Home > Archive > Vision > February 2006 > Re: Unlined trifocal vs. progressive





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: Unlined trifocal vs. progressive
Robert Martellaro

2006-02-27, 12:56 pm

On 24 Feb 2006 17:18:38 -0800, kecctime@aol.com wrote:

>Thanks. Ok. My doctor said with my prescription I could get a single
>vision lens and take the glasses off to read OR get a
>bifocal (which I assume would be distant on the upper and near on
>the lower portion of the lens) OR that I could get a trifocal OR a
>progressive lens which would incorporate near, intermediate and
>distant. My intermediate vision - from about two feet out to six
>feet or so- seems to bother me the most. To cover this intermediate
>area I think I would have to get a trifocal or a progressive lens.
>Right?


No way to know for sure with the information provided. In general, if the add
power is below +1.75, the vision at 32" should be clear through the distance
portion of a multifocal lens, and blurred if the add is above +1.75.

>Some optical shops here advertise a no-line bifocal, but if I
>understand what you are saying, it is really just a progressive lens.


Right.


Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
robopt@execpc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
- Niels Bohr
Copyright 2003 - 2008 pahealthsystems.com