(Used to be -2.0, which was useful because I was able to get my mum to look through a +500mm objective lens (ie. +2.0D) to get an idea of what things looked like for me (I think she thought I was half-blind if I had to wear specs). Then superimposing my spectacles magically made things clearer again.
Oddly I now sometimes use +2.0 for close-up work..)
(Used to be -2.0, which was useful because I was able to get my mum to look through a +500mm objective lens (ie. +2.0D) to get an idea of what things looked like for me (I think she thought I was half-blind if I had to wear specs). Then superimposing my spectacles magically made things clearer again.
Oddly I now sometimes use +2.0 for close-up work..)
That is interesting. How come you have + to your prescription rather than the common-?
These days such high prescriptions can be rectified with implant/replacement internal lenses such as Artisan and Prelex lenses in addition to the much publicised Lasik treatment.
Not in all cases. I have incredibly poor vision from congenital cataracts but surgery is impossible due to nystagmus
In my 20's my eyesight was up in the -7's but has improved (without surgery, just naturally) to the -5's as I got older. So if you have poor eyesight in your teens/twenties, things may get better.
BTW as my eyesight has improved over the years, what would the point of laser surgery have been in my 20's? If it had been done, but my eyes *improve* naturally, would I now be +2 so requiring specs anyway, or does the laser treatment prevent worsening/improving??
My right eye is -10.75 & left eye -9.25 (roughly).
Just been to collect my new glasses with the up to date prescription in them today. Didn't bother having the lenses thinned down as I wear contact lenses most the time & glasses are just to put on once I take them out in order to still see whilst getting ready for bed, etc.
Specsavers if you're on the lens mail offer you thinned down for cheaper. I have a strong prescrpition and wear lenses like yourself
That is interesting. How come you have + to your prescription rather than the common-?
How does it work?
Short-sighted people use negative powers; those who are long-sighted use positive ones (where the lens is fatter in the middle).
(My prescription is -2.5 for distance, and there is also -1.0 or so for intermediate (eg. for a computer screen). At my age my eyes no longer automatically adjust their focus, so I need different powers depending on how far away things are.
For reading a book, I don't need specs at all (+0.0). But for anything much closer than about 10 inches, I just use off-the-shelf specs with positive lenses, such as +2.0; they are not prescribed. Effectively, they are just magnifying glasses)
Mostly for glasses/ contacts wearers I guess but open to anyone who knows their eyesight degree
Mine is around -9.75 iirc one eye is better than the other though (prob -9.50)
Pretty bad
what's yours?
Mine's exactly as yours!:eek::( us varifocals) I'm 55 and have always been shortsighted - in my 40s I need the varifocals prescription too. Last year I had to have 4 repairs to my right eye due to retinal detachments from being so shortsighted & they have told me to be aware of my left eye too as it's weak.:rolleyes::(
My glasses cost me £500 + as i Iike Zeiss lens being I wear them all day, every day and theyre lighter on the nose! In fact if I take one lair off I can't see where I've put them so I have to keep an old pair in a place I know incase I can't see where I've put the ones I've taken off. I prefer reading with this, my iPhone near to my eyes rather than put my glasses on to read.
I'm due any day to treat myself, from money I've had from birthdays etc to a new pair.
Oh I do get a free £10 eyesight check & £30 off my £500/600 specs. Better than nothing but it does annoy me at times.
Mine was -10 until I developed cataracts. As a result of the implants used in the surgery they went down to -1.5! Good result from the NHS - although possibly could have been even better.
I've no idea, I just hand over my prescription when I need new glasses, I've never bothered reading it first. I have a general pair for every day use and a pair for reading as I couldn't get the hang of varifocals. I hardly ever wear the general pair and tend to wear the reading glasses all the time as I can see better with them as I'm nearly always reading something or other and it was too much of a struggle with my ordinary specs, couldn't read info on packets when shopping and that sort of thing.
+4.5 left eye
+5.5 right eye
Long sighted.
I also have rugby ball shaped eyes and they don't make contact lenses for eyes that shape for this prescription, so lenses don't give me as good vision as glasses do.
I have my lenses thinned [specsavers] and I have two pairs of specs. One for distance and one for reading.
I tried varifocals but even with thinned lenses they made my eyes look like those of a bushbaby holding up a magnifying glass.
I would like varifocals if I could have lenses that didn't make my eyes look huge.
Maybe an optician other than specsavers could give me those, I dunno.
I haven't had a check for laser treatment but I think lens replacement is the advised option for those of us with long sight.
Laser treatment is better for short sight - or so I'm told.
But its all so blimmin expensive.
Short-sighted people use negative powers; those who are long-sighted use positive ones (where the lens is fatter in the middle).
(My prescription is -2.5 for distance, and there is also -1.0 or so for intermediate (eg. for a computer screen). At my age my eyes no longer automatically adjust their focus, so I need different powers depending on how far away things are.
For reading a book, I don't need specs at all (+0.0). But for anything much closer than about 10 inches, I just use off-the-shelf specs with positive lenses, such as +2.0; they are not prescribed. Effectively, they are just magnifying glasses)
I am short sighted with astigmatism, and when I lived in another Country, my prescription was always +.
