Angus Rodgers
2009-06-23 08:42:30 UTC
I have been short-sighted for most of my life, and have worn
bifocals for many years, but in recent years (I'm 57) even my
close-up vision has deteriorated, to the point where my right
eye (which has always been the worse) cannot seem to focus on
anything either further (or nearer!) than about 8 inches away
(although with my left eye, I can still read easily at twice
that distance).
I got new varifocal glasses a week ago, and they correct well
for vision at all distances, but extended periods of close-up
work are still very difficult. When reading a book, I have to
hold it close to my chest, hold my head back, and peer through
the very small part of the lens with the strongest correction.
When working at the computer, I cannot use the keyboard and
mouse when sitting any further away than 30 inches, but even
when sitting as far away from the screen as that, I still have
to crane my neck (which is painful) and peer through the same
small part of the lens, with the strongest correction. Also,
neither a computer screen nor a book is ever wholly in clear
and steady focus. So, reading anything at all is a trial.
I'm trying to get my thoughts in order before going back to
the optician. They have a policy of offering you replacement
bifocals if you cannot get used to varifocals - but I don't
think the problem is really that I can't "get used to" the new
lenses. For most everyday tasks, they were fine right from the
start. The slight distortion of the field of view as objects
move from one part of the field to another has never caused me
anything more than faint disorientation (for objects close up,
it does make me a little nauseous), and the new lenses are a
definite improvement on my old ones.
Is the problem:
(1) that varifocals cannot correct vision as bad as mine well
enough to be used for long periods of close-up work; or
(2) that the area of strongest correction should have been
made larger?
For what it's worth, I think (2) is unlikely, because if the
region of strongest correction were enlarged, the lenses would
be almost like bifocals, and they probably wouldn't work as
well as they presently to for everything /except/ prolonged
close-up work.
So should I conclude that my eyes are just too bad now for me
to be able to make do with a single pair of spectacles, and I
should find out about getting a second pair to be used just
for reading? Of course, the final decision will be made in
consultation with the optician (and perhaps my GP and then
a hospital specialist, if things are really that bad), but
I wanted to try to make sure I'm thinking straight before I
try to talk to him about it, because I'm easily talked into
making bad choices.
bifocals for many years, but in recent years (I'm 57) even my
close-up vision has deteriorated, to the point where my right
eye (which has always been the worse) cannot seem to focus on
anything either further (or nearer!) than about 8 inches away
(although with my left eye, I can still read easily at twice
that distance).
I got new varifocal glasses a week ago, and they correct well
for vision at all distances, but extended periods of close-up
work are still very difficult. When reading a book, I have to
hold it close to my chest, hold my head back, and peer through
the very small part of the lens with the strongest correction.
When working at the computer, I cannot use the keyboard and
mouse when sitting any further away than 30 inches, but even
when sitting as far away from the screen as that, I still have
to crane my neck (which is painful) and peer through the same
small part of the lens, with the strongest correction. Also,
neither a computer screen nor a book is ever wholly in clear
and steady focus. So, reading anything at all is a trial.
I'm trying to get my thoughts in order before going back to
the optician. They have a policy of offering you replacement
bifocals if you cannot get used to varifocals - but I don't
think the problem is really that I can't "get used to" the new
lenses. For most everyday tasks, they were fine right from the
start. The slight distortion of the field of view as objects
move from one part of the field to another has never caused me
anything more than faint disorientation (for objects close up,
it does make me a little nauseous), and the new lenses are a
definite improvement on my old ones.
Is the problem:
(1) that varifocals cannot correct vision as bad as mine well
enough to be used for long periods of close-up work; or
(2) that the area of strongest correction should have been
made larger?
For what it's worth, I think (2) is unlikely, because if the
region of strongest correction were enlarged, the lenses would
be almost like bifocals, and they probably wouldn't work as
well as they presently to for everything /except/ prolonged
close-up work.
So should I conclude that my eyes are just too bad now for me
to be able to make do with a single pair of spectacles, and I
should find out about getting a second pair to be used just
for reading? Of course, the final decision will be made in
consultation with the optician (and perhaps my GP and then
a hospital specialist, if things are really that bad), but
I wanted to try to make sure I'm thinking straight before I
try to talk to him about it, because I'm easily talked into
making bad choices.
--
Angus Rodgers
Angus Rodgers