Multivision contact lens advice. Any opticians in?
Discussion
I am on a trial for multivision lenses. I'm trying Acuvue Oasys Max.
Now, my glasses prescription is +2left +2.50Right and then an additional +1 for close reading. I have verifocal glasses and they are fine.
My lenses to date have been +2.25 in both eyes to make everything easier.
Now, I have been given +2 Add 1.75 multivision lenses.
The close up is perfect, very happy, but the distance is out of focus.
Have I been given the wrong ones? I asked the optician and he said something about the brain and working out whats what, but in my layman mind, I should have something more like +2 add 1?
Has anyone got experience of this or any opticians shed light on the difference and if it will / can improve. I was told there is a trade off and I may need to live with the out of focus distance
Now, my glasses prescription is +2left +2.50Right and then an additional +1 for close reading. I have verifocal glasses and they are fine.
My lenses to date have been +2.25 in both eyes to make everything easier.
Now, I have been given +2 Add 1.75 multivision lenses.
The close up is perfect, very happy, but the distance is out of focus.
Have I been given the wrong ones? I asked the optician and he said something about the brain and working out whats what, but in my layman mind, I should have something more like +2 add 1?
Has anyone got experience of this or any opticians shed light on the difference and if it will / can improve. I was told there is a trade off and I may need to live with the out of focus distance
Multifocal lenses do take a bit of time to adapt to, they work on presenting your brain with distance and near images and letting it sort out which one it wants.
In theory what you are on should be the best choice as Acuvue are the only one of the big contact lens manufacturers who design their multifocals differently depending on whether you have a shortsighted presciption or are longsighted like yourself as often longsighted people have smaller puplis and will find in more difficult to get images from both the distance and near parts of the lens.
I'd probably try not to do it with keeping both eyes the same give the full correct distance prescription and then try low adds in both eyes first as most people don't want to compromise on distance vision but if the reading isn't good enough then go for a medium add in your non dominant eye.(if they can get trial lenses Acuvue have real issues with supplying lenses)
If that doesn't work worth having a go with a different make as often one make works better than the other
Stick with it and hopefully you can find something that works.
Helen
In theory what you are on should be the best choice as Acuvue are the only one of the big contact lens manufacturers who design their multifocals differently depending on whether you have a shortsighted presciption or are longsighted like yourself as often longsighted people have smaller puplis and will find in more difficult to get images from both the distance and near parts of the lens.
I'd probably try not to do it with keeping both eyes the same give the full correct distance prescription and then try low adds in both eyes first as most people don't want to compromise on distance vision but if the reading isn't good enough then go for a medium add in your non dominant eye.(if they can get trial lenses Acuvue have real issues with supplying lenses)
If that doesn't work worth having a go with a different make as often one make works better than the other
Stick with it and hopefully you can find something that works.
Helen
HelenT said:
Multifocal lenses do take a bit of time to adapt to, they work on presenting your brain with distance and near images and letting it sort out which one it wants.
In theory what you are on should be the best choice as Acuvue are the only one of the big contact lens manufacturers who design their multifocals differently depending on whether you have a shortsighted presciption or are longsighted like yourself as often longsighted people have smaller puplis and will find in more difficult to get images from both the distance and near parts of the lens.
I'd probably try not to do it with keeping both eyes the same give the full correct distance prescription and then try low adds in both eyes first as most people don't want to compromise on distance vision but if the reading isn't good enough then go for a medium add in your non dominant eye.(if they can get trial lenses Acuvue have real issues with supplying lenses)
If that doesn't work worth having a go with a different make as often one make works better than the other
Stick with it and hopefully you can find something that works.
Helen
Thanks Helen. An optician by chance? I'll stick with them a while longer then. Like you say, I probably would prefer better long distance and slightly less close up. The close up is VERY good and could tail off a bit to gain better distance. I'm Cirencester, if anyone is close In theory what you are on should be the best choice as Acuvue are the only one of the big contact lens manufacturers who design their multifocals differently depending on whether you have a shortsighted presciption or are longsighted like yourself as often longsighted people have smaller puplis and will find in more difficult to get images from both the distance and near parts of the lens.
