Advice needed from people who wear glasses

[rcc55125]

If you don't like wearing contacts and you want to wear bifocals so you can read the trail map and have distant vision there is a solution.
Head has a visor helmet. The Knight in black or the Queen in white. There is also a kids model. https://www.head.com/shop-us/us-US/ski/protection/helmet.html/.

 

[KingGrump]

If you are carrying readers, make sure it is in a case. In the eventual fall scenario.

I like the compact folding unit similar to these.

 

[David Chaus]

I think visor helmets like the Head are the simplest solution. I know an instructor (who wears glasses) who uses one and is happy with it.

When I wore contact lenses, I had one lense for distance and the other for close up, like reading. Somehow our brains adjust just fine. Since then I have had cataract surgery, mostly have glasses for reading and don’t need glasses while skiing, although I do have to struggle with reading small print on my iPhone.

 

[KingGrump]

Visor helmets are great. Andrew has couple. just loves them.
On real powder days, he switches to goggles.

 

[sjjohnston]

With the apology that I'm not doing much more than agreeing with a number of other posts:

Contacts.

Like several others, skiing is about the only thing I wear contacts for. Glasses don't have full peripheral vision, and - unless your prescription is weak enough - they distort not just the shape, but the position of things that aren't pretty close to dead square in the center. I feel disoriented when skiing with them (which, I suppose, is kind of weird, since I walk around all the time in other departments of the real world okay). I sometimes wear them for tennis. They do help, so I suppose I should always wear them, but I'm not a very good tennis player to start with so there's only so much damage you can do to my game. Some years ago, I used to ski without vision correction, even though I wore glasses most of the time. When I first tried skiing with contacts, I suddenly got better. You depend on your vision (and not just of the horizon or the general outline of distant trees) more than you might realize.

The modern soft lenses are quite easy to handle, comfortable and economical ... well, at least a lot more than contacts used to be.

There is the ski-specific issue of wind. Certain goggle are bad news. A breeze directed right onto the eye will dry the contact out in flash, and they'll drop out of position, or out of your eye altogether, which can be a bit disturbing, particularly if (as tends to be the case) you're going relatively fast at the time. I think there's some variability among contact types and brands on this score too, though I haven't tried a bunch out, so I'm not sure. Also, of course, if the contacts don't fit properly, they're going to be more inclined to go out of position.

For reading, I carry off-the-drugstore-rack reading glasses in my pocket. They're cheap, pretty sturdy and easily replaceable. I generally don't put them on except in the lodge, because the combination of reasonably high levels of light and the lack of a need for reading 12-point (or smaller) type makes them unnecessary on the mountain.

As for the correct-each-eye-differently approach, I've fooled around with that a little in other situations. It doesn't seem like a great idea for skiing (and even less so for tennis) because full-on binocular vision comes in very handy if you want to avoid the embarrassment of swinging at a ball that's six inches further away than you think it is.

The contacts don't really "distort" your near vision: they adjust the center of your focal range so it's further away. Standard-issue age-related presbyopia has already made it so you can't alter focus over the full range you used to. If you're also somewhat nearsighted (aka myopic), you can naturally focus (without vision correction) on close things, but you can't alter focus beyond some distance, which - depending how myopic and presbyopic you are - may not be all that far away. Put on contacts, and you become more farsighted but still have a limited range of adjustment ... so now you can no longer adjust focus close enough to read. That's why even people who were dead-square in the middle (neither near- nor far-sighted) in their youth eventually have to wear reading glasses. Personally, if I'm going to be presbyopic, I'm fine with being myopic. At least I'm in focus at one end without glasses, and I actually prefer that it's at reading distance for everyday life. Not so much for skiing, though.

 

[laine]

If you are carrying readers, make sure it is in a case. In the eventual fall scenario.

I like the compact folding unit similar to these.

I might need to get a pair of these this year. I got glasses when I was 8 and started skiing in contacts by 12. Got me some laser eye surgery (PRK, similar to Lasik) in 2003. Best decision ever. But after 40, the reading got harder, and I got prescription reading glasses. And I take them on and off so much that I actually picked up my first pair of progressives today - no prescription on top, readers on the bottom.

I old now.

 

[Guy in Shorts]

Bi-focal contacts that I have worn skiing for years now solved all my vision issues.

 

[Eleeski]

@laine and @Wasatchman Cataract surgery! Sigh, I'm not a good candidate but I tried. Everyone who had the surgery sees well and is completely satisfied. Total whiners about their eyes to ... perfect eyes.

