Superfocus glasses review

[seamaster]

I bought a pair of Superfocus glasses.

www.superfocus.com

I bought this after reading the Wall Street Journal. I was hoping this pair of glasses would also work as my shooting glasses.

It has two lens. The front lens is ground to my distance prescription, and the back lens is a fluid filled diaphragm lens controlled by a sliding lever on top of the nose bridge. By sliding the lever, the back lens will go from 0 to +2.5 diopter. Two lens are attached by magnet.

It is not cheap. It costed me $860 (with 10% discount referral from a friend who had a pair of Superfocus glasses).

It is hand crafted. It took me three months to receive the glasses. Three months is much longer than the average industry turn over time.

My first impression is "it is very odd looking, border line on ugly". My wife said she had no comment. My daughter just laughed out right, "You looked like Harry Potter." I opined I look more like frog eyes.

But ugliness aside, it is truely "function over form".

I can have distance vision, front sight vision, computer vision, book reading vision all in one package. Vision is much sharper than my progressive glasses.

I had a pair of 0.75 + diopter shooting glasses. I would say the Superfocus is more functional than my shooting glasses for shooting.

With my +0.75 diopter shooting glasses, the lighting has to be reasonably bright. If the sun sets, +o.75 diopter would get blurry pretty quickly. Not so with Superfocus. As light gets darker, I can kept sliding the lever to keep front sight sharp. When it pretty dark, no added diopter is needed.

No problem reading the holes on the target card. Just slide the lever into close up, magnifying distance. The pellet holes are looking crispy sharp.

So my verdict: Ugly galore, but is truely Superfocused !!

[joel]

I had been wondering about those for a while now. Thanks so much for your review. I might consider them sometime.

[bebloomster]

Will have to agree about them being on the ugly side of the line. A bit pricey too. Glad to hear they are working for you though. I'm doing fairly well with a clip on iris... not much use when the sun goes down though.

[grandpmnr]

I've bought a pair of their new "Leonardo" glasses that are less expensive and, in my opinion, more attractive. Also Superfocus gives a risk-free 30 day trial, so if you don't like them, send'em back, no questions asked.... Superfocus will even pay the return shipping costs! Anyone needing a promo-code for the 10% discount can use SO-008297

Happy Holidays everyone!

[Mike M.]

I'd just get aVariolens. I bought one, and was very impressed. Although I think it's a better adjunct to a dedicated shooting lens than used alone.

[grandpmnr]

I'd just get aVariolens. I bought one, and was very impressed. Although I think it's a better adjunct to a dedicated shooting lens than used alone.

Cool! Variolens and Superfocus are using similar technology. I use my Superfocus glasses for all tasks and they're are especially helpful for my condition which causes me to have more trouble focusing early in the morning

[ShootingSight]

Just be aware that if you change the focus during a shot string, it will impact your zeros, so best to adjust them once and don't move the focus over the course of the string.

[seamaster]

Not changing focus only works if you are indoor or with costant light outdoor.

But if you shooting Outdoor @ dusk, when light is darkening before your very eye, when nature's iris is shutting down on you, you got to refocus, readjust your diopter.

Indoor or constant light, absolutely no need to goof around with diopter.

[Gwhite]

I was picking up some stuff at Larry's Guns in Maine on Friday, and he's started carrying the the Variolens gadgets. I played with one briefly,and I was very impressed.

I have old eyes & wear contact lenses, and getting the right prescription & iris setting in my shooting glasses is a constant battle. I had everything set up well last year, but my contact prescription has changed, so I was about to sort through my lens collection & start over. I've also found that the lens that works well for air pistol indoors is different from what I need for free pistol outdoors. The Variolens could eliminate that issue, although I haven't figured out how to use one with different filters.

I have the Champion brand glasses, and the Variolens will mount on those as well as Knobloch's. The Variolens web site says you can use their lens with a fixed lens, and they have a photo here that shows this setup on a pair of Champions:



(I think the one on the right is for pistol, the one on the left is definitely a rifle setup).