I'd probably try not to do it with keeping both eyes the same give the full correct distance prescription and then try low adds in both eyes first as most people don't want to compromise on distance vision but if the reading isn't good enough then go for a medium add in your non dominant eye.(if they can get trial lenses Acuvue have real issues with supplying lenses)
If that doesn't work worth having a go with a different make as often one make works better than the other
Stick with it and hopefully you can find something that works.
Helen
JABB said:
Thanks Helen. An optician by chance? I'll stick with them a while longer then. Like you say, I probably would prefer better long distance and slightly less close up. The close up is VERY good and could tail off a bit to gain better distance. I'm Cirencester, if anyone is close
Yes and multifocal lens wearer! I took interest in this thread when first posted.
I've been a contact lens wearer for 40 years, and the last couple of years I'd started to struggle reading things closer (I use a monitor all day) and my optician suggested getting 1 x multiplication reading glasses for close up stuff, which worked, but possibly too well as they gave me a headache if I wore them for too long.
I had my yearly eye test/contact lens check last week and mentioned to the optician about the glasses doing this to me, and what about multi vision lenses as an option (which I'd seen mentioned here)
She suggested altering my current prescription (was L +2.50 and R+1.75) to see if that helps, whilst telling me my brain would need to adapt to seeing different feild of vison in each eye, as opposed to combined. Well, I think thats what she was saying anyway!
So, she gave me some pairs to try at L +2.75 and R +3.00 and they've really helped.
Anyway, thanks for starting this topic
I've been a contact lens wearer for 40 years, and the last couple of years I'd started to struggle reading things closer (I use a monitor all day) and my optician suggested getting 1 x multiplication reading glasses for close up stuff, which worked, but possibly too well as they gave me a headache if I wore them for too long.
I had my yearly eye test/contact lens check last week and mentioned to the optician about the glasses doing this to me, and what about multi vision lenses as an option (which I'd seen mentioned here)
She suggested altering my current prescription (was L +2.50 and R+1.75) to see if that helps, whilst telling me my brain would need to adapt to seeing different feild of vison in each eye, as opposed to combined. Well, I think thats what she was saying anyway!
So, she gave me some pairs to try at L +2.75 and R +3.00 and they've really helped.
Anyway, thanks for starting this topic
MattS5 said:
I took interest in this thread when first posted.
I've been a contact lens wearer for 40 years, and the last couple of years I'd started to struggle reading things closer (I use a monitor all day) and my optician suggested getting 1 x multiplication reading glasses for close up stuff, which worked, but possibly too well as they gave me a headache if I wore them for too long.
I had my yearly eye test/contact lens check last week and mentioned to the optician about the glasses doing this to me, and what about multi vision lenses as an option (which I'd seen mentioned here)
She suggested altering my current prescription (was L +2.50 and R+1.75) to see if that helps, whilst telling me my brain would need to adapt to seeing different feild of vison in each eye, as opposed to combined. Well, I think thats what she was saying anyway!
So, she gave me some pairs to try at L +2.75 and R +3.00 and they've really helped.
Anyway, thanks for starting this topic
I'm getting there. They have reduced my main prescription from 2.25 to 1.75 and have done a +1 for reading. It's not perfect but it is working. Close up is perfect. Distance less so, but I am sticking with itI've been a contact lens wearer for 40 years, and the last couple of years I'd started to struggle reading things closer (I use a monitor all day) and my optician suggested getting 1 x multiplication reading glasses for close up stuff, which worked, but possibly too well as they gave me a headache if I wore them for too long.
I had my yearly eye test/contact lens check last week and mentioned to the optician about the glasses doing this to me, and what about multi vision lenses as an option (which I'd seen mentioned here)
She suggested altering my current prescription (was L +2.50 and R+1.75) to see if that helps, whilst telling me my brain would need to adapt to seeing different feild of vison in each eye, as opposed to combined. Well, I think thats what she was saying anyway!
So, she gave me some pairs to try at L +2.75 and R +3.00 and they've really helped.
Anyway, thanks for starting this topic
I tried both varifocal and multi-focal lenses. All hopeless IMO. I ended up describing them as "never-focal". Whether they work better for people at lower prescriptions I cannot say.
