Mike Hughes
pfm Member
Have always adored the misuse of 20/20. Literally means you have bang average vision. You can see at 20m what others can see at 20m. When the 1st of those 2 numbers is higher then there’s something to talk about.
Glasses
- Thread starter Neil P
- Start date
Have always adored the misuse of 20/20. Literally means you have bang average vision. You can see at 20m what others can see at 20m. When the 1st of those 2 numbers is higher then there’s something to talk about.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
And anyway, it's 6/6 nowadays, isn't it? I think when I was young, I was >12/6 and this persisted until I was about 40.
Mike Hughes
pfm Member
Varies depending on who you see; their age and sometimes even the physical space they have to assess. My hospital still uses 20 and explained to me that it simply allows for more grading. My variations between 12/20, 15/20 and so on are much harder to represent over 6.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Sorry, I meant that it has gone metric - in some circles at least. 20' is 6m.
Mike Hughes
pfm Member
Europe has largely moved to 6 whereas the USA is still 20. However, as above, it depends. There is no NHS standard. A CVI will record 6/12 whilst a prescription might record the logrithmic version. The origin of your consultant etc. is certainly an influence.
For the last 60 years average for me was a dream! Long sight in both, very long in the right eye.
PaulMB
pfm Member
If I were you I would try and not wear specs for as many activities as possible, and then concentrate on what you need specifically. I don't think any kind of "varifocals" can be an all-round solution. Also, some people just do not tolerate them and find themselves adopting strange postures to look through one part of the lenses or the another.
I would go to a good optician, talk to them about what you feel you need. Getting a "prescription" in one place and then ordering online seems a bit haphazard; there are so many personal idiosyncracies involved.
gez
pfm Member
How are you defining cheap lens? I think we're talking at cross purposes here. By cheap I'm meaning low quality, because ultimately a low quality lens will always end up cheaper than a high quality one. I suspect by cheap you are just referring to the final price to the consumer.
Let's leave out the complexity of where the lens is sourced as that's only confusing the issue. All other things being equal, there are only three things that determine the price of a lens:
a) accuracy of the shape of the lens - this takes time and effort and so is a significant element to the cost
b) the refractive index of the material used - higher indexes lead to thinner lenses. Thinner lenses are more expensive, because the materials are more expensive. They're not optically superior but they are for a lot of people aesthetically so, which adds further to their price.
c) coatings - there are various coatings that can be applied. They all cost money. One can argue about one coating being better than another and whether it's worth the extra cost, but let's ignore that for now.
Those are the facts. The problem for the purchaser is in the main a). Some outlets just don't provide lenses that are of good quality with respect to their accuracy. Because getting a) right is expensive, presuming b) and c) are the same the lens will be cheaper. It's primarily these "cheaper" lenses that chain companies sell.
The advantage of going to an independant optician over a chain is that you are far more likely to get the option to get an accurately ground lens, something that just isn't possible from a chain outlet. It's not possible because chain outlets are focused on providing the cheapest glasses to people that they can and that by definition means they will always use cheaper less accurate lenses.
On top of all that, you have online providers, which just like anything that's sourced online allows people the oportunity to save money by getting high quality lenses significantly cheaper than would be available from any physical optician. This is nothing new, it's just the economy of online vs high street and is the same for all products.
Irrespective of where you source your lenses there are brands that'll always be higher quality than others. The benefit of online is that it brings the cost of those high quality brands down significantly. Zeiss, Essilor, Nikon* are all considered to be the among the best lens manufacturers in the world. After that you have the likes of Hoya etc. Then you have the "no name" brands of which there are many and are whom the likes of specsavers will use because they're cheap.
Ultimately though, there is no getting away from the fact that a high quality lens will always be a more expensive lens. You simply cant get around the fact that lens accuracy requires time, effort and precision to achieve and all of that costs money. How much a given lens ends up costing to the final consumer varies hugely depending on the chain between manufacturer and consumer. Any outlets with a physical premisis will always be more expensive than an online source.
*I'm referring specifically to spectacle lens manufacturers here, there are other very high quality lens manufacturers who make lenses for telescopes, microsopes etc who are of equal or better quality than the likes of Zeiss et al but just don't make spectacle lenses.
As for your "up sell" and testing points. Well they are fair assumptions but in my case, they're wrong. Both specsavers and the independant did the same tests for visual field of view etc. The only extra test the independant did was a retinal picture (which yes I'm fully aware isn't anything to do with ascertaining a prescription). Yet the lens I got from specsavers was poorly ground, because as above, they're cheaply sourced and so will never be ground to the same precision as other brands.
As for the up sell point, I chose the independant I did, specifically because I had done my own research and decided I wanted Zeiss lenses and they confirmed that they could provide them. So they didn't "up sell" the more expensive lenses to me, I went to them knowing what I wanted to purchase.
I can't speak to the Boots prices. My Zeiss lens distance glasses came to £240. The frames were £40, the coatings (plural) £40 per lens and the rest the base Zeiss price, i.e. £60 per lens. This was admittedly just before the pandemic.
