Considering contact lenses

[Dante_Stella]

To say that RGP lenses "take some getting used to" is an understatement; it's two weeks of having the worst hay fever imaginable. That said, that was when I was 13, and it's been decades now.

The soft contacts are without a doubt more comfortable and less prone to the occasional "glass in your eye" feeling that you can get with RGP. But it seems that almost every year, an optometrist gives me a trial pair of the latest and greatest, and they all glare badly at night, slip during the day, and never nail the astigmatism. They are also hard as hell to get out of your eyes and don't stand up to any but the most ginger handling.

In sum on RGP:

(+) way better vision, esp mild astigmatism
(+) can be cleaned with any surfactant in a pinch
(+) easy to take in and out
(+) one pair can last for more than a year
(+) cannot dry out and have a shelf life of forever
(+) can be laser etched for the right lens
(+) do not get inside out

(-) learning curve for acclimatizing
(-) have to be cleaned daily
(-) occasional serious pain from dust
(-) inexperienced doctors can miscompute them
(-) they are all ground by hand and take 2 weeks to get

Dante

Monovision is great especially if you have astigmatism. There are multi-focal contact lenses that correct astigmatism also, but these are generally more expensive - later this year there should be a new soft contact lens that corrects both astigmatism and your near vision (called Biofinity Multifocal Toric, which replace an older general contact lens that is not very good). I've been told they should come out later this year, but sometimes their predictions aren't always right.

Gas permeable contact lenses, or "hard/ridged lenses" are more difficult to get used to but if you have mild astigmatism than its likely that the GPs can mask this and you can get multi-focals this way. GPs also generally afford you better near and distance VA. I generally find that patients are much happier with the multi-focal contact lenses compared to mono vision. Some eye doctors are either just lazy or don't think the Multi-focals work and stick everyone in mono vision. The biggest advantage of the multi focals is that you are using both eyes for distance and near, thus keeping your depth or stereo vision in tact. When you disassociate the eyes like in mono vision you will un-doubtladly lose some depth perception.

If you really want to be in contact lenses, there is pretty much an option out there for everyone. Your doctor just needs to be familiar with those options to suggest them to you. There are also a myriad of "hybrid" lenses (soft skirt with GP center) that are really the best of both worlds. Scleral lenses are also becoming more and more popular as materials change. As I said, these options all depend on your doctor. If you are in Chicago, you could go to the optometry school in the Chicago and they will probably have all of these options available. Also, I'm am positive there are contact lens specialty practices in Chicago that also would be able to assist you with these more "specialty" options.

Regardless, there are not many options that you should really wear 24/7 all day/everyday. You are setting yourself up for worse vision and potential eye issues. Sleeping in your contact lenses every now and again is one thing, sleeping in them and not taking them out for 30 is whole other ball of wax.

There are also diopters that you can get for your camera that have the astigmatism built in. Just go to your optometrist and tell them exactly what you want and they should be able to help you.

 

[Trius]

When I wore contacts it was always RGP (recently - started with hard in the early days) and I got really good scripts that dealt with my astigmatism.

But even though care and handling were much easier than soft lenses, as Dante summarizes, I find regular spectacles enough better that I've gone back. Both pairs (sunglasses and clear) use Zeiss material and their best coating and are progressive. The sunglasses are polarized.

I'm very happy with both but need a diopter for the X-Pro and have a bit of difficulty with the CL.

 

[Tom Parkes]

I wear contacts for long sightedness. With them I can see through a DSLR viewfinder just fine and a rangefinder very comfortably. I have to squint a bit to see the actual camera though! A Hoodman is useful for critical viewing of the LCD. For people who find their eyes drying out, there are moisturising drops suitable for use with contact lenses and my optician even recommended a drop on the inside surface of the lens before putting it in the eye.

 

[Rob-F]

I read somewhere that with a d/SLR you are focusing on the ground glass, which is very near, and with a RF you are focusing at the actual distance that the patch is highlighting... not sure if it's true or not...

In many cameras, including Leica RF and Nikon, the finder image is presented at a virtual distance of 1M. And that is the reason for the built-in correction of 0.5 or 1.0 diopter: Most people will see best at that distance with a slight correction.

Nikon diopters are labeled as to the resulting effect taking into consideration the -1.0 default (I am using a -2.0 labeled diopter which is actually a -1.0 for a total of -2.0). Leica seems to have a -0.5 default and the correction lenses are labeled as actual (I am using a -1.5 which gives me a total of -2.0).