For me, soft toric lenses have been the best outcome. I have right lenses at a standardised power and various left lenses at different powers - so a play on the "mono-focal" approach, which at its simplest means one eye set for distance and the other for close work. With a choice of different lenses I can find a good solution for, say, a football match (high power left lens) or dinner out where I need to read the menu (lower power left lens).
And there's a cash bonus as well, torics being cheaper.
For me, soft toric lenses have been the best outcome. I have right lenses at a standardised power and various left lenses at different powers - so a play on the "mono-focal" approach, which at its simplest means one eye set for distance and the other for close work. With a choice of different lenses I can find a good solution for, say, a football match (high power left lens) or dinner out where I need to read the menu (lower power left lens).
And there's a cash bonus as well, torics being cheaper.
Panamax said:
I tried both varifocal and multi-focal lenses. All hopeless IMO. I ended up describing them as "never-focal". Whether they work better for people at lower prescriptions I cannot say.
For me, soft toric lenses have been the best outcome. I have right lenses at a standardised power and various left lenses at different powers - so a play on the "mono-focal" approach, which at its simplest means one eye set for distance and the other for close work. With a choice of different lenses I can find a good solution for, say, a football match (high power left lens) or dinner out where I need to read the menu (lower power left lens).
And there's a cash bonus as well, torics being cheaper.
HelenT? What are your thoughts on this?For me, soft toric lenses have been the best outcome. I have right lenses at a standardised power and various left lenses at different powers - so a play on the "mono-focal" approach, which at its simplest means one eye set for distance and the other for close work. With a choice of different lenses I can find a good solution for, say, a football match (high power left lens) or dinner out where I need to read the menu (lower power left lens).
And there's a cash bonus as well, torics being cheaper.
I use Pure Vision 2 lenses which are -7.0 low and -6.0 with no adjustment and that works well for me. Previously if I just used both lenses without the adjustment I couldn't read anything in low light without reading glasses but now I can, and I can see distance just fine too. Not as razer sharp if I leave out the adjustment but it's worth the trade off for me.
I don't understand how multifocal contacts work though - magic perhaps?!
I don't understand how multifocal contacts work though - magic perhaps?!
JABB said:
HelenT? What are your thoughts on this?
Works really well especially with daily lenses where you can have a few of the strength that you use the least, useful to have a few stronger ones in the car for night driving. Everything is a compromise and just finding the one which works best for you.Interested in this as I first tried multi focals back in 2015 and just couldn't see far or close.
It was like seeing a 3D film at the cinema without the 3D specs.
Maybe the tech has moved on in nearly a decade?
I've tried the mono vision approach but just can't get on with that either and certainly wouldn't drive in that situation.
I'm quite shortsighted -5.75 and -5.5, so I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
It was like seeing a 3D film at the cinema without the 3D specs.
Maybe the tech has moved on in nearly a decade?
I've tried the mono vision approach but just can't get on with that either and certainly wouldn't drive in that situation.
I'm quite shortsighted -5.75 and -5.5, so I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
Panamax said:
I tried both varifocal and multi-focal lenses. All hopeless IMO. I ended up describing them as "never-focal". Whether they work better for people at lower prescriptions I cannot say.
For me, soft toric lenses have been the best outcome. I have right lenses at a standardised power and various left lenses at different powers - so a play on the "mono-focal" approach, which at its simplest means one eye set for distance and the other for close work. With a choice of different lenses I can find a good solution for, say, a football match (high power left lens) or dinner out where I need to read the menu (lower power left lens).
And there's a cash bonus as well, torics being cheaper.
May I ask which your master eye is?For me, soft toric lenses have been the best outcome. I have right lenses at a standardised power and various left lenses at different powers - so a play on the "mono-focal" approach, which at its simplest means one eye set for distance and the other for close work. With a choice of different lenses I can find a good solution for, say, a football match (high power left lens) or dinner out where I need to read the menu (lower power left lens).
And there's a cash bonus as well, torics being cheaper.
Sixsixtysix said:
I use Pure Vision 2 lenses which are -7.0 low and -6.0 with no adjustment and that works well for me. Previously if I just used both lenses without the adjustment I couldn't read anything in low light without reading glasses but now I can, and I can see distance just fine too. Not as razer sharp if I leave out the adjustment but it's worth the trade off for me.
I don't understand how multifocal contacts work though - magic perhaps?!