Let's leave out the complexity of where the lens is sourced as that's only confusing the issue. All other things being equal, there are only three things that determine the price of a lens:
a) accuracy of the shape of the lens - this takes time and effort and so is a significant element to the cost
b) the refractive index of the material used - higher indexes lead to thinner lenses. Thinner lenses are more expensive, because the materials are more expensive. They're not optically superior but they are for a lot of people aesthetically so, which adds further to their price.
c) coatings - there are various coatings that can be applied. They all cost money. One can argue about one coating being better than another and whether it's worth the extra cost, but let's ignore that for now.
Those are the facts. The problem for the purchaser is in the main a). Some outlets just don't provide lenses that are of good quality with respect to their accuracy. Because getting a) right is expensive, presuming b) and c) are the same the lens will be cheaper. It's primarily these "cheaper" lenses that chain companies sell.
The advantage of going to an independant optician over a chain is that you are far more likely to get the option to get an accurately ground lens, something that just isn't possible from a chain outlet. It's not possible because chain outlets are focused on providing the cheapest glasses to people that they can and that by definition means they will always use cheaper less accurate lenses.
On top of all that, you have online providers, which just like anything that's sourced online allows people the oportunity to save money by getting high quality lenses significantly cheaper than would be available from any physical optician. This is nothing new, it's just the economy of online vs high street and is the same for all products.
Irrespective of where you source your lenses there are brands that'll always be higher quality than others. The benefit of online is that it brings the cost of those high quality brands down significantly. Zeiss, Essilor, Nikon* are all considered to be the among the best lens manufacturers in the world. After that you have the likes of Hoya etc. Then you have the "no name" brands of which there are many and are whom the likes of specsavers will use because they're cheap.
Ultimately though, there is no getting away from the fact that a high quality lens will always be a more expensive lens. You simply cant get around the fact that lens accuracy requires time, effort and precision to achieve and all of that costs money. How much a given lens ends up costing to the final consumer varies hugely depending on the chain between manufacturer and consumer. Any outlets with a physical premisis will always be more expensive than an online source.
*I'm referring specifically to spectacle lens manufacturers here, there are other very high quality lens manufacturers who make lenses for telescopes, microsopes etc who are of equal or better quality than the likes of Zeiss et al but just don't make spectacle lenses.
As for your "up sell" and testing points. Well they are fair assumptions but in my case, they're wrong. Both specsavers and the independant did the same tests for visual field of view etc. The only extra test the independant did was a retinal picture (which yes I'm fully aware isn't anything to do with ascertaining a prescription). Yet the lens I got from specsavers was poorly ground, because as above, they're cheaply sourced and so will never be ground to the same precision as other brands.
As for the up sell point, I chose the independant I did, specifically because I had done my own research and decided I wanted Zeiss lenses and they confirmed that they could provide them. So they didn't "up sell" the more expensive lenses to me, I went to them knowing what I wanted to purchase.
I can't speak to the Boots prices. My Zeiss lens distance glasses came to £240. The frames were £40, the coatings (plural) £40 per lens and the rest the base Zeiss price, i.e. £60 per lens. This was admittedly just before the pandemic.
gez
pfm Member
My vision (corrected) is 20/15
gez
pfm Member
I think it still depends on where you go. I had a vision issue about two years ago and was refered to a specialist consultant in a hostpital. When they tested my eyesight there they were using a 20 chart.
I've had 2 pairs of varifocals (that I wear for everything) from glasses direct. Perfect both times. I can't see what extra value or benefit I get from buying at specsavers or an independent optician. I think they're just profiteering. And glasses direct do a no-quibble 60 day return, so what's to lose?
Spike
pfm Member
And is only used in USA. It’s 6/6 in UK.
Spike
pfm Member
I’ve spent a fortune over the years on glasses ie frames and lenses. In the whole I believe you get what you pay for. Over the last 10 years I’ve only bought Persol frames. Absolutely love them. Coupled with Zeiss and Nikon lenses both single vision and varifocal.
Although I go to Vision Express I consider their service exemplary. They have various ownership models although that may change with their acquisition by Luxottica. (Who just about own every brand of mainstream frames and sunglasses, except Silhouette)
I make sure I have my eyes checked by the “owner” and fitted by the manager (happens to be wife of the “owner”). Indeed, she saw I was due my checkup and sent a number of frames she thought I’d like! That’s the service I want.
As Steve said I’d never get varifocals off the internet.
Although I go to Vision Express I consider their service exemplary. They have various ownership models although that may change with their acquisition by Luxottica. (Who just about own every brand of mainstream frames and sunglasses, except Silhouette)
I make sure I have my eyes checked by the “owner” and fitted by the manager (happens to be wife of the “owner”). Indeed, she saw I was due my checkup and sent a number of frames she thought I’d like! That’s the service I want.
As Steve said I’d never get varifocals off the internet.
Last edited:
The big difference in lens quality is the coatings. These cut glare and can also increase the refractive index slightly, allowing for thinner lenses: important if like me you need a strong prescription.
Optically, there's not a lot of difference between the cheap and expensive coatings, but there is if you talk about robustness. The last pair of glasses I ever bought from Specsavers had the coating chip off then in less than a year. I went to an independent after that, paid about 5-10% more for the lenses, but they lasted until I aged out of the perscription.
