# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Are high-index aspheric 1.67 lenses worth the extra money?

## dave191

I'm trying to decide whether or not $70 high-index aspheric 1.67 lenses are worth 
the extra money.

My prescription:

Right:
sphere: -3.250
cylinder: -0.750
axis: 172

Left:
sphere: -1.500
cylinder: -0.250
axis: 180

I went to Costco today to get some eyeglasses. The guy selling the glasses 
was pushing for the $70 1.67 lenses. He said that the right lens will look 
REALLY thick if I get the $20 regular plastic lenses. He said that since 
the frames I brought in were kind of big lengthwise, the thickness of the 
right lens would really stand out. Going on his advice, I got the 1.67 
lenses. 

After a couple of hours, I started having second thoughts about getting the 
more expensive lens. I wasn't too sure if the 1.67 lenses were worth the 
extra $50. I postponed my order for now on the phone so that I could make a 
more intelligent decision. Now I'm trying to decide between regular plastic 
lenses (CR-39, I think) and high-index 1.67 lenses.

I plan on getting lenses for the following glasses. The size of the frame 
is 50-18-140

http://tinyurl.com/b3dyo

I don't know how thick the right lens will end up looking. I plan on getting the 
lenses rolled & polished, so that should reduce the thickness a bit. Based 
on the prescription above, will the right lens look like a Coke bottle in 
the frame I brought in? $50 is a big chunk of change for me, and I need to 
decide if that money should be used for the thinner, more expensive lenses.

----------


## slaboff

I would go with polycarbonate or 1.6 high index.... 1.67 is overkill

----------


## dave191

Will the high index affect optical quality? 

I was thinking of going with one of the following options:

1.50 CR-39
1.53 Trivex
1.54 Sola Spectralite

If the difference in thickness isn't significant & the prices are high, I'll probably go with the cheaper option (CR-39.)

----------


## Jedi

One way to balance the thickness is by having the lenses surfaced. The lab can increase the thickness on the weaker eye to match the edge thickness of the stronger eye. 1.67 is probably overkill, but having a lens surfaced can also increase the price so it is a toss up between the two.

----------


## GOS_Queen

I'm curious as to how much wear time you anticipate?  

If they are going to be "backup to contacts" ... I'd  say that a 1.67 in a 50 eye size frame in that Rx is _not_ warrented.  

If you are wearing them full time, I'd recommend poly or spectralite.  

I personally don't recommend 1.67 until the Rx reaches 5 diopters.  

Karen   :Nerd:

----------


## shellrob

On the 3 that you've mentioned, Trivex would be my choice. Also Polycarbonate and 1.60 high Index would be fine also.


Also, I agree with the post about having them surfaced, less noticable difference between the 2 than if they are a stock lens.

----------


## drk

> One way to balance the thickness is by having the lenses surfaced. The lab can increase the thickness on the weaker eye to match the edge thickness of the stronger eye. 1.67 is probably overkill, but having a lens surfaced can also increase the price so it is a toss up between the two.


Now I'm going astray...

Jedi, by optimizing the cosmetics of aniso prescriptions by adding CT to less minus lenses, do you know that you are increasing the difference in image size between the two eyes?  Do you find that an acceptable trade-off (in the real world, not ivory-tower world)?

----------


## Jedi

> Now I'm going astray...
> 
> Jedi, by optimizing the cosmetics of aniso prescriptions by adding CT to less minus lenses, do you know that you are increasing the difference in image size between the two eyes?  Do you find that an acceptable trade-off (in the real world, not ivory-tower world)?


Drk, 
I can't really say without knowing the actual difference in image size between a surfaced and stock lens. If someone could provide me with a way to determine this differnce I would be very interested.

----------


## drk

I meant by varying CT you vary "Spectacle Magnfication" via the "shape factor".  Formulas are a pain to type out, and this is a long one. 

I don't think it's a big deal, if you add 1 mm or so.

----------


## For-Life

Interesting to see a Cosco Optician jump right into the 1.67.

----------


## dave191

I changed my Costco order to CR-39 lenses with polished edges. They said they used to offer roll & polish, but now they only polish the edges. Hopefully, the lenses won't look too thick. I'm okay with them being a little thick, as long as it isn't too noticable.