Purevision has 3 zones near, intermediate and distance so the strength of the lens changes from the centre outwards, works on a combination of pupil size (your pupil constricts when you read so you get more central reading portion) but also by your brain selecting the correct image so yes a bit of magic.I don't understand how multifocal contacts work though - magic perhaps?!
HelenT said:
Works really well especially with daily lenses where you can have a few of the strength that you use the least, useful to have a few stronger ones in the car for night driving. Everything is a compromise and just finding the one which works best for you.
Helen - yes, in just two sentences you've encapsulated the whole situation. It's a world of compromise. I'd hoped that varifocal/multi-focal might have been a good compromise but eventually found that, for me, a more rudimentary approach delivered better results. I entirely recognise that different people in different situations might choose a different compromise. It's wonderful to have so many choices these days, albeit a bit of a faff having to work though them.Panamax said:
Helen - yes, in just two sentences you've encapsulated the whole situation. It's a world of compromise. I'd hoped that varifocal/multi-focal might have been a good compromise but eventually found that, for me, a more rudimentary approach delivered better results. I entirely recognise that different people in different situations might choose a different compromise. It's wonderful to have so many choices these days, albeit a bit of a faff having to work though them.
You soon learn as an Optician it's about managing expectations to start with, you might need to put on a pair of reading specs for very tiny stuff or switch a light on but the last thing I'd give up on is my contact lenses despite having an unlimited choice of frames to choose from.HelenT said:
...the last thing I'd give up on is my contact lenses despite having an unlimited choice of frames to choose from.
Indeed. Some people choose laser correction surgery and I'm sure it can be great. On the other hand, from my perspective, why take a risk you don't need to take, especially since you'll still eventually need glasses as the years go by.I've recently been intrigued by the possibility of "elective cataract surgery" - to similar effect. And again, it appears you can choose how you want your starting point to be set.
I've just started a trial. Normal prescription is right eye (my dominant one) -5.75 and left -5.50 (51 years old).
Have been given -5.75 (low add) right eye and -4.50 (low add) left eye to trial.
I questioned why -4.50 in the left eye not -5.50 but the person fitting them didn't seem 100% sure; possibly that it was a sort of blended mono-vision i.e. left eye to have better near focus and right to have better distance.
So far, a few hours in, I'm quite pleased with things. I can see (no pun intended) that it takes a bit of getting used to, but I definitely have better close up vision than I had with my old standard lenses - I can use my phoen whilst wearing contacts again, for example. Distance is pretty sharp in the right eye, but somewhat blurry in the left. Conversely, near vision is better in the left (although still pretty good in the right). Definitely going to persevere.
My only complaint is that I don't like the feeling of my left eye being 'underpowered' so my question is, do I have to have my left eye prescription reduced by 1.0D, or can I just have my normal prescription in both (accepting that my near vision will then not be as good)? Also, is there a disadvantage to having medium, rather than low add (I presume that there's a loss of distance acuity)?
Have been given -5.75 (low add) right eye and -4.50 (low add) left eye to trial.
I questioned why -4.50 in the left eye not -5.50 but the person fitting them didn't seem 100% sure; possibly that it was a sort of blended mono-vision i.e. left eye to have better near focus and right to have better distance.
So far, a few hours in, I'm quite pleased with things. I can see (no pun intended) that it takes a bit of getting used to, but I definitely have better close up vision than I had with my old standard lenses - I can use my phoen whilst wearing contacts again, for example. Distance is pretty sharp in the right eye, but somewhat blurry in the left. Conversely, near vision is better in the left (although still pretty good in the right). Definitely going to persevere.
My only complaint is that I don't like the feeling of my left eye being 'underpowered' so my question is, do I have to have my left eye prescription reduced by 1.0D, or can I just have my normal prescription in both (accepting that my near vision will then not be as good)? Also, is there a disadvantage to having medium, rather than low add (I presume that there's a loss of distance acuity)?
chemistry said:
I've just started a trial. Normal prescription is right eye (my dominant one) -5.75 and left -5.50 (51 years old).
Have been given -5.75 (low add) right eye and -4.50 (low add) left eye to trial.
I questioned why -4.50 in the left eye not -5.50 but the person fitting them didn't seem 100% sure; possibly that it was a sort of blended mono-vision i.e. left eye to have better near focus and right to have better distance.
