bi-focals vs cheaters

Got a card saying it's time for my annual eye check, and the insurance buys
one pair of glasses/ year

I'm tempted to get bi-focal polaroids ...

BUT

I fear they will increase my, already well developed, ability to trip and
fall while trying to watch the river and walk at the same time

If you use bi-focals fishing .... reports? suggestions ?

"Larry L" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Got a card saying it's time for my annual eye check, and the insurance
buys
one pair of glasses/ year

I'm tempted to get bi-focal polaroids ...

BUT

I fear they will increase my, already well developed, ability to trip and
fall while trying to watch the river and walk at the same time

If you use bi-focals fishing .... reports? suggestions ?



Stick to clip on flip ups, or wraparounds.

TL
MV

"Larry L" wrote
If you use bi-focals fishing .... reports? suggestions ?

I've been wearing bi-foggies for 4-5 years now, usually
with clipons....when I fish.

But I recently bought a pair of Julbo Glacier glasses
(sunglasses with clipon leather side shades), popped
the lenses out, and had perscription poloroids made.

I had them make the closeup lenses tiny, so I can
only use them to tie knots--when the fly is held down and
right in front of my nose.

The regular lenses I had optimised for distance.
I can't read a computer screen with those glasses on,
but I can read the numbers off a license plate two
blocks away....or see a blue winged olive on windy
day.....like never before.

Best piece of fishing tackle I now own.
Should have done it 5 years ago.

That sounds good.

I'm asking around trying to find a different eye doctor ... the guy I have
just doesn't "get it" that I don't CARE if I can't use glasses for anything
but fishing ... I want to see that BWO or midge emerger AND I want to be
able to tie it on first G ... and I want to not trip on everything not in
sight because it's blurred by the glasses I don't care if I have to drive
to the fishing using different specs Doc, honest

btw, you can get side shields separately .... but I used glacier glasses
( on glaciers g ) mountaineering when I was young and the shields make a
huge difference in eye strain by the end of the day

I hadn't thought of having a tiny close spot on the lens, it would surely
make the tripping less likely .... not sure my current eyevet would get with
the program, but I'll ask

Oh, I have tied up some o-cell foam nymphs and look forward to trying them.
I have more trouble handling the o-cell than floating foam, seems to want to
tear and compress far too much, maybe I'm using the wrong kind

..

Charlie Wilson wrote:
"Snoop" wrote:

Snoop (Who's been wearing bifocals since the age of 10)



You should damn well be used to them after 75 years.

You little whipper snapper. I am.

Snoop



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Charlie Wilson wrote:

I got the fancy schmancy transitional kind with no lines. The only
advantage is they don't make you look like a fifty-something geek who needs
bifocals, the disadvantage is a very small area on the glass where
everything is in perfect focus, which causes a lot of head bobbing trying to
find the "sweet spot".

I had a pair of the no-line bifocals when they first came out, like 15 years
ago? They were great. No distortion, everything was in focus. They were the
next best thing to no glasses at all. But, my prescription changed eventually
and, when I tried the next pair, they didn't work. Every four or 5 years I try
them again to no avail. They've "new and improved" them so much I can't wear
them anymore. I need trifocals but have made due with bifocals with the lower
section set for reading and the computer screen. They don't work well for tying
on flies. So, I had a pair of prescription Action Optics made with the lower
section set for close work. They work pretty well but are heavy and expensive.
My next pair of glasses will probably be tri's and I'll buy some fit-overs.

Snoop




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Ok, anybody here gone the Lasik route ? Am a bi-foal wearer and am in the
process
of deciding if it worth it when in the end I will need reading classes for
close work
(it can't correct presbyopia ) anyway.

??
--
Jeff;
Kamchatka http://home.teleport.com/~salmo/K2000/
NFS http://www.nativefishsociety.org


"Snoop" wrote in message ...
Charlie Wilson wrote:
"Snoop" wrote:

Snoop (Who's been wearing bifocals since the age of 10)



You should damn well be used to them after 75 years.

You little whipper snapper. I am.

Snoop



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:12:29 GMT, "jlp" wrote:


Ok, anybody here gone the Lasik route ? Am a bi-foal wearer and am in the
process
of deciding if it worth it when in the end I will need reading classes for
close work
(it can't correct presbyopia ) anyway.

I've not done it, but know a lot of people who have and they all are
happy with the results. The 'older' ones do need reading glasses for
up close. I've also heard about folks who have had one eye done for
distance and one for close up, but don't actually know anyone who has.
--
Charlie...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:12:29 GMT, "jlp" wrote:


Ok, anybody here gone the Lasik route ? Am a bi-foal wearer and am in
the
process
of deciding if it worth it when in the end I will need reading classes
for
close work
(it can't correct presbyopia ) anyway.

I've not done it, but know a lot of people who have and they all are
happy with the results. The 'older' ones do need reading glasses for
up close. I've also heard about folks who have had one eye done for
distance and one for close up, but don't actually know anyone who has.
--
Charlie...

Actually, you do! I had my dominant eye lasiked to correct for
near-sightedness and left my other eye alone. I have very functional vision
at all distances and do not have to wear correctional lenses to read, either
near or far. However, I do not have really clear, concise focus at any
distance. For fly tying and other detailed work I wear prescription
cheaters. I keep threatening to have the other eye lasiked, but I know that
if I do, I'll have to wear glasses for reading. Maybe not such a bad thing.

Danl

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:51:29 -0800, "Danl"
wrote:

Actually, you do!

Interesting. I've toyed with the idea of Lasik, but still don't know.
I'm fairly happy with contacts but I was getting frustrated over the
past year on how bad my close-up vision was becoming. It turns out
that my vision had actually improved slightly and my prescription was
too strong. (it went from -7.50 and -7.00 to -7.00 and -6.50 g) Now
I still need glasses for extreme close up work, but I can read just
fine without them.
--
Charlie...