Yes, Nikon makes it simple: you just order the diopter that has the same power as your glasses or contacts. You should just forget that you know the finder also gets a diopter power of its own. (I thought I remembered that Nikon uses a -0.5 diopter. But no matter--since we don't need to take it into account).

 

[jkjod]

To say that RGP lenses "take some getting used to" is an understatement; it's two weeks of having the worst hay fever imaginable. That said, that was when I was 13, and it's been decades now.

The soft contacts are without a doubt more comfortable and less prone to the occasional "glass in your eye" feeling that you can get with RGP. But it seems that almost every year, an optometrist gives me a trial pair of the latest and greatest, and they all glare badly at night, slip during the day, and never nail the astigmatism. They are also hard as hell to get out of your eyes and don't stand up to any but the most ginger handling.

In sum on RGP:

(+) way better vision, esp mild astigmatism
(+) can be cleaned with any surfactant in a pinch
(+) easy to take in and out
(+) one pair can last for more than a year
(+) cannot dry out and have a shelf life of forever
(+) can be laser etched for the right lens
(+) do not get inside out

(-) learning curve for acclimatizing
(-) have to be cleaned daily
(-) occasional serious pain from dust
(-) inexperienced doctors can miscompute them
(-) they are all ground by hand and take 2 weeks to get

Dante

Dante - I'm not sure how old you are so I don't want to jump to conclusions here...but its been more than 20 years since you tried "hard lenses," you can't really make the same conclusions about today's RGP's. In fact, they weren't even gas permeable then.

Hard lenses some time ago were made out of PMMA, which (not exaggerating here) allowed 0% oxygen transmission to your eye. Todays materials are more oxygen permeable than any soft contact lens out there. They also wet better, last longer than the old PMMA materials. PMMA was terrible, but it was the only option at the time. If GPs today feel like the worst hay fever you have ever experienced, they aren't fit correctly. They also aren't hand ground anymore - the lathes in the labs are so precise now you can add nearly infinite amounts of curves/adjustments to them. You can also get them in a few days.

They aren't the best option for everyone, thats for sure. But a very valuable tool (and sometimes the only option) for certain corneas or refractive issues.

 

[TXForester]

Setting aside the photography issue, I'd go with contacts that you take out at night. You won't know till you start wearing them if you will have problems.

I like contacts, but I find by the end of the day the contacts are drying out. The rewetting solution just doesn't do the job for me like letting the lenses soak in the cleaning solution over night. You may be the same. However most doctors will give you a trial pair to wear for one or two weeks to see how you like them. Whatever type of contact and prescription you go with, get the trial pair first. Then if you have problems, the doc can change prescriptions, brands etc. before you buy six months or a years worth of lenses.

 

[Keith]

For people who have mentioned discomfort with contacts this is usually caused by insufficient moisture coming from the tear ducts. Vitamin B6 is your friend here!

 

[Dante_Stella]

Dante - I'm not sure how old you are so I don't want to jump to conclusions here...but its been more than 20 years since you tried "hard lenses," you can't really make the same conclusions about today's RGP's. In fact, they weren't even gas permeable then.

Hard lenses some time ago were made out of PMMA, which (not exaggerating here) allowed 0% oxygen transmission to your eye. Todays materials are more oxygen permeable than any soft contact lens out there. They also wet better, last longer than the old PMMA materials. PMMA was terrible, but it was the only option at the time. If GPs today feel like the worst hay fever you have ever experienced, they aren't fit correctly. They also aren't hand ground anymore - the lathes in the labs are so precise now you can add nearly infinite amounts of curves/adjustments to them. You can also get them in a few days.

They aren't the best option for everyone, thats for sure. But a very valuable tool (and sometimes the only option) for certain corneas or refractive issues.

You are making some assumptions. 🙂 I got Bostons in 1987 or 1988. They were always RGPs. The "two weeks" I was writing about is the never-had-contacts to having contacts mode, and from what they told me back then, it's because your eyelids "adjust," which I take to mean "toughen."

Never had a discomfort issue with new pairs since. A couple of miscomputed pairs that slipped or had the wrong correction, but that is easy to remedy.

I can't comment directly on how they are made except that every optometrist has given disclaimers on account of their being made manually and has used that as the reason why they have to be checked and rechecked after they arrive. The delivery time is what it is. My only point was that if you lose one, you're not walking into an optical shop and walking out with a replacement.

Dante

 

[Ken Ford]

Some fantastic info here - I have an appointment with my ophthalmologist, and will see what she has to say about the matter for me.