Lightest possible glasses
1,982 views
Skip to first unread message
mfseeker
Apr 24, 2008, 8:41:13 AM4/24/08
to GlassyEyes, gr...@eastlink.ca
My wife has extreme sensitivity to the weight of her glasses. Most are
painful. She needs the lightest possible glasses. She wants three
pair: lined bifocals, single vision computer glasses, sunglasses.
We have been told recently that full frames are the way to go because
they allow thinner lenses than half frames or frameless. Is this true?
Her prescription is OD +1.75 -075 x129; OS +1.25 -025 x45; add 2.25
OV.
Where is the majority of the weight for lightweight glasses, lenses or
frames? It would seem that the frame would make little difference. We
are talking about weight on the nose pads, not overall weight, but
then most of the frame weight is probably carried by the nose, is it
not?
painful. She needs the lightest possible glasses. She wants three
pair: lined bifocals, single vision computer glasses, sunglasses.
We have been told recently that full frames are the way to go because
they allow thinner lenses than half frames or frameless. Is this true?
Her prescription is OD +1.75 -075 x129; OS +1.25 -025 x45; add 2.25
OV.
Where is the majority of the weight for lightweight glasses, lenses or
frames? It would seem that the frame would make little difference. We
are talking about weight on the nose pads, not overall weight, but
then most of the frame weight is probably carried by the nose, is it
not?
powrwrap
Apr 24, 2008, 11:09:02 AM4/24/08
to GlassyEyes
On Apr 24, 7:41 am, mfseeker <sarmstr...@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> We have been told recently that full frames are the way to go because
> they allow thinner lenses than half frames or frameless. Is this true?
No.
> We have been told recently that full frames are the way to go because
> they allow thinner lenses than half frames or frameless. Is this true?
> Her prescription is OD +1.75 -075 x129; OS +1.25 -025 x45; add 2.25
> OV.
> Where is the majority of the weight for lightweight glasses, lenses or
> frames?
> but then most of the frame weight is probably carried by the nose, is it
> not?
www.zennioptical.com lists the weight of each of their frames.
Chuck Knight
Apr 24, 2008, 2:38:34 PM4/24/08
to powrwrap, GlassyEyes
Has she tried a saddle bridge? It's supposed to distribute the weight more evenly than 2 tiny nosepads.
-- Chuck Knight
-- Chuck Knight
IMQ
Apr 24, 2008, 11:24:24 AM4/24/08
to GlassyEyes
Go here to calculate the thickness of the lens:
http://www.opticampus.com/tools/thickness.php
Generally, the higher the index, the thinner and lighter the lens, but
more expensive when going over 1.67, as I observe the prices at
various online stores.
The glasses will appear thinner if the edges are polished for semi or
frameless rims.
Since your wife's RX show SPH as +, the thinnest part of the lenses
will be at the edges.
Also, go with aspheric lenses because they are flatter than the
regular lenses, therefore making the glasses appear thinner overall.
http://www.opticampus.com/tools/thickness.php
Generally, the higher the index, the thinner and lighter the lens, but
more expensive when going over 1.67, as I observe the prices at
various online stores.
The glasses will appear thinner if the edges are polished for semi or
frameless rims.
Since your wife's RX show SPH as +, the thinnest part of the lenses
will be at the edges.
Also, go with aspheric lenses because they are flatter than the
regular lenses, therefore making the glasses appear thinner overall.
mfseeker
Apr 24, 2008, 11:36:38 AM4/24/08
to GlassyEyes
Thanks for the pointer to Zenni's weight info.
In fairness to the optician who steered me towards full frames, I
should give the rationale:
1. Positive diopter lenses are thinnest at the edges.
2. Frameless glasses require a minimun edge thickness to support the
drilling.
3. Full frame glasses can use a thinner edge.
4. For a given lens strength and overall lens dimension, thinner edges
mean thinner lenses.
5. Therefore, full frame glasses can be made with thinner lenses than
frameless.
6. Therefore, other things being equal, full frame glasses are
lighter.
Now, even if that is correct, the question remains whether a
particular distributer will take advantage of the potential weight
savings or will just grind to a one size fits all edge thickness.
