The only reason for having a short channel lens is because a full progression won't fit into the size of frame that has been chosen.
It's therefore not the best lens, optically, though it may be a necessary one if that frame depth is a given. Everything else being equal, yes, with your RX a smaller frame will give better-looking lenses, but perhaps not to the point of not allowing the use of best lens.
With your Rx a high index lens will give the thinnest, best looking result. That's about 1.67. for plastic, and 1.8 for glass (Zeiss Lantal, for example. 1.9 is available in single vision, the thinnest of all)
The usages you describe is not, really, best catered for with one pair of glasses.
For work, a range of office varifocals are available with the top zone set for indoors ,which then allows for a much better distribution of the rest of the lens for computer and near work.
You would then need a single vision or conventional varifocal lensed pair to drive home in (varifocals are no good for low-slung sports cars, anyway, unless designed for that purpose, in which case they're good for little else)
And prolonged reading (especially in bed), is *best* done with a dedicated reading pair, to allow flexibility of posture.
The trade-off in moving away from "one pair does everything" is a personal decision, but I'd be inclined to that route (and my Rx gets to -14.00)
(Aside: a 0.75 difference in reading additions is very unusual, unless there is some proven history behind it...)
|
Linear Mode
