|
|
 |
01-06-2011, 07:46 PM
|
#1
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,267
|
glasses lens type? (aka: zenni optical questions)
So I'm about to order from Zenni for the first time, and I'm having a little trouble making a decision. Should I get the 1.50 Standard index, 1.57 Mid-index, or polycarbonate choice (+$9) worth it, for 1.59?
What's the difference between the lens indices? Is there any difference other than physical size/shape of the lens (as seen in their comparison picture)? The way I understand it, from optics, higher indices of refraction allow for less curvature, because the glasses "bend" light more - but with smaller frames doesn't this cause eye strain or fatigue or something?
If it helps, these glasses will primarily be used as backups to contacts, so generally indoor usage and computer usage only. Ideally I'd like something that causes the least amount of computer screen strain as possible, since it can be an issue for me when I wear glasses for extended periods of time.
TIA
__________________
Opportunities for abuse are what keep us going!
AnandTech Immoderator
Formerly known as Aflac
heat
|
|
|
01-06-2011, 08:27 PM
|
#2
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,716
|
If I recall correctly, the higher the index, the thinner the lens. Mainly for aesthetics, you'll look like a super nerd with low index and a high prescription.
But you really don't need low index unless you're as blind as I am, or worse. My eyes are -6.00, and the Kodak high index lenses I have (for $250; I wanted to support a small local store  ) are only as thick as the frames (3-4mm). I use to use mid-index and they weren's so bad.
If you're 1.59, not remotely worth it, especially for back-up use.
|
|
|
01-06-2011, 08:45 PM
|
#3
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,267
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp
If I recall correctly, the higher the index, the thinner the lens. Mainly for aesthetics, you'll look like a super nerd with low index and a high prescription.
But you really don't need low index unless you're as blind as I am, or worse. My eyes are -6.00, and the Kodak high index lenses I have (for $250; I wanted to support a small local store  ) are only as thick as the frames (3-4mm). I use to use mid-index and they weren's so bad.
If you're 1.59, not remotely worth it, especially for back-up use.
|
Oh, I think the numbers are referring to Zenni's index of refraction for the material they use. My prescription is -3.5/-2.25, so I'm pretty moderately nearsighted.
__________________
Opportunities for abuse are what keep us going!
AnandTech Immoderator
Formerly known as Aflac
heat
|
|
|
01-06-2011, 10:27 PM
|
#4
|
|
Administrator Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 40,290
|
As far as the difference in thickness, it depends on your prescription. Off the top of my head, I believe high index are advertised as "up to 42% thinner." But, for less corrective lenses, the difference is much less than that. Another problem with high index lenses is chromic aberration - which is the reason for some blurriness. In the case of the pair I had at one brief point, the farther from the center of the lens I was looking, the more blurry the object would appear. High index lenses are also slightly higher density, so it's not a perfect savings on the weight. High index lenses allow a lower percentage of the light through (80-something instead of 92ish according to one site I was on recently) - this is because glare is a much bigger problem with high index lenses. If you get them, then getting the anti-glare coating is a good idea.
That said, for some people, they're awesome; especially those with a strong prescription (according to that website I was on - either yesterday or this morning.) Also, the curvature can be changed on the lenses to help lessen the effects of the chromic aberration. And, as said, some people would prefer them simply because of aesthetic reasons.
|
|
|
01-06-2011, 10:35 PM
|
#5
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 3,277
|
I paid the extra $9 for the polycarbonate because it's more impact and scratch resistant than the regular lenses, and for $5 the anti-glare coating is pretty much a no-brainer. Even with titanium frames the glasses were still only ~$65 shipped.
__________________
"Mind your wants, 'cause there's someone that wants your mind." -George Clinton
|
|
|
01-06-2011, 11:56 PM
|
#6
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,606
|
I bought two pairs from zenni optical last year, same glasses, one with 1.67 index and one with 1.59,
Aesthetically they are of the EXACT same thickness...
I'm inclined to believe that they Do in fact use the same material since the customer would have no ability to test the lenses.
__________________
2500k | 4.8ghz | 1.33v
|
|
|
01-07-2011, 12:00 AM
|
#7
|
|
Lifer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 13,463
|
I bought the 1.59, total cost for single vision at the time with delivery $17.80. They are every bit as good as my $140.00 ones from Costco.
__________________
3570k @ 4.6 1.25v /MSI Z77A-GD65/Swiftech H220 /8GB Corsair Vengence DDR3 1600/Sapphire HD 7950 1100/1500 /Kingston SSDNow V300 120gb /Hitachi 1TB /Antec TP 650 New/HP ZR24W/Logitech Z5300/ Razer Deathadder/NZXT Phantom 630/Windows 7 Ultimate 64
RIP, John, my best friend Oct 17th 1966 - Nov 13th 2010
RIP, Victor, my dad, June 26th 1927 - April 13th 2011
|
|
|
01-07-2011, 12:04 AM
|
#8
|
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 3,277
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp4tissue
I bought two pairs from zenni optical last year, same glasses, one with 1.67 index and one with 1.59,
Aesthetically they are of the EXACT same thickness...
I'm inclined to believe that they Do in fact use the same material since the customer would have no ability to test the lenses.
|
Quoted for bullshit.
__________________
"Mind your wants, 'cause there's someone that wants your mind." -George Clinton
|
|
|
01-07-2011, 01:49 PM
|
#9
|
|
Administrator Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 40,290
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by qliveur
Quoted for bullshit.
|
He was complaining that they sent his last pair of glasses to the wrong address. He thought that someone there wrote the address on the box, rather than using a shipping label printed out from the information that HE typed in. I'm guessing that he simply has trouble filling out forms correctly.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.
|