> www.zennioptical.comlists the weight of each of their frames.
In fairness to the optician who steered me towards full frames, I
should give the rationale:
1. Positive diopter lenses are thinnest at the edges.
2. Frameless glasses require a minimun edge thickness to support the
drilling.
3. Full frame glasses can use a thinner edge.
4. For a given lens strength and overall lens dimension, thinner edges
mean thinner lenses.
5. Therefore, full frame glasses can be made with thinner lenses than
frameless.
6. Therefore, other things being equal, full frame glasses are
lighter.
Now, even if that is correct, the question remains whether a
particular distributer will take advantage of the potential weight
savings or will just grind to a one size fits all edge thickness.
ehb
Apr 24, 2008, 12:06:42 PM4/24/08
to GlassyEyes
Titanium frames and aluminum frames tend to have the lightest weights,
all other things being equal. Also, the higher the index of the lens
the lighter the weight and the lower the Abbe value, which means the
optics are not as good. However, with a prescription that weak I
don't think you will be able to get anything other than either CR39 or
possibly a mid index 1.56 plastic or polycarbonate (which IS very
light but has the worst optics of any lens material--lowest Abbe
value). In any case, do get the anti-reflective coating, especially
if you go with polycarbonate or a mid or high index material. It
improves the optics and is really a MUST for computer glasses.
Also, if the frames don't have soft silicone nosepads most optical
stores can put them on full rim frames for a very small fee (Walmart
charges $2 installed at their optical department.) They really
increase the comfort level.
> www.zennioptical.comlists the weight of each of their frames.
all other things being equal. Also, the higher the index of the lens
the lighter the weight and the lower the Abbe value, which means the
optics are not as good. However, with a prescription that weak I
don't think you will be able to get anything other than either CR39 or
possibly a mid index 1.56 plastic or polycarbonate (which IS very
light but has the worst optics of any lens material--lowest Abbe
value). In any case, do get the anti-reflective coating, especially
if you go with polycarbonate or a mid or high index material. It
improves the optics and is really a MUST for computer glasses.
Also, if the frames don't have soft silicone nosepads most optical
stores can put them on full rim frames for a very small fee (Walmart
charges $2 installed at their optical department.) They really
increase the comfort level.
Pau...@yahoo.com
Apr 24, 2008, 5:40:10 PM4/24/08
to GlassyEyes
As powrwrap noted, Zenni Optical lists the weight of their glasses
with the 1.57 index lens that comes with the frame, so you can compare
apples and apples easily. For her prescpription, I doubt that the
higher index would be worth the cost, especially if she needs 3 pair.
I have a pair of style 3851 (one of the $8 pairs) that I noticed were
very light. Low and behold, they are only 13 grams; one of the
lightest available on the site. I got the black w/ purple, with a
purple lens and they turned out really cute. Rimless or half rims
might be her best bet if she likes that look. Zenni also lets you
choose from a variety of lens shapes for their rimless glasses.
Regular tints (not transitions) are only $4.95, and their A/R coating
is only $4.95 as well (a must for the computer glasses).
with the 1.57 index lens that comes with the frame, so you can compare
apples and apples easily. For her prescpription, I doubt that the
higher index would be worth the cost, especially if she needs 3 pair.
I have a pair of style 3851 (one of the $8 pairs) that I noticed were
very light. Low and behold, they are only 13 grams; one of the
lightest available on the site. I got the black w/ purple, with a
purple lens and they turned out really cute. Rimless or half rims
might be her best bet if she likes that look. Zenni also lets you
choose from a variety of lens shapes for their rimless glasses.
Regular tints (not transitions) are only $4.95, and their A/R coating
is only $4.95 as well (a must for the computer glasses).
Chuck Knight
Apr 25, 2008, 12:38:12 AM4/25/08
to GlassyEyes
Zenni does not do custom thicknesses, to the best of my knowledge -- but it's not a question I've ever asked. O4L does, I think. As to the theoretical thickness advantage that a full rimmed frame has, and especially at your wife's prescription, it's not going to be a practical issue. Even if you added or lost 50% of the weight of the lenses, they're still going to be extremely thin and lightweight...a fraction of the total weight of the glasses.