For those missing Pentax lenses, they are now branded as Hoya: the parent company of Pentax was acquired by Hoya in the early 2000s. Hoya kept the prescription lens division but the Pentax camera business was sold to Ricoh around 2012 or so; I don't know where the medical imaging part of the company went (although those who know the exact type of medical imaging Pentax specialised in could tell you where it goes!)
Essilor, the biggest lens maker, merged with Luxottica, by far the biggest frame maker (Armani, Ray-Ban, Prada, etc, etc) a couple of years ago, so choice has diminished a little, even from the independents.
Optically, there's not a lot of difference between the cheap and expensive coatings, but there is if you talk about robustness. The last pair of glasses I ever bought from Specsavers had the coating chip off then in less than a year. I went to an independent after that, paid about 5-10% more for the lenses, but they lasted until I aged out of the perscription.
For those missing Pentax lenses, they are now branded as Hoya: the parent company of Pentax was acquired by Hoya in the early 2000s. Hoya kept the prescription lens division but the Pentax camera business was sold to Ricoh around 2012 or so; I don't know where the medical imaging part of the company went (although those who know the exact type of medical imaging Pentax specialised in could tell you where it goes!)
Essilor, the biggest lens maker, merged with Luxottica, by far the biggest frame maker (Armani, Ray-Ban, Prada, etc, etc) a couple of years ago, so choice has diminished a little, even from the independents.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
I'd crash when getting out of bed without spec's, Paul.
Depends if your frames are circular ! I've had varifocals for so long now I can't remember. They used to be high index glass (high price) Zeiss or whatever but a few years ago I discovered that plastic lenses, and especially the coatings, had come a long way from when I tried then in the early nineties; cheaper and lighter than glass too.
I was born with glasses and have had most types but not bifocals. I found, playing tennis with my new single vision spec's, that coordination with the connecting racquet to hurtling ball was a bit hit 'n' miss (!) but returning to v-focals sorted it. Also, they help me read the car's instrument s (not poss. with single vision).
A decade or so back I thought it'd be clever to have separate reading and distance high index glass spec's but it wasn't. Far too confusing. Varifocals (and I have Specsavers' top ones) are poor for my desktop and it's much more comfy to take my glasses off to read, which I've been doing for well over a decade. My dad did this, so maybe it's genetic !!!!!
I was gutted about 15 years go when my sight measurement came down marginally below that magic NHS number of -10 and I lost that handy £30 or whatever towards the price. I went out and got blind drunk but it didn't restore the status quo ante, unfortunately.
I heard of a chap in the fifties who always wore two monocles. He didn't realise that he was making a spectacle of himself !
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
I have varifocals. Have had them for about 8 years now. I discovered recently that if I wear 1.75 readers over the top I can read even more easily. I now walk round the house wearing two pairs of glasses looking like those blokes on the repair shop. The other day I walked out of the living room to find my readers and by the time to the kitchen I had forgotten why I’d left the living room. I’m 52. There is no hope for me now. I am old.
Marchbanks
Hat and Beard member
Did you then discover your readers had in fact been perched on your nose all the time you had been hunting for them? No? Ha! Still some way to go yet, then!
Last edited:
gez
pfm Member
Oh gosh, don't talk to me about forgetting to wear glasses. I've now got to the age where no one set of glasses is ever going to cope with the fact that my eyes can no longer focus over the range of distances they once could (this is totally normal aging issue that starts in mid/late 40's and doesn't settle till around the mid/late 50's - in most people). What this means is that, because I'm unwilling to wear highly compromised varifocals, I have a set of distance glasses (which is what I've worn since I was 13), and a set of reading glasses, (which ironically I very rarely use). In the past my eyes were flexible enough to be able to keep my distance glasses on all the time, and have no problems using a computer or making the breakfast etc, everything would be sharp as a pin. These days with my distance glasses on I can no longer focus on distances closer than about 1m, meaning I have now gotten in to the habit of not wearing them around the house most of the time, and only wear them to watch TV while I'm at home. What this has led to is me leaving the house, getting in my car and driving about half way down my street before I realised that I wasn't wearing my distance glasses, on at least two occassions. Oh the joy.
NB: I bought the reading glasses because I wanted to be able to read restaurant menu's etc, but since I got them I think my vision has changed a bit so I'm now able to cope with typical menu sized fonts. What I can't read is the typical tiny writing you often get on the side of medication etc. or for example the "specs" stamped on the side of a USB charger. For those things I need my reading glasses, but how often does one actually need to read such things? Personally, practically never.
NB: I bought the reading glasses because I wanted to be able to read restaurant menu's etc, but since I got them I think my vision has changed a bit so I'm now able to cope with typical menu sized fonts. What I can't read is the typical tiny writing you often get on the side of medication etc. or for example the "specs" stamped on the side of a USB charger. For those things I need my reading glasses, but how often does one actually need to read such things? Personally, practically never.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
You sight may come back to a certain extent in later life but that ain't so for the brain !
