Hello,
Background:
I am 65 years old and do a lot of cycling and need cycling specific sunglasses. My eyes have solidified such that I have severe issues with a +0.25 "over plus" prescription. Don't ask. My current prescription is +2.75 with a +2.50 add with no appreciable astigmatism or prism. I am currently wearing CR-39 regular progressive glasses and flat top bifocal sunglasses for driving with no issues.
Oakley Flak 2.0:
So I went searching of cycling specific sunglasses and finally decided on the Flak 2.0 based on popularity (for eventual rubber spare parts availability) and good reviews. Based on this I ordered a pair from my local optician.
Optical Issues:
Shortly after receiving these sunglasses I noticed some very annoying optical issues as follows:
1. When on the bike you spend most of your time looking out of the top of your lenses due to the normal head down riding position. It doesn't help being old with a loss of flexibility.
When riding in this position I am noticing that the prescription does not appear to run all the way to the top of the lenses. My regular progressive lenses don't seem to have this issue nearly as bad. Is this a design or RX issue? Any suggestions on how to fix or improve this situation.
2. I have also noticed some rather severe orange and blue halos around objects. This gets noticeably worse as you move from the center of the lens to the top. My research indicates that this is called chromeric aberrations and is caused by the ABBE of the material. Unfortunately, Oakley only makes polycarbonate lenses which has the worst (lowest) ABBE value of any optical material.
Does anyone else make lenses for Oakley frames in either Trivex or CR-39 that would have a much higher ABBE value?
Other Thoughts:
I just learned that the Flak 2.0 XL is a base 8.75 curve which is more wrap than just about any other sunglasses out there. I am now wondering if my prescription should have been put in these glasses to begin with. Any thoughts?
Conversely would these issues significantly diminish with glasses with a base 8 or even base 6 curve. Any suggestions for alternate Oakley or other brand which may solve these issues?
Thanks,
Steve
Background:
I am 65 years old and do a lot of cycling and need cycling specific sunglasses. My eyes have solidified such that I have severe issues with a +0.25 "over plus" prescription. Don't ask. My current prescription is +2.75 with a +2.50 add with no appreciable astigmatism or prism. I am currently wearing CR-39 regular progressive glasses and flat top bifocal sunglasses for driving with no issues.
Oakley Flak 2.0:
So I went searching of cycling specific sunglasses and finally decided on the Flak 2.0 based on popularity (for eventual rubber spare parts availability) and good reviews. Based on this I ordered a pair from my local optician.
Optical Issues:
Shortly after receiving these sunglasses I noticed some very annoying optical issues as follows:
1. When on the bike you spend most of your time looking out of the top of your lenses due to the normal head down riding position. It doesn't help being old with a loss of flexibility.
When riding in this position I am noticing that the prescription does not appear to run all the way to the top of the lenses. My regular progressive lenses don't seem to have this issue nearly as bad. Is this a design or RX issue? Any suggestions on how to fix or improve this situation.
2. I have also noticed some rather severe orange and blue halos around objects. This gets noticeably worse as you move from the center of the lens to the top. My research indicates that this is called chromeric aberrations and is caused by the ABBE of the material. Unfortunately, Oakley only makes polycarbonate lenses which has the worst (lowest) ABBE value of any optical material.
Does anyone else make lenses for Oakley frames in either Trivex or CR-39 that would have a much higher ABBE value?
Other Thoughts:
I just learned that the Flak 2.0 XL is a base 8.75 curve which is more wrap than just about any other sunglasses out there. I am now wondering if my prescription should have been put in these glasses to begin with. Any thoughts?
Conversely would these issues significantly diminish with glasses with a base 8 or even base 6 curve. Any suggestions for alternate Oakley or other brand which may solve these issues?
Thanks,
Steve