Plusnet:No broadband outage information on the Service Status phone no 0800 917 6714

I'm sure it is a challenge, because some manufacturers can produce
better ones than others. As for aberrations, some are probably
inevitable, so you either have to accept them or accept the
inconvenience of changing your specs whenever you want to look at
something different. Essentially you just have to accept that you're
getting old, and there's nothing that can be done to stop that.

That is the entire point of varifocals. The focal length varies from
top to bottom of the lens. They couldn't function as they are supposed
to if it didn't.

I think bifocals might sometimes confuse me in the same way, which is
why I didn't choose them. Whatever you choose it will be a compromise,
and the same compromise will never suit everybody.

Rod.

 

Exactly my experience too. Not only is head movement required, but
contrast is impaired because although only part of the lens is
providing a focused image, the entire lens is collecting light, most
of which will be blurred and therefore only fogging the part of the
text you are looking at without contributing to its sharpness.

You might consider this a bit like looking through a mucky window at
something in the distance. Because your eyes will focus on the distant
object, the muck on the window will be blurred because it is closer,
so up to a point you can mentally "tune it out". However, it will
still be picking up light which will add to the wanted image,
effectively raising the brightness of the dark parts of it and thereby
reducing the contrast.

If you've been using varifocals, the first time you see a screen full
of text using proper reading glasses with the entire lens optimised
for your preferred reading distance will be a revelation.

Rod.

 

I've been wondering what it would be like to have one lense for near
vision and the other for further away. I have heard of people doing this
with contact lenses but I think it would take some getting used to.

 

When I started to need reading glasses as well as long-distance glasses
(I've reached the age where my eyes no longer accommodate as well as they
used to), I was recommended to try varifocals.

I found them horrendous. I found that as I turned my head, vertical lines
tilted one way or the other, like the rolling shutter effect that you get
with some video cameras. I persisted for about a week in case it was
something that my brain would get used to, but it didn't. So the optician
changed me to two pairs of single-vision glasses (one for distance (driving)
and one for reading). They didn't actually offer me the choice of having
bifocals.

 

I too had the world twisted when I first got mine. It made it difficult
to keep my balance when walking and I bet I was wandering along in a
drunken stupor

It only took a few days for my brain to compensate though and I did
wear them all of the time I was up.

 

My only problem with bifocals before I had my cataracts done was coping
with the metal strips on escalators.
Bill.

 

That was exactly my experience.

I'm sitting here typing quite happily with a pair of glasses I bought
for a couple of quid in a charity shop. I have to take them off outside
(my distance vision is fine) and they aren't really strong enough for
reading.

An optician is going to have to produce something _much_ better to be
worth paying more than 10 times as much.

Andy

 

In 2009 the Co payed for me to have an eye test and the resultant
glasses as I used a computer screen quite a lot in my work (field
engineer.) I was prescribed reading glasses - they were +2.0 although
I knew I only needed +1.25 for the screen.

When I went again in 2011 and he told me he had had his knuckles
rapped - he should only have prescribed for screen use. I then needed
2.25 for reading but the +2.0 were and still are good enough for
reading, and I too was using a pair of off-the-shelf glasses, now
+1.5 - and I'm still the same today.

I have consistently found that for ready-made glasses, Foster-Grants
fro Matalan are optically good and certainly good value. Alternatively
use an on-line glasses supplier with your prescription data but with
the magnification you really need. You can get a decent pair with
anti-reflective coating in perfectly good frames for £30 or less and
delivered by post in 3-4 days. A bit of Googling will show many
suppliers - I have in the past used Glasses4Eyes at Silsden near
Keighley (W Yorks) who were very good but their prices have gone up a
bit just lately.

 

You may be doing more harm than good if you use a simple fixed
correction, diagnosed by yourself, without having your eyesight
properly measured. If both your eyes happen to require exactly the
same correction without anything complicated like cylinder correction
for astigmatism, and your eyes are exactly the same distance apart and
the same height as the centres of the lenses, then you might find that
charity shop specs can help, but most people are not that lucky. You
should really get lenses properly tailored to your eyes.

Another thing cheap lenses probably won't have is an anti-reflective
coating. I'm able to compare the performance with and without this
(because part of the deal I got was a spare pair with no frills but to
the same prescription) and I can confirm it really does work.

Rod.

 

If you only need magnification and have no spherical or other
aberrations they will be fine. Before it was decided that I was
astigmatic, and before one eye needed more magnification than the other,
I used the "corner shop" specs and they were fine. The danger is that
people who need more complex specs will use them to avoid the expense of
a trip to the opticians and damage their sight as a result. However, the
cost of a standard NHS eye test to find out is minimal, so I'd always
advise going to the opticians for a test - you don't have to buy from
them if you don't need to.

