So, I'm at that difficult age - my natural short sightedness, for which I've worn contacts for 30 years, is now being further undermined by not being able to see close up with my lenses in, so I occasionally have to use reading glasses.
After a weird* eye check up today, they are giving me one normal strength lens so I can see distance and one weak lens to see close up. If that doesn't suit, my eye is apparently the perfect shape for varifocal contact lenses. At 2-3 times the price of my normal ones.
Anyone use them and can give me an opinion about them please?
*It was just weird. If I try to explain why, it will just sound weirder than weird. Or maybe it was just me.
They're pretty good, they work, but don't expect them to give you quite as clear vision as your regular ones for distance.
There is a compromise as you would imagine.
Edit- did the optician ask you to take your top off or something?
Lol - only my glasses
I've got a pair on trial at the moment, I've only worn them a couple of days, and I'm not entirely convinced.
The left seems ok, but the right, my weakest eye, doesn't really work for close or distance vision.
This may be a flaw in that lens, so I'll see what happens in a couple of weeks when I go back for a checkup.
I'm coming to the conclusion that, for my eyesight at least, the extra cost per month outweighs any advantage they might give.
I tried them and really didn't get on. After the third or fourth 'sample', I'd had enough and went back to specs. Shame really as they would have been better for both cycling a skiing, basically, there seemed to be more guesswork involved in getting the right combination and each time there was still too much compromise - both in looking at the monitor at work and driving.
But, there's no reason they won't work for someone else, just not for me. I believe there is more compromise than with specs, but that may be manageable for you
I tried stronger lens distance/weaker lens reading regime but struggled in poor light, especially reading maps on my phone. Optician recommended Acuvue multifocal - only ones that are any good in her opinion. I've been using them for 6 months. -2.25 for distance and L (+1.25) for reading. As comment above, not perfect - I can read better without any lenses but I can read with these when I couldn't before. 40% discounts available on t'web.
they are giving me one normal strength lens so I can see distance and one weak lens to see close up
I went for this back in July, after wearing varifocal specs for a few years. Had never used contacts before. Works surprisingly well for me, distance vision isn't as good as with the specs but still good enough for riding and driving. And now I can see close up too, which is great for map-reading on the bike (I have been known to do some MTBO).
Not tried varifocal contacts, so can't comment on those, but definitely worth giving these things a chance.
Long sighted have +2.25 in on eye and +0.50 in other, works fine for me. Changed to [url= http://www.acuvue.com/products-acuvue-oasys-hydraclear ]These [/url] lenses way better than my previous lenses, helps with my dry eyes.
I'm short sighted and I've used variofocal contact soft lenses for years since my eyes started having difficulty reading with normal contacts in. One has been made slightly weaker than the other to help with close vision. They've worked fine for me but as I'm getting older they are getting in the way of my close vision more especially in poor light. To the OP I'd say give them a try it may put off the time you have to use glasses 100% for a few years.
I have long distance in one eye and reading in the other. It works great for me most of the time. But I have a condition which gives me double vision and it has more or less eliminated that too. I can now hit a tennis ball reasonably well (when playing tennis). But I guess it's a bit late to turn pro at my age.
Been using them (dailies) for a few years. As previously stated, it's a compromise. Distance and near are both "OK" - at least I can read - but not as clear as glasses. Bizarrely, when I spend time in the south of France, they seem dramatically better. I couldn't fathom it and wondered if it was due to the drier atmosphere but my Optician feels it's due to the better light and this seems to make sense. They're worse on cloudy winter days (or reading with brightness turned down on iPad to a level that wouldn't cause problems with glasses. Also trail riding, I can't pick out detail with as much clarity, especially in a sheltered woodland setting (again, probably light related). Overall, I'm not overly impressed, but they're ok if you hate wearing glasses (or out and about and want to wear non-prescription sunglasses). They can get more blurred if I start producing tears from the breeze on my eyes on the bike, but that's not unique to variofocals and more of a contact lens thing in general. I spend a lot of time writing and tend to use glasses for that.
Strong light makes your pupils smaller so (like the aperture on a camera lens) the depth of field is greater and much more is in focus.
That's why opticians dim the light in an eye test.
Been using them for 10 months, different strengths in different eyes (near, left; far, right).
Took some getting used to - particularly as the prescription took some tweaking and I'd not used contacts before.
Now sorted and love them. Only time I struggle is reading in low-light at night before bed, so I just take them out (monthlies - but have worn them overnight on bothy trips etc).