Let me put it to you this way. I am wearing Zenni glasses, right now...and my distance prescription is not *too* different from your wife's.
The weight is simply not an issue for me, and the balance point on my glasses is a line about 3/4" back from the plane of the lenses. So, the weight is distributed quite evenly. More than a few people have commented how "feather lite" they are, too.
If she's really that concerned about the weight on her nose, I will second the suggestion for silicone nose pads. They're squishy silicone plastic, and distribute the weight well. Larger pads will distribute the weight over a larger area, and make it even less noticeable.. If she needs even more than that, then this type of thing is available:
http://www.marchon.com/MarchonWeb2002/Prof.%20Courses/Dispensing%20Eyewear/kfig8.gif
It's called a "saddle bridge" and is designed to replace the regular 2 nose pads with a single plastic arch, distributing the weight across the entire bridge of the nose. I was concerned about discomfort, when wearing glasses for the first time, and this was one of the regular solutions for people who are especially sensitive to the weight of their glasses.
Commonly available, even at Zenni. Here's a pretty good picture:
http://zennioptical.com/cart/d_4011.jpg
-- Chuck Knight
Let me put it to you this way. I am wearing Zenni glasses, right now...and my distance prescription is not *too* different from your wife's.
The weight is simply not an issue for me, and the balance point on my glasses is a line about 3/4" back from the plane of the lenses. So, the weight is distributed quite evenly. More than a few people have commented how "feather lite" they are, too.
If she's really that concerned about the weight on her nose, I will second the suggestion for silicone nose pads. They're squishy silicone plastic, and distribute the weight well. Larger pads will distribute the weight over a larger area, and make it even less noticeable.. If she needs even more than that, then this type of thing is available:
http://www.marchon.com/MarchonWeb2002/Prof.%20Courses/Dispensing%20Eyewear/kfig8.gif
It's called a "saddle bridge" and is designed to replace the regular 2 nose pads with a single plastic arch, distributing the weight across the entire bridge of the nose. I was concerned about discomfort, when wearing glasses for the first time, and this was one of the regular solutions for people who are especially sensitive to the weight of their glasses.
Commonly available, even at Zenni. Here's a pretty good picture:
http://zennioptical.com/cart/d_4011.jpg
-- Chuck Knight
powrwrap
Apr 25, 2008, 9:28:40 AM4/25/08
to GlassyEyes
You can search the Zenni site for the lightest frames by typing in "10
grams" in the search box, then search. Remember your wife has a
prescription for progressive lenses so if she buys from Zenni, she
will need a lens height of at least 32mm. If you don't like any of the
frames that weigh in at 10 grams, type "11 grams" in the search box;
then 12 grams, etc.
BTW, this is the best way I've found to search Zenni's site. I need
longer temple arms so I type in "Temple Arm Length 145mm" and
instantly find the best fitting frames for my face. You can also
search for other parameters in a similar manner, i.e. Frame Width
135mm. Just be sure you duplicate the words, letters, and spacing in
Zenni's descriptions.
grams" in the search box, then search. Remember your wife has a
prescription for progressive lenses so if she buys from Zenni, she
will need a lens height of at least 32mm. If you don't like any of the
frames that weigh in at 10 grams, type "11 grams" in the search box;
then 12 grams, etc.
BTW, this is the best way I've found to search Zenni's site. I need
longer temple arms so I type in "Temple Arm Length 145mm" and
instantly find the best fitting frames for my face. You can also
search for other parameters in a similar manner, i.e. Frame Width
135mm. Just be sure you duplicate the words, letters, and spacing in
Zenni's descriptions.
Fred Di
Apr 25, 2008, 10:29:04 AM4/25/08
to GlassyEyes
I have a pair of Zenni #4103, which is a small metal frame avail in
many different colors.
Zenni quotes 10g on thier web site, which is the lightest $8 glasses.
They are very light, but mine weigh 10.9 grams, my 'script is ~ -1.75
single vision.
You cannot get these in progressives because of the small lens height.
BTW, I do not agree with the other poster who stated that A/R coating
is a must for computer glasses. Night Driving perhpas, but not for
computer use. The Primary benifit of A/R is cosmetic, people can see
your eyes better. But it's sensless to buy A/R with a tint. They
only put the A/R on the inside and the tint on the outside when you
get both.
many different colors.
