> Are there any really great materials I should be looking at?

> And any
> suggestions on a good commonly available AR that's not green? (boy was
> Gold ET tough to get and expensive but I loved it)

> To be honest, I just choose the cheapest lenses possible. The most
> important thing is that you are able to see. Minus three is not thick
> at all, so just go for normal lenses, whatever the cheapest is. What
> did glasses wearers do before all of these types of lenses? Well,
> that's a European standpoint. You in the States are so capitalistic.
CR-39 is probably more expensive in Europe than Spectralite is in the US

> To be honest, I just choose the cheapest lenses possible.
> The most important thing is that you are able to see.
> Minus three is not thick at all, so just go for normal
> lenses, whatever the cheapest is. What did glasses
> wearers do before all of these types of lenses? Well,
> that's a European standpoint. You in the States are so
> capitalistic.

> Hi there,
> People choose CR-39 mostly because they are pinching pennies or they had a
> clueless optician or salesperson. The other reason a person would choose
> CR-39 is if they are in environments that expose them to organic solvents.
> CR-39 was originally created to make B-17 fuel tanks, and later used for the
> fuel lines in the engineers section so it is resistant to most organic
> solvents. It is also very resistant to welders slag, (more so than glass
> which pits every time slag hits it.)
> Considering the number of people who come into my store in Alaska wearing
> bedroom slippers and worn out Carharts overalls, I don't need to get into
> the fashion issue.
> Great materials? Well, there is a slew of polyurethanes out there. Essilor's
> Ormex, Sola's Spectralite, Seiko's 1.6 are spendid; Rodenstock and Zeiss
> also put out great polymers. It depends on availability in your area and
> pricing.
> Most ARs have a green reflection. That is the mid wavelength that humans can
> percieve and means that the standard coating is clean. I believe Sola's
> Teflon coating is blueish, Essilor's Crizal Alize is yellowish (This is what
> I have and it is barely noticable to most people, ) the Zeiss coating can
> be ordered in a few different colors.
> Carl
> <cutiepieusa[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1130974218.443004.187640[at]g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Thank you VERY much That's exactly what I needed to hear! Yeah,
> > twice as thick and I'd actually see the lenses and all, no thanks!
> > Question - why then would anyone buy CR-39 compared to at the least,
> > materials like Trivex? I mean other than cost, why would someone put up
> > with such thick lenses?
> > > Are there any really great materials I should be looking at? And any
> > suggestions on a good commonly available AR that's not green? (boy was
> > Gold ET tough to get and expensive but I loved it)

> Thank you VERY much That's exactly what I needed to hear! Yeah,
> twice as thick and I'd actually see the lenses and all, no thanks!
> Question - why then would anyone buy CR-39 compared to at the least,
> materials like Trivex? I mean other than cost, why would someone put up
> with such thick lenses?
> Are there any really great materials I should be looking at? And any
> suggestions on a good commonly available AR that's not green? (boy was
> Gold ET tough to get and expensive but I loved it)

> Thanks! That's what I was wondering as CR-39 is so much cheaper and
> said to be good.
> I'm very happy with the 1.60 aspheric Seiko lenses - there's zero
> noticeable edge thickness (the lens is at most a mm thicker than the
> frame at the sides and since it's balanced half to the front, half to
> the back, you can't tell from any distance over a few inches that the
> lens is thicker than the frame). I like that. It's not really worth
> giving that up to save a few dollars. Though is CR-39 really any
> HEAVIER?

> I've been under the impression that the low specific gravity
> made the product sill LIGHTER. My current glasses are essentially
> weightless (I can't feel the weight), the first pair (including ones
> with another 1.60 material) I can say that about.
> Isn't Spectralite MORE expensive than 1.60?

> If I'm optically happy with
> the 1.60's (which I very much am especially these new tiny aspheric
> ones- it's just the polycarbonate I couldn't stand) what would be the
> reason to spend more on Spectralite? I'm kinda looking CHEAPER
> suggestions that still meet my needs But thanks very much for your
> info!
> Sincerely,
> Mark

> I don't need safety glasses and I know from past experience that I
> can't stand polycarbonate and non-AR lenses. I'm curious how CR-39
> would be - is my prescription too strong to get reasonable thin CR-39
> lenses. My current Seiko's are quite nice - what would I be looking at
> for CR-39 thickness compared to these? Twice?
> Thanks,
> Mark
CR-39 (1.50 index) would definitely be thicker and heaver than a higher