Not For Young Eyes... Progressives Or Bi-Focals

[jgib01]

It was inevitable I suppose... In my mid 40s now and told by my eye doc that I could benefit from progressive lenses. When I was speaking with the optometrist's assistant about glasses afterward, and mentioned that I started fly fishing this year, she suggested I consider traditional bi-focals versus progressives. She said that for fly fishing (very close and very distant being paramount), progressives are not necessary, and might even be a hinderance (especially with peripheral vision). She said for office work, and when in the public eye progressives would do nicely, but not on the water. Any older eyes like mine care to comment?

[FraserN]

For flyfishing, definetly bifocals. I am also in my forties, and have noticed a reduction in my ability to see dry flies on the water. I use mainly small flies, so this is a significant problem. When a fish takes, sometimes I miss if I did not see the fly. It was not a problem when I was younger. Also, bifocals are good when tying small flies. I am always looking over my glasses when tying small dries or nymphs. It gets to be a real pain sometimes.

[Nachako]

Everyone is different. I have 30/20 and can pick goats off a mountain side. But don't put a newspaper in front of me. So it's Bi-Focals . Little tip Sun Cloud make some decent sunglasses with a Bi-Focal built in for $75 which are a bonus when switching flies.

[SilverDoctor]

Yep I tried progressive but didn't like them, went back to bifocals as they worked better for me.

[Weedy1]

Watch this before listening to any "optometrist's assistant".

 

www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/Marketplace/Season+39/ID/2201990637/

[DonAndersen]

Used to get my bi-foals set lower so that items at foot level were in focus. Especially important for wading.

I use progressives now. They are a pain in the butt as you have to move your head around to get into focus. But for varying focal lengths, from reading a micrometer at 14" to seeing a Computer scene at 36"', to tying flies @ 10"'and on and on, progressives were the only choice.

 

Don

[fishinglibin]

I have had both. Currently progressive, but the better half says I still cant see or hear for that matter. Good thing I love her. After a point in the day threading a small fly is almost luck. Time for additional magnifier lens.Overall for fishing bifocals.

[SkwalaStonefly]

I'm in my 60s and have been wearing progressives for 15 plus years. I have had no issues with them for fly fishing. For sunny days I have a pair of Maui Jim progressives that are awesome. Having progressives allows you to wear the same glasses for whatever you do - no extra glasses needed for fishing.

 

If you get regular bifocals you will not be able to see any closer up or any further away than with progressives. The only difference is that bifocals have an abrupt change from near to far vision while the progressives do it gradually, allowing you to see intermediate distances as well - on or off the river.

 

One issue with bifocals - either kind, is that they are made for reading distance and sometimes they are not great for close-up work. There are times when you need to get your tippet through a small eye on a fly and you need to be closer than book distance. Or you may have a knot in your tippet/leader that needs close vision to remove. For that, us old guys get a pair of "Hat-eyes": magnifiers that you can flip down from your hat when you need to see really close. I can also do it by just removing my glasses altogether, but best not to be doing that on the river.

[bigalcal]

My vision is OK for long distance but sucks close up. I wear progressive glasses at work because I can't wear "readers" as every thing else is blurred when looking "up". For fishing I wear polarized bifocal readers. I have a few pairs of the "Guidelines" as well as a recently purchased (E-Bay) pair of Smiths. All work well and were less than $70. I would guess from my experience. that if your vision is OK except for reading etc. polarized bifocals may work better than progressives as the progressive lens is set up to look straight ahead and the peripheral is blurred. You may miss a rising fish "in the corner of your eye".

 

 

...my .02 centavos.

[SilverDoctor]

I think you really need to see for yourself as everyone is different as far as their needs go, when I had my last glasses done the company let me try progressives for 2 weeks. I was able to make a decision based on that. I had used Bif's before and perhaps I was too use to them.

[jgib01]

Thanks for the info everyone. Think I might try the bifocal approach, at least for fishing. Neither my close nor distant vision are horrible... just a slight correction for both has crept up in the last 2 years. I had laser surgery done several years ago, so once the distance vision stabilizes again I might get a touchup, and then something like the polarized Guidelines or Sunclouds would be the way to go.

[MikeL]

I use Flex Spex for tying on flies.

 

http://www.flexspex.com/

 

I find these glasses work very well.

[monger]

I've used progressives for both fishing and shooting for a number of years. No issues for me. I guess it depends on your eyes. I'm not interested in multiple sets of glasses. Better quality lenses have larger areas of magnification so you don't have to move your head around as much

[alan2]

Progressives work fine for me and it didn't take tha long to get used to them either.

[screaminreel]

I wear progressive on a daily basis and they work well. For fishing I tried the bifocals but find the line is always in the way. Maybe that is just the make.

 

Switched to a polarized lens with my prescription minus the reader portion and just use separate readers to tie on flies now. This works best for me. Actually cuts down the cost as well.