Zenni quotes 10g on thier web site, which is the lightest $8 glasses.
They are very light, but mine weigh 10.9 grams, my 'script is ~ -1.75
single vision.
You cannot get these in progressives because of the small lens height.
BTW, I do not agree with the other poster who stated that A/R coating
is a must for computer glasses. Night Driving perhpas, but not for
computer use. The Primary benifit of A/R is cosmetic, people can see
your eyes better. But it's sensless to buy A/R with a tint. They
only put the A/R on the inside and the tint on the outside when you
get both.
IMQ
Apr 25, 2008, 11:39:30 AM4/25/08
to GlassyEyes
I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
said is a side benefit.
Please read about ARC here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating
http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/coatings.htm
http://www.refractivesource.com/patients/alternatives/glasses/anti-reflective.htm
http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/highindx.htm
The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
said is a side benefit.
Please read about ARC here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating
http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/coatings.htm
http://www.refractivesource.com/patients/alternatives/glasses/anti-reflective.htm
http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/highindx.htm
ehb
Apr 25, 2008, 12:15:38 PM4/25/08
to GlassyEyes
The main reason to get AR coating is that they cut down on internal
reflections. This is not an issue with glass or CR39 but with any of
the higher index (such as the 1.56 that Zenni uses) or polycarbonate,
which have much lower Abbe values than either CR39 or glass the AR
coating DOES improve the optics of the lens. AR is really effective
under fluorescent lighting like is found in most office enviromnents,
which is why it is recommended for computer glasses. The advantage to
AR on the back side of tinted sunglasses is to cut down on reflections
of the sun to your eyes when the sun is behind you. The 'cosmetic'
benefits of AR is how they are usually sold but that is not the reason
they are useful.. They really do have an impact on the optics of the
mid and high index lens material in a positive way. With a low power
prescription the effect is not as noticeable but once you get into a
higher powered lens they become a necessity, IMHO.
reflections. This is not an issue with glass or CR39 but with any of
the higher index (such as the 1.56 that Zenni uses) or polycarbonate,
which have much lower Abbe values than either CR39 or glass the AR
coating DOES improve the optics of the lens. AR is really effective
under fluorescent lighting like is found in most office enviromnents,
which is why it is recommended for computer glasses. The advantage to
AR on the back side of tinted sunglasses is to cut down on reflections
of the sun to your eyes when the sun is behind you. The 'cosmetic'
benefits of AR is how they are usually sold but that is not the reason
they are useful.. They really do have an impact on the optics of the
mid and high index lens material in a positive way. With a low power
prescription the effect is not as noticeable but once you get into a
higher powered lens they become a necessity, IMHO.
mzdtk
Apr 25, 2008, 1:49:44 PM4/25/08
to GlassyEyes
my first pair of glasses from Zenni was a very light weight metal
frame and here is the special part. The ends of the bows curved to hug
your head Ithink this type would be worth trying. Another option is to
go to a b&m and have her try them on and see if they seem heavy
frame and here is the special part. The ends of the bows curved to hug
your head Ithink this type would be worth trying. Another option is to
go to a b&m and have her try them on and see if they seem heavy
powrwrap
Apr 25, 2008, 4:35:57 PM4/25/08
to GlassyEyes
> On Apr 25, 11:15 am, ehb <ehb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The advantage to
> AR on the back side of tinted sunglasses is to cut down on reflections
> of the sun to your eyes when the sun is behind you.
coating is only $4.95 extra it's about 33% of the cost of the glasses
so I was going to pass on it. Now I wonder...
Fred Di
Apr 27, 2008, 10:16:55 AM4/27/08
to GlassyEyes
I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
actually supports my position.
The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
as the first benifit.
On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> said is a side benefit.
>
> Please read about ARC here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coatinghttp://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/coatings.htmhttp://www.refractivesource.com/patients/alternatives/glasses/anti-re...http://www.allaboutvision.com/lenses/highindx.htm
>
> - Show quoted text -
actually supports my position.
The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
as the first benifit.
On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> said is a side benefit.