I'm not sure if I could use my existing 42 mm filters in front for shooting outdoors. The Variolens is a good bit smaller than that (37mm?), and the way they have the auxiliary fixed lens attached would make it difficult to get a 42 mm filter centered in front of the Variolens.

All in all, it's very intriguing...

[ShootingSight]

Reality is that variolens is not necessary, and is expensive.

You can use optical math to calculate the diopter you need to add to a current distance prescription to get your focus in the right spot, and for pistol, the answer is +0.75 diopters added to your distance vision. And that fixed 37mm lens costs $40 to make.

Light conditions do not impact where your depth of field is centered. You want a relaxed focal point that distributes your depth of field between the sight and the target equally, and the optical math that calculates that is not a function of aperture size. Yes, as your pupils dilate under decreasing light, you could adjust focus to keep the sight clear as your pupils dilate, but 1) as you do so, you create a double impact on the clarity of the target since your depth of field is shrinking, and you are moving it away from the target. 2) You are likely giving up a lot of depth of field by allowing your eye's pupil to dictate your depth of field. A fixed aperture sticker on your glasses will give you a bigger and more stable depth of field.

[Gwhite]

+0.75 Diopter is a good place to start, but I have found I get a better sight picture with anywhere from +0.68D to +1.00D, depending on a variety of factors. I also use a variable iris, and filters outdoors to deal with depth of field issues. My corrected distance vision had shifted by 0.25D since my contacts were last updated, during which time I needed to change the lens in my shooting glasses twice.

At $40 a lens, my current collection of lenses would be equivalent to the cost of a Variolens ($159). The other problem is that the tolerances on most lenses aren't that good. I've measured mine optically, and you are lucky if they are within an eight of a diopter of what they are labeled. That isn't an issue with the Variolens.

I'm not going dash out & buy one today, but I wouldn't dismiss them as an overpriced gimmick. If they'd been available before I bought (and measured) a good supply of fixed lenses, I think I'd have been much happier with the Variolens.

[FredB]

I agree with Gwhite. It seems to me that ShootingSight is using a rifle shooter's mentality to solve a pistol shooting problem. The only depth of field that matters to me is between the front sight and the rear sight. It doesn't matter how fuzzy the target is, since I'm using area aim. And despite the theory - which I do understand - in practice my ability to focus clearly on the front sight does change considerably with lighting and other changing conditions, including changing conditions within my body. I'd like to try the Variolens. However, it does look bulky and heavy - is that a problem?

FredB

[Gwhite]

I'm not sure how it will feel hanging off a pair of glasses for a long free pistol match. I handled one detached, and although it is a bit clunky in terms of the bulk it would add to your glasses, it felt reasonably light.

I shoot with a fixed lens, an adjustable iris, and colored filters, so there's a fair amount of hardware right there. I don't think I will want to give up on either the iris or the filters, so it's going to be a bit of a mechanical mess hanging out there. The trick will be figuring how to retain the filters & iris with the Variolens. Rifle shooters have the adjustable iris in their rear sight, so it isn't an issue. I'm not convinced you can dispense with it for pistol just because you'd got the Variolens.

[Mike M.]

I'm still experimenting with mine. I need 4.75 diopters of correction to begin with, and my base shooting lens handles that. The Variolens is for fine-tuning.

[BenEnglishTX]

I, too, have Superfocus glasses. I recently posted my review of them on another forum where the focus is self-defense and that gave rise to my repeated references to "traditional" target shooting. I thought I'd repost it here (with minor edits) since discussions on this site convinced me to go forward. Also, I think it better not to start a new thread and keep related stuff together.

So, my apologies to anyone who objects to the necropost. Please keep in mind that this was written for an entirely different audience. I hope you find it useful.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note - The tl;dr version of this post is at the bottom.

I promised to put something on here about Superfocus glasses. I've had them for a while now and used them enough that I feel comfortable making some initial comments.

For those who don't know, Superfocus glasses use a variable-power lens arrangement that enables the entire lens to be perfectly focused at whatever distance you wish.