----------


## dave191

> I'm curious as to how much wear time you anticipate?  
>  Karen


I wear my glasses primarily when driving and using my computer (I don't do both at the same time, of course ;).) I wear them a lot when going out, but rarely wear them at home.

----------


## dave191

> Interesting to see a Cosco Optician jump right into the 1.67.


Yeah, the salesperson always suggested the 1.67 first. When I changed my order to CR-39 plastic, he tried to persuade me to stay with the 1.67 lenses. After that, I said I just wanted regular plastic, and the order was changed; no problem at all. Nice guy; I guess it's just his job to push for the 1.67 lenses first.

----------


## shellrob

I wonder why they don't roll and polish and just polish. What did they say was their reasoning?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I changed my Costco order to CR-39 lenses with polished edges. They said they used to offer roll & polish, but now they only polish the edges. Hopefully, the lenses won't look too thick. I'm okay with them being a little thick, as long as it isn't too noticable.*


You did the right thing. CR39 is the closest plastic to glass lenses. High index are pushed by opticians because they are more expensive and more profitable.

----------


## Happylady

I agree that 1.67 is probably overkill for a -3.25, but that price is REALLY cheap. Does the $70.00 include the non glare coat? I don't recommend 1.67 without it, the higher index lenses have more glare without it then cr-39.

I think that Costo keeps their prices down by not using lots of different lenses. I think they use plastic, poly, and 1.67 and the only progressive my local Costco uses is Ovation.

For $70.00 I don't think you can go wrong with 1.67(with a anti reflective) but I agree that poly or 1.6 would also be fine. Regular plastic is fine, but it just won't be as thin. For me, I like thin lenses, they go on the face after all.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> One way to balance the thickness is by having the lenses surfaced. The lab can increase the thickness on the weaker eye to match the edge thickness of the stronger eye. 1.67 is probably overkill, but having a lens surfaced can also increase the price so it is a toss up between the two.


Jedi,


Using 1.67 index, +5BC and 1.0CT the magnification is -.3%. Increasing the thickness to 2mm gives -.6%. 

Regards

----------


## dave191

> I wonder why they don't roll and polish and just polish. What did they say was their reasoning?


I didn't ask why they don't roll the lenses anymore. The salesperson just said they don't do that anymore, and I just left it at that. Roll & polish was $18 when it was offered. The current polish only option costs $9.99.

----------


## dave191

> I agree that 1.67 is probably overkill for a -3.25, but that price is REALLY cheap. Does the $70.00 include the non glare coat? I don't recommend 1.67 without it, the higher index lenses have more glare without it then cr-39.
> 
> I think that Costo keeps their prices down by not using lots of different lenses. I think they use plastic, poly, and 1.67 and the only progressive my local Costco uses is Ovation.
> 
> For $70.00 I don't think you can go wrong with 1.67(with a anti reflective) but I agree that poly or 1.6 would also be fine. Regular plastic is fine, but it just won't be as thin. For me, I like thin lenses, they go on the face after all.


No, the $70 doesn't include the non-glare coat. That costs an additional $29.99. Yeah, I read somewhere that non-glare coating can improve optical quality on higher index lenses. 

The 1.67 lenses are definitely cheaper compared to what's available elsewhere, but I was worried about the optical quality, which is one of the reasons I went with the $20 CR-39 plastic. Also, they cost $50 less than the 1.67 lenses.

----------


## Happylady

I don't like roll and polishes nearly as much as just a polish. The reason is the roll shows when you look at the lens from the front. The roll is just flattening the back edge of the lens and it makes it look thick from the front. A polish is much more attractive.

----------


## deangelia

I would recommend the Phoenix Trivex material.  It will give you the best abbe value at 43.  Poly will only allow 30 abbe.  The higher index materials will sacrifice your optics as well.  The human eye abbe value is 45 so you will get the best with this material.  The cost is about what poly would be.  The higher index will be more expensive and not warranted.

----------


## deangelia

ditto

----------


## chip anderson

Man if he is selling 167 for only $50 extra. You should have bought it while you could, my wholesale costs are higher than this.  But since you asked the question you cannot afford anyway.

"If you have to ask, you cannot afford."

----------