If you're into surgery.

Eric

 

[cosmoliu]

Cataract surgery has transformed my life. Wish I could have done it 50 years ago!

 

[4ster]

I only read the first page of this thread so I may be repeating some of what’s already been said.
I have been wearing goggles over glasses for more than 30 years and I can count on one hand how many times I have had serious fogging issues, YMMV.

Different goggles are going to fit different faces differently. I have been able to get by on occasion with non OTG goggles but Scott goggles have been the best for me overall. I ordered some Smith OTG’s a couple of years ago but they did not mesh with my Smith helmet, so make sure you try them with the glasses & helmet you will be using.

For those with major fogging issues I have always heard that the Smith turbo fans work pretty well.
Airflow is the key to anti-fogging.
Put them on and try not to take them off.
Avoid snow buildup on the top of the goggles. Usually a helmet helps with this or a good hood with a bill.
If you crash in deep snow, take your time and clear the goggles methodically. You may need to stick them on the inside of your jacket for a while or in extreme circumstances Actually go inside to dry them thoroughly.
Carry a goggle/glasses cleaning cloth at all times.
Keep a spare pair handy for emergencies.

 

[Corgski]

Cataract surgery has transformed my life. Wish I could have done it 50 years ago!

Been considering this for myself, just been watching how the technology evolves. Did you have cataracts or did you just have it done to replace contacts/glasses? Also interested in which lens replacements you got.

 

[David Chaus]

For myself, I had cataracts. I also had been waiting for a few years for my vision to get bad enough that my health insurance would approve the procedure. It has to reach a significant enough level impairment to be covered. I suppose if you really wanted to, you could pay your ophthalmologist out of pocket, not to mention the outpatient surgery center and anesthesiologist. As far as the implanted lense strength, the ophthalmologist does measurements to determine the best level of correction for your eyes. In my case, she got really close to perfect.

 

[cosmoliu]

Been considering this for myself, just been watching how the technology evolves. Did you have cataracts or did you just have it done to replace contacts/glasses? Also interested in which lens replacements you got.

I needed the surgery. I was half kidding when I typed that comment above. However, when my optometrist first told me several years ago that I was developing cataracts, I already began to dream of the day that I'd be able to ski without correction. Two years ago he did a little test with a flashlight coming in from the side, asking if it caused uncomfortable glare. I answered "no" but later realized that my answer should have been "yes". At my follow-up exam one year ago I made a point of complaining of glare from oncoming cars. And I (slightly) fudged the eye chart test to make sure I didn't test better than 20/40, the threshold for when insurance will cover the procedure. When the ophthalmologist later looked in my eyes he commented "Hmm, I wouldn't have thought that you needed this yet". However, in the meantime I had read a anecdotal article by an ophthalmologist specializing in cataract surgery recounting his own experience with night glare that made him more sympathetic to his patients' plight. So I once again complained about night glare. That was only a half lie, because it was something I had begun to notice. And since he makes his living at this, he didn't press the issue. (Surgeon's mantra: A chance to cut is a chance to cure.) (Or another: To a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail)

Somewhat later I learned that some ophthalmologists will do lens replacements on healthy eyes to improve vision. More or less a cosmetic procedure. Perhaps this is what you were alluding to. Because my livelihood depends on good vision, I'd never consider such a thing. Just like I've never given serious thought to Lasik surgery. I might have advanced my own surgery by a year or two, but it was inevitable.

The kind of lens I chose is something of a complicated subject. An associate of mine got the multifocal lenses and is delighted with them. He is in the same line of work, so also needs sharp vision. However, the ophthalmologist (common to both of us) said that the multifocal lenses really don't offer optimal sharpness at all, or really any, focal distances. (I can expand on the reasons for that if you want) After talking with me for a few minutes he came to the conclusion that multifocal lenses would likely not be for me. He said he thought I'd be best served to have 20/20 uncorrected vision and to wear glasses for reading or working in front of computer screens. I didn't need any more prompting because I was already lukewarm to the idea of multifocal lenses. I think that my associate, more than anything else, wanted to get rid of glasses altogether. He had 20/20 vision up until he became presbyopic and complained endlessly about always misplacing his reading glasses. As for me, I've always worn glasses so it's no big deal for me to continue to do so. I'm just pleased as punch to be able to ski without. The extra bonus for opting for the single focus replacement lenses is that there was no upcharge not covered by insurance, so the procedure cost me a couple of thousand dollars less out of pocket. Of course, each of us has different needs/desires.

To really drift this thread- I had my annual appointment with my optometrist the other day and commented to him that if I had known that I wouldn't land perfectly on a -0- diopter correction, I'd have preferred to be a little myopic rather than now being a little hyperopic. Last year the surgeon did all his measurements for the replacement lenses and during all that I asked if he would land within a diopter or so of perfect. He said he'd have failed at his job if he didn't do better than that. Well, he did come very close and I am 1/2 diopter hyperopic (after a lifetime of being 6 diopters myopic). What that being 6 diopters myopic means is, since I don't have any significant astigmatism, I'd always had really excellent vision at 6" or less from my face. My wife called me the "super splinter remover". A myope can always walk closer to an object of interest, or bring that object closer, like a book or iPhone, and be able to see it. And because I was so near sighted, bringing something that close to my face means that I could REALLY see it sharply. On the other hand, being hyperopic (far sighted) means that with the eye's accommodating apparatus at rest, nothing at ANY distance is naturally in focus. That's why a far sighted college student who otherwise doesn't need glasses has to look up from his book every so often to look at a distant object to "rest" or defocus his eyes. All the time he is reading the book, the muscles flexing the eyeballs' lenses are firing full time to bring the print on the page into focus. Eventually, those muscles need to take a break. When that individual reaches 50, the lens is too stiff for that to work any more and that's when reading glasses can't be avoided. If we were sitting side by side, I could illustrate all this with a simple drawing. So, in my situation, now at 1/2 diopter far sighted, nothing around me is ever completely in focus, whether near or far. Now, 1/2 a diopter really is very close to perfect, but I can't quite see text on my iPhone without glasses. And even faraway objects become ever so slightly more sharp when I put on my glasses, which are +0.5 at the top of the lens. This is something that is not noticeable with cars, trees, or even street signs. However, it can be appreciated with fine details on distant objects, like a restaurant menu on the wall. Don't get me wrong- I'm thrilled to be 1/2 a diopter from having perfect vision. On the other hand, if my ophthalmologist had landed me 1/2 diopter on the near sighted side of perfect, without glasses I'd be able to bring that iPhone close enough to be able to read some of the larger text. So anyway, and excuse me for that long-winded technical intro, my optometrist said that by coincidence he just read an article, probably an opinion piece, by a cataract surgeon who wrote that he had begun lately to shoot for having his patients be 0.5-0.75 diopter myopic. Everyone comes into his office wanting "perfect" vision after the surgery, but he had come to the same conclusion as I have over this past year- better to leave that patient a little myopic rather than hyperopic, or even at -0-.

Apologies for the hijack. But, hey, Corgski asked!

 

[Corgski]

I needed the surgery. I was half kidding when I typed that comment above. However, when my optometrist first told me several years ago that I was developing cataracts, I already began to dream of the day that I'd be able to ski without correction. Two years ago he did a little test with a flashlight coming in from the side, asking if it caused uncomfortable glare. I answered "no" but later realized that my answer should have been "yes". At my follow-up exam one year ago I made a point of complaining of glare from oncoming cars. And I (slightly) fudged the eye chart test to make sure I didn't test better than 20/40, the threshold for when insurance will cover the procedure. When the ophthalmologist later looked in my eyes he commented "Hmm, I wouldn't have thought that you needed this yet". However, in the meantime I had read a anecdotal article by an ophthalmologist specializing in cataract surgery recounting his own experience with night glare that made him more sympathetic to his patients' plight. So I once again complained about night glare. That was only a half lie, because it was something I had begun to notice. And since he makes his living at this, he didn't press the issue. (Surgeon's mantra: A chance to cut is a chance to cure.) (Or another: To a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail)

Somewhat later I learned that some ophthalmologists will do lens replacements on healthy eyes to improve vision. More or less a cosmetic procedure. Perhaps this is what you were alluding to. Because my livelihood depends on good vision, I'd never consider such a thing. Just like I've never given serious thought to Lasik surgery. I might have advanced my own surgery by a year or two, but it was inevitable.

The kind of lens I chose is something of a complicated subject. An associate of mine got the multifocal lenses and is delighted with them. He is in the same line of work, so also needs sharp vision. However, the ophthalmologist (common to both of us) said that the multifocal lenses really don't offer optimal sharpness at all, or really any, focal distances. (I can expand on the reasons for that if you want) After talking with me for a few minutes he came to the conclusion that multifocal lenses would likely not be for me. He said he thought I'd be best served to have 20/20 uncorrected vision and to wear glasses for reading or working in front of computer screens. I didn't need any more prompting because I was already lukewarm to the idea of multifocal lenses. I think that my associate, more than anything else, wanted to get rid of glasses altogether. He had 20/20 vision up until he became presbyopic and complained endlessly about always misplacing his reading glasses. As for me, I've always worn glasses so it's no big deal for me to continue to do so. I'm just pleased as punch to be able to ski without. The extra bonus for opting for the single focus replacement lenses is that there was no upcharge not covered by insurance, so the procedure cost me a couple of thousand dollars less out of pocket. Of course, each of us has different needs/desires.

To really drift this thread- I had my annual appointment with my optometrist the other day and commented to him that if I had known that I wouldn't land perfectly on a -0- diopter correction, I'd have preferred to be a little myopic rather than now being a little hyperopic. Last year the surgeon did all his measurements for the replacement lenses and during all that I asked if he would land within a diopter or so of perfect. He said he'd have failed at his job if he didn't do better than that. Well, he did come very close and I am 1/2 diopter hyperopic (after a lifetime of being 6 diopters myopic). What that being 6 diopters myopic means is, since I don't have any significant astigmatism, I'd always had really excellent vision at 6" or less from my face. My wife called me the "super splinter remover". A myope can always walk closer to an object of interest, or bring that object closer, like a book or iPhone, and be able to see it. And because I was so near sighted, bringing something that close to my face means that I could REALLY see it sharply. On the other hand, being hyperopic (far sighted) means that with the eye's accommodating apparatus at rest, nothing at ANY distance is naturally in focus. That's why a far sighted college student who otherwise doesn't need glasses has to look up from his book every so often to look at a distant object to "rest" or defocus his eyes. All the time he is reading the book, the muscles flexing the eyeballs' lenses are firing full time to bring the print on the page into focus. Eventually, those muscles need to take a break. When that individual reaches 50, the lens is too stiff for that to work any more and that's when reading glasses can't be avoided. If we were sitting side by side, I could illustrate all this with a simple drawing. So, in my situation, now at 1/2 diopter far sighted, nothing around me is ever completely in focus, whether near or far. Now, 1/2 a diopter really is very close to perfect, but I can't quite see text on my iPhone without glasses. And even faraway objects become ever so slightly more sharp when I put on my glasses, which are +0.5 at the top of the lens. This is something that is not noticeable with cars, trees, or even street signs. However, it can be appreciated with fine details on distant objects, like a restaurant menu on the wall. Don't get me wrong- I'm thrilled to be 1/2 a diopter from having perfect vision. On the other hand, if my ophthalmologist had landed me 1/2 diopter on the near sighted side of perfect, without glasses I'd be able to bring that iPhone close enough to be able to read some of the larger text. So anyway, and excuse me for that long-winded technical intro, my optometrist said that by coincidence he just read an article, probably an opinion piece, by a cataract surgeon who wrote that he had begun lately to shoot for having his patients be 0.5-0.75 diopter myopic. Everyone comes into his office wanting "perfect" vision after the surgery, but he had come to the same conclusion as I have over this past year- better to leave that patient a little myopic rather than hyperopic, or even at -0-.

Apologies for the hijack. But, hey, Corgski asked!

Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response. I don't think the topic is too off topic, it is a valid solution to the OP's question. I have started seeing lens replacement being more actively promoted for presbyopia. I have been myopic since a kid, easily addressed with glasses and contacts but now with some presbyopia becoming more of a hassle.

As dramatic as it sounds, I consider this less scary than Lasik. I am not keen on potentially compromising healthy corneas with surgery. I also wear contacts and Lasik would compromise that option if I did not get a satisfactory result. Good point on the final correction, being slightly myopic would be an acceptable result and easier to accommodate than becoming far sighted

Every lens type seems to have its own issues and with newer lenses on trial, I am inclined to wait it out and see what the best practices are in a couple of years.

 

[coops]

As dramatic as it sounds, I consider this less scary than Lasik. I am not keen on potentially compromising healthy corneas with surgery. I also wear contacts and Lasik would compromise that option if I did not get a satisfactory result.

Just to point out - 'most' eye surgeons won't replace lenses on an otherwise healthy eye ( i.e no cataracts etc ) - and my Lasik surgeon once it became clear my cornea was too flat for the modern two-laser lasik, would NOT do any lens replacement for my presbyopia even if i asked for it... and i take this as a good sign, on their part.

You can search the internet and find plenty of horror stories after lens replacement - just as you can with Lasik... but Lasik doesn't as far as i'm aware preclude any contact lens use afterwards ( and multiple Lasik 'touch ups' are possible).

I had PRK laser eye correction done 25+ years ago (before Lasik was even available) and in those days they did one eye then waited 6 months to do the second...
I've had a second PRK procedure done in the last 4 years also, and since that left that eye less astigmatic but +1 (very much not what i wanted for my onset of presbyopia)... I've actually now gone to scleral contact lenses in a monovision prescription.

Lasik has improved dramatically - to the point my sister had it done successfully with eyes at ~ -11.0 which is mahoosively short sighted... but she like my brother did not go for any cheap option but had it done at Moorfields Eye hospital in London - not all doctors are equal in ability or integrity.

You can also search on 'Relex Smile laser eye surgery' - this doesn't create a flap like Lasik, but a lasered portion is removed through a small keyhole, so even less risk of dry eye problems (but the compromise is that overall less exact correction compared to Lasik, especially for astigmatism and cannot correct long sight/hyperopia).

As I mentioned presbyopia specific laser correction is possible with Lasik (not all Lasik centres may have this, but if they don't know about it... i'd be wondering how up to date they are in other areas...), or Monovsion laser correction (Relex or Lasik) which does mean your brain takes a while to get used to it - and if ti doesn't can always be corrected in a second surgery to 20/20 on the mono short sighted eye (usually the non-dominant eye).

If you're lucky enough not to have any major astimatism issues, then the daily soft lenses would be great as you could go monovision or presbyopia specific as you like and even try them both for a month each to see which suits you best (and then use your preference if you decide to go laser... or indeed lens replacment)

 

[cosmoliu]

Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response. I don't think the topic is too off topic, it is a valid solution to the OP's question. I have started seeing lens replacement being more actively promoted for presbyopia. I have been myopic since a kid, easily addressed with glasses and contacts but now with some presbyopia becoming more of a hassle.

As dramatic as it sounds, I consider this less scary than Lasik. I am not keen on potentially compromising healthy corneas with surgery. I also wear contacts and Lasik would compromise that option if I did not get a satisfactory result. Good point on the final correction, being slightly myopic would be an acceptable result and easier to accommodate than becoming far sighted

Every lens type seems to have its own issues and with newer lenses on trial, I am inclined to wait it out and see what the best practices are in a couple of years.

I'll take that as license to continue with details on the lens I chose and why.

As of a year ago, and I haven't kept up with new developments, if any, there were two choices in replacement lenses capable of "accommodating". I watched a slew of videos, some manufacturer promotional videos and some produced by ophthalmologic practices and learned as much as I could. One type supposedly is flexible enough respond to contraction of the ciliary muscle to accommodate, mimicking the natural lens. My brother got that type of lens and says he is pleased with the result. My ophthalmologist doesn't install those because he says they don't work. The other type is composed of concentric circles with different powers from center to periphery. I can understand how such a system could work with spectacles, but otherwise could not make sense of such a set up. I called my optometrist for input and asked him, "So, does this lens basically send out a mish mash of visual information and expect the brain to sort it out?" He said yes, that's basically it. So that's why that lens doesn't have sharp focus at any distance. My associate who is happy with that lens probably hasn't been bothered by the loss of acuity. But I would. After I said to my optometrist that I was leaning toward the single focus lens, he dropped this bombshell: He told me that on followup examination, he estimates that as many as 40% of his patients who got the multifocal lens say they are not happy with the result. That's a whole bunch of unsatisfied people running around with permanent alterations to their eyeballs! No thank you.

And an observation that I've made that might help you find presbyopia a little more tolerable: When I first got progressive lenses I was interpreting x-rays, CTs and MRIs on film. (Yeah, well back into the previous century) I would often sit, stand, lean right, or lean left to take it all in. So, I was looking at all different focal distances, and pretty active. Now I interpret everything on monitors that are about an arm's length away. 10-11 hours most days. With progressive lenses the head is in continuous motion to bring the glasses to the right angle relative to the eyeballs to focus on every part of the monitor(s). In the 6 weeks after the cataract surgery waiting for things to settle down enough to get a final Rx, I used drug store readers. A funny thing happened- I noticed that my neck wasn't stiff at the end of the day. With fixed lenses I was able to take it all in by using my eyeball muscles to scan the monitors and not craning my neck over and over all day. So now I use +1.75 prescription lenses with my minor astigmatism correction for work and my (stylish) progressive glasses for the rest of the day. If you have progressive lenses in your everyday glasses and spend a lot of time in front of computer monitors you might consider a similar solution.

 

[coops]

If you have progressive lenses in your everyday glasses and spend a lot of time in front of computer monitors you might consider a similar solution.

Yes, +an awful lot to this above (!) - full progressive lenses in spectacles are great nowadays, but for desk work & long term reading it's well worth getting an extra pair... as said just readers will be easy but there also now 'office' or 'computer' specific progressive lenses available (I've still got a pair of glasses with the Shamir Office progressive lens) and they're outstanding (and cheaper than the most advanced full progresssives).

Basically they almost completely leave out the long distance correction, but correct for medium to near which means much, much wider corrected field of vision for reading and normal computer monitor distances which with the larger and much wider modern screens makes a huge difference to using a full/normal progressives (which are great for overall daily use).

For me, reckon I'll be getting several pairs of cheapo collapsible readers just for those times with especially smaller type sizes during work when i've got my contacts in...

 

[cosmoliu]

Yes, I had a pair of "computer" progressive lenses for the last several years. Because the distance to what I want to see on my monitors is relatively fixed through the day I have since found the single vision Rx glasses to work best. I went for the best lenses possible with modern coatings for my work glasses because of the level of detail I need to deal with.

 

[TQA]

I am very short sighted so need glasses or contacts. When skiing in good conditions I wear prescription sunglasses with high UV rating. They are aviator pattern and have leather side pieces, without these I get tearing when skiing fast.

In poor light conditions I wear a pair of glasses that have a yellow tint. They make it easier to see the terrain in flat light.They are sold to glider pilots and make the clouds stand out.

In light to medium snow I wear OTG goggles over small glasses. I apply a product called CAT CRAP to my lenses to help stop them foggin up.

If I am in a situation where I HAVE to ski in heavy wet snow [ Whistler ] the only thing that works for me is contacts. I carry soft contacts with me.

 

[Corgski]

Just to point out - 'most' eye surgeons won't replace lenses on an otherwise healthy eye ( i.e no cataracts etc ) - and my Lasik surgeon once it became clear my cornea was too flat for the modern two-laser lasik, would NOT do any lens replacement for my presbyopia even if i asked for it... and i take this as a good sign, on their part.

You can search the internet and find plenty of horror stories after lens replacement - just as you can with Lasik... but Lasik doesn't as far as i'm aware preclude any contact lens use afterwards ( and multiple Lasik 'touch ups' are possible).

I had PRK laser eye correction done 25+ years ago (before Lasik was even available) and in those days they did one eye then waited 6 months to do the second...
I've had a second PRK procedure done in the last 4 years also, and since that left that eye less astigmatic but +1 (very much not what i wanted for my onset of presbyopia)... I've actually now gone to scleral contact lenses in a monovision prescription.

Lasik has improved dramatically - to the point my sister had it done successfully with eyes at ~ -11.0 which is mahoosively short sighted... but she like my brother did not go for any cheap option but had it done at Moorfields Eye hospital in London - not all doctors are equal in ability or integrity.

You can also search on 'Relex Smile laser eye surgery' - this doesn't create a flap like Lasik, but a lasered portion is removed through a small keyhole, so even less risk of dry eye problems (but the compromise is that overall less exact correction compared to Lasik, especially for astigmatism and cannot correct long sight/hyperopia).

As I mentioned presbyopia specific laser correction is possible with Lasik (not all Lasik centres may have this, but if they don't know about it... i'd be wondering how up to date they are in other areas...), or Monovsion laser correction (Relex or Lasik) which does mean your brain takes a while to get used to it - and if ti doesn't can always be corrected in a second surgery to 20/20 on the mono short sighted eye (usually the non-dominant eye).

If you're lucky enough not to have any major astimatism issues, then the daily soft lenses would be great as you could go monovision or presbyopia specific as you like and even try them both for a month each to see which suits you best (and then use your preference if you decide to go laser... or indeed lens replacment)

While interested, I am not planning on being an early adopter on this, I want to see what the track record is first. I have started to see surgeons advertising the procedure for presbyopia so it is probably worth getting an understanding of the issues involved. Lasik does not preclude contact lenses but apparently it can complicate it. I tolerate contact lenses reasonably well (use daily disposables) and do not want to compromise that. Some years back I tried continuous wear weekly disposables but did not tolerate them as well. I think I need to try the newer presbyopia contact lenses, I think I have not pursued this previously as I have been in denial that I have reached the stage of life where this is an issue.