>
> Please read about ARC here:
>
>
> On Apr 25, 10:29 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have a pair of Zenni #4103, which is a small metal frame avail in
> > many different colors.
>
> > Zenni quotes 10g on thier web site, which is the lightest $8 glasses.
> > They are very light, but mine weigh 10.9 grams, my 'script is ~ -1.75
> > single vision.
>
> > You cannot get these in progressives because of the small lens height.
>
> > BTW, I do not agree with the other poster who stated that A/R coating
> > is a must for computer glasses. Night Driving perhpas, but not for
> > computer use. The Primary benifit of A/R is cosmetic, people can see
> > your eyes better. But it's sensless to buy A/R with a tint. They
> > only put the A/R on the inside and the tint on the outside when you
> > get both.- Hide quoted text -
> On Apr 25, 10:29 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have a pair of Zenni #4103, which is a small metal frame avail in
> > many different colors.
>
> > Zenni quotes 10g on thier web site, which is the lightest $8 glasses.
> > They are very light, but mine weigh 10.9 grams, my 'script is ~ -1.75
> > single vision.
>
> > You cannot get these in progressives because of the small lens height.
>
> > BTW, I do not agree with the other poster who stated that A/R coating
> > is a must for computer glasses. Night Driving perhpas, but not for
> > computer use. The Primary benifit of A/R is cosmetic, people can see
> > your eyes better. But it's sensless to buy A/R with a tint. They
> > only put the A/R on the inside and the tint on the outside when you
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chuck Knight
Apr 27, 2008, 4:51:26 PM4/27/08
to Fred Di, GlassyEyes
That particular link doesn't seem to work, so I just pulled this straight from WikiPedia:
____________________________________
Opticians dispense "antireflection lenses" because the decreased reflection makes them look better, and they produce less glare, which is particularly noticeable when driving at night or working in front of a computer monitor. The decreased glare means that wearers often find their eyes are less tired, particularly at the end of the day. Allowing more light to pass through the lens also increases contrast and therefore increases visual acuity.
____________________________________
No one would deny that by improving the appearance of the lenses is a desirable benefit, but it's hardly the only one. It's just the first one listed. The reduction in glare is most useful (notice I said useful, and not just desirable) for reducing visible glare in certain applications, like working in front of a computer monitor.
Looks like both of you are right!
-- Chuck Knight
____________________________________
Opticians dispense "antireflection lenses" because the decreased reflection makes them look better, and they produce less glare, which is particularly noticeable when driving at night or working in front of a computer monitor. The decreased glare means that wearers often find their eyes are less tired, particularly at the end of the day. Allowing more light to pass through the lens also increases contrast and therefore increases visual acuity.
____________________________________
No one would deny that by improving the appearance of the lenses is a desirable benefit, but it's hardly the only one. It's just the first one listed. The reduction in glare is most useful (notice I said useful, and not just desirable) for reducing visible glare in certain applications, like working in front of a computer monitor.
Looks like both of you are right!
-- Chuck Knight
Fred Di
Apr 27, 2008, 5:26:03 PM4/27/08
to GlassyEyes
NO
The FIRST benifit listed is to "LOOK BETTER"
Then is goes on to talk about glare, which is clearly a
secondary benifit.
On Apr 27, 1:51 pm, "Chuck Knight" <chuckkni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That particular link doesn't seem to work, so I just pulled this straight
> from WikiPedia:
> ____________________________________
>
> Opticians <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optician> dispense "antireflection
The FIRST benifit listed is to "LOOK BETTER"
Then is goes on to talk about glare, which is clearly a
secondary benifit.
On Apr 27, 1:51 pm, "Chuck Knight" <chuckkni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That particular link doesn't seem to work, so I just pulled this straight
> from WikiPedia:
> ____________________________________
>
> lenses" because the decreased reflection makes them look better, and they
> produce less glare <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution#Glare>,
> which is particularly noticeable when driving at night or working in front
> of a computer monitor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_monitor>. The
> decreased glare means that wearers often find their eyes are less tired,
> particularly at the end of the day. Allowing more light to pass through the
> lens also increases
> contrast<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_%28vision%29>and
> particularly at the end of the day. Allowing more light to pass through the
> lens also increases
> therefore increases visual acuity.