When in the UK it became - .
What I find interesting was that my vision was much much better corrected with a + prescription. I have really struggled with all - prescriptions.
I wonder if there are any Opticians who might be able to shed the light?
I am short sighted with astigmatism, and when I lived in another Country, my prescription was always +.
When in the UK it became - .
What I find interesting was that my vision was much much better corrected with a + prescription. I have really struggled with all - prescriptions.
Did your eyesight change, or was it just a different convention?
I know my optician talked about the strength of my lenses as thought they were positive, although the written form was negative, which was confusing.
Technically, a lens which is thicker in the middle, like a magnifying glass, has a positive focal length (eg. +400mm as used for telescope or camera lenses), and the power is +2.5 Diopters (1000mm/400mm). Those which are thinner in the middle would therefore have negative powers.
(Hold your specs up a foot in front of your face: if they make things bigger, even if fuzzy, then they'll be positive; if smaller, then negative. And if you rotate them and the image distorts, you probably have astigmatism too!)
Comments
(Used to be -2.0, which was useful because I was able to get my mum to look through a +500mm objective lens (ie. +2.0D) to get an idea of what things looked like for me (I think she thought I was half-blind if I had to wear specs). Then superimposing my spectacles magically made things clearer again.
Oddly I now sometimes use +2.0 for close-up work..)
i got contacts when i was 17
_6.50 _7.00
Lucky!
That is interesting. How come you have + to your prescription rather than the common-?
How does it work?
+ implys far sightedness and - is the far more common near sightedness.
I am +5.00 on the left and +5.50 on the right.
Can't see a thing without my glasses.
BTW as my eyesight has improved over the years, what would the point of laser surgery have been in my 20's? If it had been done, but my eyes *improve* naturally, would I now be +2 so requiring specs anyway, or does the laser treatment prevent worsening/improving??
Yep I'm about the same as you.
Specsavers if you're on the lens mail offer you thinned down for cheaper. I have a strong prescrpition and wear lenses like yourself
oh my god somebody with a worse eye sight that me!
I am about -11.5 in each eye
I was 3. :eek:
-5, -6 now.
Short-sighted people use negative powers; those who are long-sighted use positive ones (where the lens is fatter in the middle).
(My prescription is -2.5 for distance, and there is also -1.0 or so for intermediate (eg. for a computer screen). At my age my eyes no longer automatically adjust their focus, so I need different powers depending on how far away things are.
For reading a book, I don't need specs at all (+0.0). But for anything much closer than about 10 inches, I just use off-the-shelf specs with positive lenses, such as +2.0; they are not prescribed. Effectively, they are just magnifying glasses)
Mine's exactly as yours!:eek::( us varifocals) I'm 55 and have always been shortsighted - in my 40s I need the varifocals prescription too. Last year I had to have 4 repairs to my right eye due to retinal detachments from being so shortsighted & they have told me to be aware of my left eye too as it's weak.:rolleyes::(
My glasses cost me £500 + as i Iike Zeiss lens being I wear them all day, every day and theyre lighter on the nose! In fact if I take one lair off I can't see where I've put them so I have to keep an old pair in a place I know incase I can't see where I've put the ones I've taken off. I prefer reading with this, my iPhone near to my eyes rather than put my glasses on to read.
I'm due any day to treat myself, from money I've had from birthdays etc to a new pair.
Oh I do get a free £10 eyesight check & £30 off my £500/600 specs. Better than nothing but it does annoy me at times.
and astigmatism of 1 and 1.50
I did not even wore glasses/lenses till i was 20, why i became so short sighted all of a sudden seems to baffle the doctors.
+5.5 right eye
Long sighted.
I also have rugby ball shaped eyes and they don't make contact lenses for eyes that shape for this prescription, so lenses don't give me as good vision as glasses do.
I have my lenses thinned [specsavers] and I have two pairs of specs. One for distance and one for reading.
I tried varifocals but even with thinned lenses they made my eyes look like those of a bushbaby holding up a magnifying glass.
I would like varifocals if I could have lenses that didn't make my eyes look huge.
Maybe an optician other than specsavers could give me those, I dunno.
I haven't had a check for laser treatment but I think lens replacement is the advised option for those of us with long sight.
Laser treatment is better for short sight - or so I'm told.
But its all so blimmin expensive.
I am short sighted with astigmatism, and when I lived in another Country, my prescription was always +.
When in the UK it became - .
What I find interesting was that my vision was much much better corrected with a + prescription. I have really struggled with all - prescriptions.
I wonder if there are any Opticians who might be able to shed the light?
Did your eyesight change, or was it just a different convention?
I know my optician talked about the strength of my lenses as thought they were positive, although the written form was negative, which was confusing.
Technically, a lens which is thicker in the middle, like a magnifying glass, has a positive focal length (eg. +400mm as used for telescope or camera lenses), and the power is +2.5 Diopters (1000mm/400mm). Those which are thinner in the middle would therefore have negative powers.
(Hold your specs up a foot in front of your face: if they make things bigger, even if fuzzy, then they'll be positive; if smaller, then negative. And if you rotate them and the image distorts, you probably have astigmatism too!)