 

Well, last time I had them measured that was pretty much what the guy
prescribed. I must get around to having them done again.

I don't have a major problem with this - but then, I don't wear them
outside, and especially I don't wear them for driving.

Andy

 

Vir Campestris wrote:

I've used varifocals for driving for more than 30 years now, and
they've improve with leaps and bounds. I find them very expensive but
then I always insist on top of the r
ange Zeiss lenses, that are high optical density plastic, scratch
resistant, anti reflection, and photo-chromic coating. Fortunatel my
eyes up until 6 weeks ago were pretty stable and I reckon the average
time between needing a new prescription was 5 - 6 years. Why 6 weeks
ago you ask? Well that's when I had my first cataract surgery, the
second was today, so my extreme myopia is a thing of the past. I can
now watch TV without wearing glasses, the last time I could do that was
when I was very young about the time of the 1953 (I think it was)
coronation. Unfortunately the lens implants don't alter the astigmatism
I have, so I'll have to invest in glasses when the eyes have fully
healed and stabilised. Those will be varifocals too as the implants are
solid and don't cater for both long distance and reading.

 

If you wear reading glasses anywhere near a window, or those horrible
little spotlights that seem so popular now, you'll definitely
appreciate the difference.

It happens that the glasses with which I can make the comparison are
reading glasses. The frames had to be selected from a very small range
and there are no fancy coatings on the lenses. Also, the lenses
themselves weren't made from the special "low index" plastic that the
expensive lightweight ones used, so they're noticeably thicker and
heavier, and as one of my eyes needs more correction than the other,
the lens is thicker and heavier on one side.

Thus I have two pairs of reading glasses which are identical in
focusing performance but one has all the trimmings and the other
hasn't, and although the cheap ones do work and are handy as a spare,
the proper ones are much more comfortable to use.

Rod.

 

Glad the op went well. They mentioned that I was showing very early
signs of cataracts a while back, but when I had my last test a couple of
weeks back nothing was mentioned at all, so I hope it is a way off yet.
My eyes aren't quite as stable as yours were, and I keep getting hit
with big bills (I too have the best lenses I can get) - but I was told
there was no change this year so, hopefully, I've hit a stable period.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

You know you're old when the Doctor warns you to slow down instead of
the Police.

 

Bob Henson wrote:

I was first told by my optician that I had premature opacity in the
lenses of both eyes back in 1980 when I was just 38. Last year (I was
then just 73) the optician suggested that I consider getting the
cataracts done. But as they weren't really troubling me at that time, I
decide to wait another year. The further persistence of him suggesting
it again this year, combined with the increased glare I was getting
from just a normal daylight sky decided me to take the plunge this time.
After the first op in September I was pretty pleased with the outcome
and so was looking forward to yesterday's surgery. Immediately after
the op I was almost distraught as I could barely see through the new
implant. I persisted in getting an explanation from the surgeon and she
re-examined the eye. She said that apparently the surface of my cornea
had been affected by the high iodine content of a sterilising agent they
had painted onto the eyeball, but insisted that they had washed if all
off after the stipulated 3 minute period. So to my mind I had swapped a
cataract on the lens for one on the outer surface of the cornea. I
wasn't too happy by that, especially as the two patients who had
followed me had checked out only 20 minutes or so after the surgery
telling me that their vision was now perfect. In addition to the
eyedrops I had to apply around 16 times per day for a week then 4 times
a week for another 3 weeks, she prescribed an additional ointment to be
applied twice daily for 3 days. Anyhow the good thing is that after a
good night's sleep the eye was much better and in fact I can say that
throughout the morning this has continued, and now vision is
approaching perfection.
Just a point about your eyes apparently reaching it may be that any
actual change in the eye is being masked by the effects of the
cataracts, so no change in prescription would be of benefit. Perhaps
it is time to have them done.

 

Absolutely! I had an argument very recently in uk.d-i-y with somebody
who cannot understand that not everyone needs a smartphone. I have no
problem with people who do (well, except for some people who shouldn't
be let out unsupervised..), but for somebody to call somebody else
stupid for not needing the same equipment as him is nuts.

 

That'll teach you to contribute to UK.d-i-y - probably one of the
rudest and most unhelp NG's available.

 

I think it is too early in my case - there is no real problem yet.
However, I'll keep my eye on the situation

 

Make it both of them! Two are always better than one.
Remember mine progressed very slowly, about 34 years from being spotted
to needing treatment. But then I was possibly lucky. My neighbour's
cataracts developed in less than a year and he had been having regular
eye tests too.

 

OK that's good data. Thanks.

Andy