> ____________________________________
>
> No one would deny that by improving the appearance of the lenses is a
> desirable benefit, but it's hardly the only one. It's just the first one
> listed. The reduction in glare is most useful (notice I said useful, and
> not just desirable) for reducing visible glare in certain applications, like
> working in front of a computer monitor.
>
> Looks like both of you are right!
>
> -- Chuck Knight
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
> > actually supports my position.
>
> > The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
> > as the first benifit.
>
> > On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> > > The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> > > the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> > > said is a side benefit.
>
> > > Please read about ARC here:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coatinghttp://www.allabo...
> ____________________________________
>
> No one would deny that by improving the appearance of the lenses is a
> desirable benefit, but it's hardly the only one. It's just the first one
> listed. The reduction in glare is most useful (notice I said useful, and
> not just desirable) for reducing visible glare in certain applications, like
> working in front of a computer monitor.
>
> Looks like both of you are right!
>
> -- Chuck Knight
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
> > actually supports my position.
>
> > The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
> > as the first benifit.
>
> > On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> > > The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> > > the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> > > said is a side benefit.
>
> > > Please read about ARC here:
>
>
> > > On Apr 25, 10:29 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have a pair of Zenni #4103, which is a small metal frame avail in
> > > > many different colors.
>
> > > > Zenni quotes 10g on thier web site, which is the lightest $8 glasses.
> > > > They are very light, but mine weigh 10.9 grams, my 'script is ~ -1.75
> > > > single vision.
>
> > > > You cannot get these in progressives because of the small lens height.
>
> > > > BTW, I do not agree with the other poster who stated that A/R coating
> > > > is a must for computer glasses. Night Driving perhpas, but not for
> > > > computer use. The Primary benifit of A/R is cosmetic, people can see
> > > > your eyes better. But it's sensless to buy A/R with a tint. They
> > > > only put the A/R on the inside and the tint on the outside when you
> > > > get both.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > On Apr 25, 10:29 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have a pair of Zenni #4103, which is a small metal frame avail in
> > > > many different colors.
>
> > > > Zenni quotes 10g on thier web site, which is the lightest $8 glasses.
> > > > They are very light, but mine weigh 10.9 grams, my 'script is ~ -1.75
> > > > single vision.
>
> > > > You cannot get these in progressives because of the small lens height.
>
> > > > BTW, I do not agree with the other poster who stated that A/R coating
> > > > is a must for computer glasses. Night Driving perhpas, but not for
> > > > computer use. The Primary benifit of A/R is cosmetic, people can see
> > > > your eyes better. But it's sensless to buy A/R with a tint. They
> > > > only put the A/R on the inside and the tint on the outside when you
> > > > get both.- Hide quoted text -
>
Greg
Apr 27, 2008, 9:00:43 PM4/27/08
to GlassyEyes
On Apr 27, 4:16 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
> actually supports my position.
>
> The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
> as the first benifit.
>
the cosmetic benefit first. That's not the same thing. The author of
the article does not say he is listing benefits in order of
importance.
Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't.
powrwrap
Apr 27, 2008, 10:07:42 PM4/27/08
to GlassyEyes
> On Apr 27, 8:00 pm, Greg <g...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> wrote:
> No, it doesn't. In its list of benefits, the Wikipedia article lists
> the cosmetic benefit first. That's not the same thing.
sweepstakes. That must be why cosmetic reasons are listed first. I
know people that get plano subscriptions with AR coating just for the
sex appeal alone.
(/sarcasm)
And as we all know from the Aviator thread, Fred is an expert in the
fashion world...
IMQ
Apr 27, 2008, 10:52:46 AM4/27/08
to GlassyEyes
OK, Fred.
Apparently you don't see the benefit of ARC the same way I do.
I will continue to recommend my friends and family to consider AR
coating if they have high-index lenses because I want them to have the
best possible vision. I will let them know the added benefit of having
an ARC is that people can see their eyes better, if that matters to
them.
On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
> actually supports my position.
>
> The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
> as the first benifit.
>
> On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> > The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> > the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> > said is a side benefit.
>
> > Please read about ARC here:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coatinghttp://www.allabo...
