Glasses and observing

Hi all,
During a recent exam I learned that I have a mild astigmatism. To be honest,
I had not noticed problems with my vision except after hours at the computer
screen. Before I go out and get the glasses I wanted to find out what others
like/dislike about glasses, and who makes quality lenses with the best
coatings etc.

If it were not for the observational astronomy I enjoy, I would not really
give glasses a second thought. However, spending hundreds of dollars on
individual eyepieces and even more on high quality telescopes, it seems less
than ideal to skimp on glasses. Any help or advice would be appreciated.


Thanks,
Bill
Please post replies to the group otherwise,
REMOVETHIS AND THIS from email to reply.

Bill Cotten wrote:

Hi all,
During a recent exam I learned that I have a mild astigmatism. To be honest,
I had not noticed problems with my vision except after hours at the computer
screen. Before I go out and get the glasses I wanted to find out what others
like/dislike about glasses, and who makes quality lenses with the best
coatings etc.

Generally I consider durability to be the most important factor. In my
own case, extremely high index of refraction is a sort of second. I'm
such a nut for durability that I resisted plastic lenses for 53 years. I
just purchased my first glasses with plastic lenses this year. So far,
they seem to be scratch resistant when cleaned properly.They are a hard
high index plastic with a scratch resistant coating. I don't know the
brand. If you go to a good shop, there is quite a menu of choices but my
requirements narrowed the field to just two choices.

If it were not for the observational astronomy I enjoy, I would not really
give glasses a second thought. However, spending hundreds of dollars on
individual eyepieces and even more on high quality telescopes, it seems less
than ideal to skimp on glasses. Any help or advice would be appreciated.

The lenses are not likely to be the largest cost. Good frames usually
cost more than the lenses. My lenses cost about $120 while my frames
cost about $160 IIRC. Your lenses might be cheaper having only cylinder
correction and possibly not requiring the special high index plastic.
Get good frames. I have Harley-Davidson but there are a number of good
brands. The frames determine how comfortable the glasses are to wear.
Bad or misfit frames are a sort of torture.

Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons

"Bill Cotten" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
During a recent exam I learned that I have a mild astigmatism. To be
honest,
I had not noticed problems with my vision except after hours at the
computer
screen. Before I go out and get the glasses I wanted to find out what
others
like/dislike about glasses, and who makes quality lenses with the best
coatings etc.

If it were not for the observational astronomy I enjoy, I would not really
give glasses a second thought. However, spending hundreds of dollars on
individual eyepieces and even more on high quality telescopes, it seems
less
than ideal to skimp on glasses. Any help or advice would be appreciated.

Single-vision lenses, relatively thin? Go for Zeiss glass lenses (Lantal -
lanthanum glass). They're great, much better than plastic. Their gold
coating is more durable than their blue coating, although the blue coating
is slightly better at eliminating reflections. I have had both at different
times.

Unlike other Zeiss products, they are not much more expensive than other
brands.

Sadly I can no longer wear them -- I have to have bifocals instead. I've
had a special pair of bifocals made with the near-vision segment very low
(11 mm below the pupil) to stay out of the way of the eyepiece. They're not
comfortable for reading, but I *can* read with them (vital for working the
LX200 hand box). They're also great for driving.


--
Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

BTW, mild astigmatism is significant only with large pupils. This means
that, for example, you will need to wear glasses with your low-power
eyepieces but not with your high-power ones.

If it were not for the observational astronomy I enjoy, I would not really
give glasses a second thought. However, spending hundreds of dollars on
individual eyepieces and even more on high quality telescopes, it seems less
than ideal to skimp on glasses. Any help or advice would be appreciated.


Thanks,
Bill

I wear glasses with a mild correction with a small amount of astigmatism.

My thoughts.

1. The frames are the most important factor, comfortable durable frames are
the most important thing.

2. Eyeglasses are a real pain to use with a scope, then limit your FOV, they
get in the way, require long eye relief eyepieces.

My guess is that with a mild correction you will find that the benefits of
wearing the glasses are minimal and the difficulties they cause are
significant.

Have you noticed problems associated with astigmatism when viewing at low
powers?

jon

Have you noticed problems associated with astigmatism when viewing at low
powers?

Definately at low powers, but then the eye relief is usually long enuf to
wear spectacles. At high powere (last night for Mars) I kept feeling detail
lacking when my glasses were off, but the found no improvement with them on
at about 175x. I'm not sure where the line is for exit pupil size avoiding
astigmatism. The biggest pain is trying to read charts sans glasses,
holding them while changing eyepieces, and not losing them in the grass!

Greg

"Bill Cotten" wrote in message
...

During a recent exam I learned that I have a mild
astigmatism. To be honest, I had not noticed problems
with my vision except after hours at the computer
screen.

Bill--

my optometrist just last month diagnosed me with mild astigmatism. i've
been wearing spec's for over 50 years, so this was just a change in
prescription for me. however, i hate wearing glasses while observing (i'm
nearsighted). so, at the ep i don't wear glasses. i do note that when
using a 35 mm panoptic i see some edge distortion that i can eliminate by
wearing my glasses (even my old prescription took care of that). so,
where's all this lead? you may not need to wear your eyeglasses, depending
upon the ep's that you use. try things out and see what works for you. i
do find it useful to wear a sport strap with my glasses so that they're
handy--my vision is too poor to effectively use binoc's without glasses (i
need them to be able to distinguish the neighbor's porch light from the
moon!). other than that, no glasses while observing for me.

clear, dark skies--

mark d.

"Greg Utz" wrote in message
...
Have you noticed problems associated with astigmatism when viewing at low
powers?

Definately at low powers, but then the eye relief is usually long enuf to
wear spectacles. At high powere (last night for Mars) I kept feeling
detail
lacking when my glasses were off, but the found no improvement with them
on
at about 175x. I'm not sure where the line is for exit pupil size
avoiding
astigmatism. The biggest pain is trying to read charts sans glasses,
holding them while changing eyepieces, and not losing them in the grass!


Right; that's why I keep my glasses on all the time when observing.

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...
BTW, mild astigmatism is significant only with large pupils. This means
that, for example, you will need to wear glasses with your low-power
eyepieces but not with your high-power ones.

I have Crizal coatings on lenses that I use specifically for low power
viewing. My astigmatism kicks in around 4mm dilation, and gets progressively
worse. Occasionally I wear these glasses during the day, but mostly they're
just for use at the eyepiece. I require them with the 24mm Panoptic in the
XT10 at F5, but get away without when using that eyepiece with the TV
Paracorr, which bumps the effective focal ratio to 5.75, for an exit pupil
of 4.1mm.

The 35mm Panoptic at F5.75 with the astigmatism correction is fantastic.

However, for naked eye observing, I can see deeper without them. The price
of seeing deeper means all bright stars and planets have flares,
specifically in the shape of an upside down V, above the object. With the
correction in place, these objects no longer have flares, but have
innumerable hair-like spikes, sort of like peach fuzz, along their entire
circumfrance. So, when naked eye observing, I will at times put them on to
clean up the bright stars, and take them off to see deeper.

At 44 years old, I too need glasses for reading, so I also have bifocals for
desk work. When observing with a telescope, the combination of bifocals for
chart reading, no correction for small exit pupils and correction for large
exit pupils is all just too much to deal with and still be happy about it.

I want a magnifying glass with built in red illumination for chart reading.
Any sources?

-Stephen Paul

I wear normal-size glasses. I don't think small glasses would have room for
the reading element that far from center.

"MHochuli" wrote in message
...
Do you use small glasses? I recently bought small rimless glasses with
titanium temples (at the suggestion of a full-time glass wearer) but have
transition lenses on them. Are your lenses with the 11mm reading element,
average size, small or large? Thanks,

Marion Hochuli