Get rid of all CYL on the first normalized?

Was it a bad idea to remove all -0.75 of CYL in the first normalized, along with a 0.25 reduction in spherical from -3.5 to -3.25?

For context i didnt have CYL in my contacts and saw fine. I dont have double vision (which is astigmatism?). My also diffs are also without any CYL.

1 Like

If it worked for you, it was not a bad idea. It might have been a terrible one for someone else. If you get used to norms without cylinder, you will be able to reuse your diffs without cylinder as norms when you get to that stage.

1 Like

If anything without cylinder looks well, feel free to drop it.
It might be an opto’s mistake and you could have no actual astigmatism.


Sounds like a good call to me. Especially if you are fine without the correction using contacts. No double vision is a great sign.


@Ursa @miffiffi @Kevin.L

The thing is that there is a lot of blur with the normalized. Example, a sign 40 meters away is readable with full prescription but with the normalized its unreadable. I dont know if this means that i should have kept the CYL and only reduced the spherical.

1 Like

40 meters is a good distance. The size of the text determines if you should be able to read it at that distance.

It takes time to adapt. I dropped another .25 diopter recently and felt comfortable with the blur I had. Now less than a week later I have more blur than I care for, especially later in the day and after sunset. I don’t fret about it because I know it’s a serious of gains and setbacks.

1 Like

Well, keep in mind that full correction is meant to provide 20/20 in dim light. So they will usually be slightly overcorrected (by about -0.50 diopters, maybe more) in daylight. This gives you like 20/15 or 20/10 during the day and explains why you can clearly see a sign so far away.

If your normalized are based on your full prescription, then you have a bit of wiggle room. But if they are based on 20/30 on a Snellen in daylight, then you don’t have any wiggle room. In this case it sounds like your normalized are 0.25 SPH and 0.75 CYL reduction from the full prescription. Right?

If so, that represents an overall drop of 0.625 diopters of SPH as part of that 0.75D of CYL from your full correction. While you do have some wiggle room, that still sounds like a bit too much of a drop to me. Your mileage may vary of course since we’re all just experimenting here and everyone’s visual system is unique. Can you clearly see at 20/30 on a Snellen with those normalized in daylight?

Normally, if you remove -0.75D of CYL you would first want to add -0.375D (-0.25D or -0.50D) of SPH to keep spherical equivalence (translate cylindrical blur to spherical blur, with a slight overcorrection of the opposite segment). After that, you could drop -0.25D of SPH if you like. Otherwise, you’re dropping way more than you think you are, which would explain why things are unreadable with what should be a “minor” reduction.

If it were me, I’d have dropped the -0.75D of CYL, added -0.25 of SPH and dropped -0.25 SPH. This would have resulted in differentials with net zero change in SPH from the base correction (but with no CYL). This is where a trial lens set can come in handy. You can experiment with different configurations of lens powers to find the one that works best before spending money to order something that might not work well.

1 Like

The greater the distance the more the distortion of astigmatism, so I suspect you might have done better to have kept some cylinder correction in your norms. If you drive, and you think this makes your norms unsafe for driving, use your full prescription for driving only and your norms at other times.