Apparently you don't see the benefit of ARC the same way I do.
I will continue to recommend my friends and family to consider AR
coating if they have high-index lenses because I want them to have the
best possible vision. I will let them know the added benefit of having
an ARC is that people can see their eyes better, if that matters to
them.
On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
> actually supports my position.
>
> The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
> as the first benifit.
>
> On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> > The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> > the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> > said is a side benefit.
>
> > Please read about ARC here:
>
ehb
Apr 27, 2008, 1:55:27 PM4/27/08
to GlassyEyes
If you study up on Abbe values and the higher reflections in high
index material you might change your mind. Remember that wikipedia
articles can be written AND edited by ANYONE so, while they can be a
useful guide they are not always the final word.
On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
> actually supports my position.
>
> The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
> as the first benifit.
>
> On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> > The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> > the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> > said is a side benefit.
>
> > Please read about ARC here:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coatinghttp://www.allabo...
index material you might change your mind. Remember that wikipedia
articles can be written AND edited by ANYONE so, while they can be a
useful guide they are not always the final word.
On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love it when people refute my point, but they link they post
> actually supports my position.
>
> The Wikipedia link specifically lists making the lenses "LOOK BETTER"
> as the first benifit.
>
> On Apr 25, 8:39 am, IMQ <gte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe you are mistaken about the primary benefit of ARC.
>
> > The primary benefit is not for people to see your eyes better but for
> > the you to see better because it reduces glare or reflection. What you
> > said is a side benefit.
>
> > Please read about ARC here:
>
sj
Apr 27, 2008, 7:06:23 PM4/27/08
to GlassyEyes
I think frames make a big difference.
I have a old pair of zenni 4206 rimless, their site says they are 11
grams, my scale says 10 grams (with small oval lenses). I've also got
a pair of 4100 which they say are 12 grams, but my scale says 14
grams. Not to quibble over a gram or two, my scale probably isn't
that accurate, but the difference between the two IS noticable if I
switch back and forth and compare them. The rimless are wonderfully
lightweight, but I gave up wearing them because they aren't so durable
and the mounting points have gotten loose and they shift positions too
much.
Another thought, what about contacts?
I have a old pair of zenni 4206 rimless, their site says they are 11
grams, my scale says 10 grams (with small oval lenses). I've also got
a pair of 4100 which they say are 12 grams, but my scale says 14
grams. Not to quibble over a gram or two, my scale probably isn't
that accurate, but the difference between the two IS noticable if I
switch back and forth and compare them. The rimless are wonderfully
lightweight, but I gave up wearing them because they aren't so durable
and the mounting points have gotten loose and they shift positions too
much.
Another thought, what about contacts?
Fred Di
Apr 29, 2008, 11:01:49 PM4/29/08
to GlassyEyes
It's just a matter of debating sense.
If your going to quote an authority,
the least you could do is quote one that actually supports your
position.
The same thing happened with Aviators,
Wikipedia said their populatiry faded out in the 80's
But the person refering to it, insisted that that proved they were
still popular today.
But that was settled when someone posted a link to Jeffery Dommer
wearing Aviators.
p.s. I use a special misspelling tool just to piss off IMQ.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
If your going to quote an authority,
the least you could do is quote one that actually supports your
position.
The same thing happened with Aviators,
Wikipedia said their populatiry faded out in the 80's
But the person refering to it, insisted that that proved they were
still popular today.
But that was settled when someone posted a link to Jeffery Dommer
wearing Aviators.
p.s. I use a special misspelling tool just to piss off IMQ.
ehb
Apr 30, 2008, 1:32:11 AM4/30/08
to GlassyEyes
On Apr 29, 11:01 pm, Fred Di <john_tar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's just a matter of debating sense.
> If your going to quote an authority,
> the least you could do is quote one that actually supports your
> position.
And if you are going to make blanket statements that AR coatings are
> It's just a matter of debating sense.
> If your going to quote an authority,
> the least you could do is quote one that actually supports your
> position.
strictly cosmetic please learn a bit more about lens materials, Abbe
values, and surface reflections and don't get so hung up on what
someone wrote in wikipedia, which is hardly an authority since ANYONE
can edit the articles.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages