[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] eyewear

Terry, thanks for this bit of advise. I really needed to hear it. I have
been thinking about getting the variable length, but have only gotten the
cheaper bifocals at this point, but am due for new ones. I try and keep the
cost down as my lenses also need to be the ultra thin kind because
otherwise they are too thick, thus the 4-eyed look.  Thanks a bunch.

Highlander

----------
> From: talford@juno.com
> To: kauzlar@madison.main.nc.us
> Cc: at-l@saffron.hack.net
> Subject: Re: [at-l] eyewear
> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 9:05 PM
> 
> Highlander,
> 
> I get glasses that have a variable length focus --not normal bifocals or
> trifocals.  The lower part of the glass has a short focal length for
> reading, and the upper part a near-infinite focal length.  Instead of
> moving your head, you just shift your eyes.  Works quite well, though it
> typically takes a few days to get used to.  When hiking, you glance
> downward with your eyes and the area around your feet is in focus,
> shifting your gaze upwardallows you to see clearly more distant objects. 
> This also works very well while driving (glance downward with eyes only
> to read the instruments, look straight ahead to see the road).  The only
> time I've noticed a problem is while lying on the floor on my back trying
> to watch TV, in which case its natural to look though the lower part of
> the glasses, which are at too short a focus to see the TV image clearly.
> ---terry---
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:51:39 -0400 "Alice Kauzlarich"
> <kauzlar@madison.main.nc.us> writes:
> >Were they bifocals, trifocals?  Now that'll add extra cost.  Then you 
> >have
> >to drop your chin to your chest to see the trail. I trip more since I 
> >have
> >bifocals (and need trifocals now).
> >
> >Highlander
> >
> >----------
> >> From: talford@juno.com
> >> To: at-l@saffron.hack.net
> >> Subject: Re: [at-l] eyewear
> >> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 12:16 AM
> >> 
> >> Following the recent thread on eyewear, and thought I'd offer the
> >> following thoughts.
> >> 
> >> I just got two new pairs of glasses, having gone about two years on 
> >my
> >> old set.  Cost was about $570 --- yikes.  One frame is titanium, the
> >> other mostly plastic.  I believe the titanium frames cost somewhere 
> >in
> >> the $75-$125 range -- in any case they were a bit more than my 
> >plastic
> >> frames and a bit less than a set of super flexible frames I also
> >> considered.
> >> 
> >> One pair of my new glasses has a a $60 treatment that allows the 
> >lens to
> >> darken with increasing light.  Works great -- to the point that I'm
> >> usually not even aware of the tint change  when going from bright
> >> sunlight into the office or even a movie theater or vice versa.  
> >This
> >> auto-adjusting tint technology has been around for many years, but
> >> apparently keeps getting better (quicker response and greater range 
> >of
> >> light-dark). You can order autotinting feature in different degrees, 
> >I
> >> just went with the default that my doctor suggested after telling 
> >him
> >> that I would be using them for both indoor and outdoor athletics, 
> >and am
> >> delighted with them.  The other pair of glasses that I bought has 
> >clear
> >> lenses.  Both have "full" UV protection and some sort of 
> >anti-scratch
> >> coating ($15 charge).  My doctor recommends wearing even the 
> >untinted
> >> glasses outdoors to protect the eyes from UV damage.  (To my 
> >knowledge
> >> there is no constant relationship between the darkness of glasses 
> >and the
> >> degree of UV protection.)  I don't know if contact lenses have 
> >similar UV
> >> protection.
> >> 
> >> Some years ago I tried extended wear contacts, mainly to avoid 
> >fogging
> >> problems when playing tennis in humid conditions.  I liked them, but
> >> found consistent practive of sterilized cleaning a slight 
> >imposition, and
> >> then I lost one when I went swimming, forgetting that I had them in 
> >at
> >> the time.  Since then I've only used glasses, which I also generally 
> >feel
> >> are more appropriate to trips of extended duration -- contacts would 
> >seem
> >> to require one to take precautions against eye infections when 
> >handling
> >> them in potentially unsanitary conditions.   I think titanium frames 
> >with
> >> autotinting shading, anti-scratch coating, and full UV protection 
> >would
> >> be a reasonable way to go, and would avoid the need to carry
> >> sunglasses/shades (which one should consider if wearing regular 
> >contacts
> >> -- especially in glaring conditions such as on open water, in the 
> >desert,
> >> on snow, etc. (of course skiiers are likely to wear tinted goggles
> >> anyway). Also, I concur with the message that someone posted 
> >earlier,
> >> suggesting the benefits of croakies to hold glasses in place.
> >> ---terry---
> >> 
> >> * From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info
> >http://www.hack.net/lists *
> >
> >
> * From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================