So far, a few hours in, I'm quite pleased with things. I can see (no pun intended) that it takes a bit of getting used to, but I definitely have better close up vision than I had with my old standard lenses - I can use my phoen whilst wearing contacts again, for example. Distance is pretty sharp in the right eye, but somewhat blurry in the left. Conversely, near vision is better in the left (although still pretty good in the right). Definitely going to persevere.
My only complaint is that I don't like the feeling of my left eye being 'underpowered' so my question is, do I have to have my left eye prescription reduced by 1.0D, or can I just have my normal prescription in both (accepting that my near vision will then not be as good)? Also, is there a disadvantage to having medium, rather than low add (I presume that there's a loss of distance acuity)?
I'd probably have started with full distance and low add in both eyes ,but depends on what the reading addition is in your spectacle prescription is, but reading is more difficult in contact lenses than glasses when you are short sighted because of the optics of spectacle lenses helps on reading. If the reading wasn't good enough I'd probably go medium in the non dominant eye or change to a completely different make but worth trying to adapt before chopping and changing and think of the eyes as a pair and don't spend too much time thinking about what each eye is doing individually.Have been given -5.75 (low add) right eye and -4.50 (low add) left eye to trial.
I questioned why -4.50 in the left eye not -5.50 but the person fitting them didn't seem 100% sure; possibly that it was a sort of blended mono-vision i.e. left eye to have better near focus and right to have better distance.
So far, a few hours in, I'm quite pleased with things. I can see (no pun intended) that it takes a bit of getting used to, but I definitely have better close up vision than I had with my old standard lenses - I can use my phoen whilst wearing contacts again, for example. Distance is pretty sharp in the right eye, but somewhat blurry in the left. Conversely, near vision is better in the left (although still pretty good in the right). Definitely going to persevere.
My only complaint is that I don't like the feeling of my left eye being 'underpowered' so my question is, do I have to have my left eye prescription reduced by 1.0D, or can I just have my normal prescription in both (accepting that my near vision will then not be as good)? Also, is there a disadvantage to having medium, rather than low add (I presume that there's a loss of distance acuity)?
JABB said:
May I ask which your master eye is?
If I've understood correctly my right eye is my master eye and is always set for distance.For the left eye I have various power disposables including full power and lenses backed off at 1.0 (for most mixed purposes) and 1.5 (for grey italic print on grey paper in dimly lit restaurants).
I should say I don't do much serious reading in contact lenses. It's easier to wear single focus specs (distance) and just push them down my nose for reading.
HelenT said:
I'd probably have started with full distance and low add in both eyes ,but depends on what the reading addition is in your spectacle prescription is, but reading is more difficult in contact lenses than glasses when you are short sighted because of the optics of spectacle lenses helps on reading. If the reading wasn't good enough I'd probably go medium in the non dominant eye or change to a completely different make but worth trying to adapt before chopping and changing and think of the eyes as a pair and don't spend too much time thinking about what each eye is doing individually.
Thanks for the reply; very helpful!I'm on day 2 now and am still pleased overall with the performance (I realise it's early days). I believe the lenses are clariti 1 day multifocal from CooperVision.
Near vision is pretty good - more than acceptable for 90% of tasks and miles better than with my 'plain' contacts. Lighting makes a noticeable difference, with best near vision performance in low light (which is as expected I believe, as the near focus section is optimised for a smaller pupil?). My eyes seem less tired too, presumably from not having to work so hard to try to focus up close.
My only 'complaint' is that I still feel a bit unbalanced at the moment, with the distance vision in my left eye being noticeably worse (due to being 1D less than my normal prescription) than my right, although the trade off is better near vision in that eye. At my follow-up I think I'll ask to try my usual prescription in both eyes with low ass as you suggest, and if that doesn't work, perhaps the medium add in the left that you highlighted. Might also ask to try an alternative brand/design, just for comparison.
Overall though, I'm pleasantly surprised so far. As a solution for weekends/holidays that would allow me to drive, read, and most tasks in between I think that even as currently prescribed, they would work relatively well.
I'll stick with my current trial, but certainly think that I'll be sticking with multifocals in some capacity.
Thanks for all the advice
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff