Hacker News Reader

Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

So you're paying $179.99 for empty frames and then untold amounts for the actual lenses

This seems like smartnes.

Pretty much every employer vision plan I've had for the last 20 years has given its employees $150 credit toward frames. So now employees can opt for paying $29.99 out-of-pocket for Echo frames, instead of $150+ out-of-pocket for frames, since any frames worth putting on your face cost $300+.

The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450.

Frames and lenses are always covered with separate co-pays/co-insurance at every employer I've ever had.

View on HN

These frames sound outrageously expensive. I got mine from CostCo optical. Name brand, look decent, $149.99. Lens was $79.99 (+10 for the edge polish). I could even go for their own brand, although they didn't look as nice on my face. However did get one of their frames, but for sunglasses, where they worked much better: $49.99 for the frame.

There are online retailers with cheap, but also decent frames, for much less than what you are quoting.

It may be the case that you are much pickier than I am, or that the frames in the same price range don't fit you properly. But I have a feeling that you can get much better deals if you shop around. 450 for the cheapest frame is insane. I'll be re-evaluating the 'vision plan' I got in the open enrollment period, because the value proposition is not clear – they haven't even covered the costs at this lower price point.

> The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450.

People need to avoid Luxottica's retailers. That price is absurd. The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere.

In other countries that I've lived (where you pay cash, no insurance) frames top out at $150~ equivalent (for branded/designer) and start under $30.

My vision insurance is so good receptionists frequently comment on it, and even for me I have to pay a lot out of pocket if I want anything above the barebones frame and lens(scratch/smudge/shatter resistance, blue blocker, etc). After getting my PD measured I bought a few pairs off of Zenni(after seeing it mentioned hn comments) for like $20 or $30 each or something, with all the same extras.

Yes, their ultra cheap frames aren't as nice as the $180 but $30 after insurance ones, but now I have a pair of glasses with different characteristics in the car, in my home, in my office, and in my gym locker. Previously I would use basically one pair to multitask it all because of the price.

> The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere.

I'm reaching this conclusion too.

Why are you buying such expensive frames? Costco, Zenni, Warby Parker, etc etc all have very affordable frames...

And terrible lenses.

I have a difficult prescription and my eyes are very important to me. I can't trust them to discounters.

The lenses are of identical quality. Both are outsourced to off-site machine cut lens factories and shipped to store.

I don't know where you got this odd idea about lens quality but it isn't factually supported. You can buy thinner and thicker lenses for additional cost, but both will be as accurate as the prescription is.

They are not necessarily the same if the discount store doesn’t offer the same options. A few cheap places don’t offer ultra high refractive index lenses. With the standard high index lens my lenses are very thick at the edges. Also, not all discount stores offer the same anti-scratch, anti-glare, or photochromic options.

The lenses that you get from a discounter will match your prescription, but expensive shops can have differentiating features.

As places move to outsourcing their lens production they can offer more products, since they aren't physically doing it in-store. The handful of discount "while you wait" places, do indeed, have more limited options but it is fast.

So is mine, and so are mine. The frame has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the lenses it contains, though, except inasmuch as it constrains their dimensions. And there's nothing in particular to say that you have to buy both in the same place, either.

I support your spending as much as you want on frames. I will tell you that I get amazing frames and lenses from Zenni. Their mid-range bifocal glasses (so I can see music on the stand) were better in every way for $90 than I got from my local optician (whom I like very much) for $1,000.

Most of the glasses I get from Zenni cost about $30.

Agreed. I get high index 1.74 by Seiko Optics. They're incredible with the most durable coating I've ever found.

People who've only gotten cheap glasses/lenses don't even know how important it is. I get my frames from DITA (www.dita.com) and they've lasted me 5+ years, never bend, warp, etc. Lenses get replaced every 2 years.

High index is cosmetic only, it has the same distortion profile.

Weight affects fit and comfort. Coatings affect clarity and durability.

>Weight affects fit and comfort.

Yes, for 2-3% of customers or something that may be relevant (strong enough prescriptions at the tail of the distribution or using glass).

Higher index lenses tend to have greater chromatic abberation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abbe-diagram_2.svg

In practice different materials of the same index can have significantly different abberation. When I very recently got work-optimized glasses from a local optician, I could sit down and compare the materials they could get. One of the 1.60 index materials (Hoya, I think) was as good as thicker lenses while another (Essilor?) would have given me noticeable fringing on a monitor.

Now try to get a place like Zenni to so much as tell you what they're selling.

Some more relevant numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_lens#Lens_materials

The general trend is that higher-index materials tend to have lower Abbe numbers, but there are exceptions. Polycarbonate is a cheap and popular mid-index material that's widely recommended on the basis of its mechanical strength. Its index of refraction is 1.59 and its Abbe number is 30, but there are numerous materials with a similar index of refraction around 1.6 and substantially better Abbe numbers of 41-42, or materials with a significantly higher index of refraction (1.67) and Abbe numbers that are slightly better than polycarbonate.

Zenni and EyeBuyDirect don't want to promote awareness of chromatic abberation, but they do make it easy to know whether you're ordering polycarbonate, and they both have 1/6/1.61 index materials with better Abbe numbers than polycarbonate. Zenni uses one of the Mitsui MR materials for their 1.6 lenses.

Yes, but aberration is different than the distortion and is caused by different refractive indexes at different wavelengths. I'm just talking about how it distorts your vision overall.

They're a thing on your FACE. They are not just cosmetic, they are lighter.

I have a complex prescription and I buy my glasses out of pocket from the web at around $15-20 a pair for both lenses and frames. My last order I bought 6 pair and a pair of sunglasses for less than $150 out of pocket. They may not last as long, but I've lost enough "expensive" frames to not care anymore. There's also the peace of mind of bringing 3 pairs of glasses on vacation and not caring if any of them get lost or broken.

You might try finding a different shop!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com