Each lens consists of a front and rear element. The front element is ground for your prescription and held onto the frame by magnets. The rear element can change curvature based on the tension applied to it by the frame. IOW, there are two lenses on each side. Change the tension via a slide on the crosspiece between the lenses and the curvature of the rear lens in each pair changes, changing the prescription. Slide it all the way to the left and you have proper focus at infinity. Slide it all the way to the right and you have proper focus just off the tip of your nose. Somewhere in between, you get perfect focus at a middle distance such as the distance from your eye to the front sight on your pistol.

There are videos and explanations on their web site that do a far better job of explaining how they work if the previous paragraph wasn't clear. Let me emphasize this point: If you think you might have any interest in these glasses, read their entire website before you order. There's a great deal of necessary information on it, enough that you might decide not to order.

I was interested in these glasses for several reasons.

• * - My major interest is in target shooting of a traditional sort. I need good focus on the front sight; all other considerations are far behind.
  * - I'm diabetic. Changes in blood sugar change eye focus. Under stress, such as during a pistol match, my eyesight can change by a full diopter over the course of an hour or so. No fixed-focus lens can help me. Theoretically, I need a case full of different prescriptions or add-on lenses or progressives.
  * - I've been severely nearsighted all my life. On top of that, a few years ago presbyopia hit me quick and hard.
  * - I got progressive lenses for the first time in my life a while back and I got distinctly mixed results. When I look at something close by through a certain area of the lenses and turn my head just so, I get a nausea-inducing distortion in my vision. Also, the part of the lens through which I look when checking for a car in my blind spot while changing lanes does not correct my vision properly. Finally, the spot on the lenses through which I should look to get best focus on a front sight requires I tilt my head way back, not just hold it erect. That throws off the stance while shooting. Heck, it throws off everything. Basically, I've had them for most of a year and conclude that I'll never get used to them. I can put up with them for everyday wear since they're acceptable and extremely convenient. However, they're terrible for shooting.

Glasses where I can change the prescription by touching a slider seem like they would be a perfect solution. Well, they're a solution but they're not perfect.

I could go through a long narrative of testing and anecdotes but I won't bother. The wall-o-text would be too offputting. Instead, let me jump to my conclusions in a digestible, bulleted format.

First, the bad stuff.

• * - They're ugly. God, they're ugly.
  * - They're expensive.
  * - The fit was odd. Theoretically, they have the same length earpiece as my everyday glasses but it sure seems shorter. They are also front-heavy, what with the four lenses and the mechanical stuff up front. I'm experimenting with various holders to go around the back of my head to fight the feeling that they'll fall off if I jerk my head to the side quickly.
  * - These are glasses by mail order for most of us. (There are only a couple of dispensing opticians in the Houston area; they're shown on the web site.) That means you endure all the hassle of taking them to an optician for a fitting after you receive them. When I took mine to a local optician, they took one look at these weird things and treated me like I had two heads. I got the fitting but they weren't happy about doing it. (Superfocus reimburses them $50, btw.)
  * - Changing focus is not terribly smooth. Maybe it will loosen up over time but the slider for the lens adjustment is like the trigger on a Beretta Nano - long travel with lots of grinding and glitches along the way.
  * - I do not have confidence that the magnetic attachment of the front elements is secure. It's more than adequate for everyday use but if someone popped me in the side of the head, I can easily imagine them flying away leaving me functionally blind. I wouldn't hesitate to wear them while running around a range, shooting, but there's no way they're suitable for wear to, say, a close quarters combat course. Thank goodness I'm not interested in doing dynamic retention drills.
  * - They're ugly and weird-looking.
  * - Did I mention they're seriously <insert curses> ugly?

Now the good stuff.

• * - The interchangeable lenses make changing from clear to dark sunglasses (or any of a bunch of different colors) super easy.
  * - They work.

I should elaborate on that last bullet.

I've spent the last 20+ years denying that I have a problem as my vision deteriorated. I've made do with glasses that were close but never perfect. I had come to accept that a truly clear, sharp front sight on my pistol was never going to happen again. With these glasses, all that changes.

I can stand on the firing line, point my pistol downrange with one hand and use the other to adjust focus. Watching that blurry front sight become sharp was like Christmas morning when I was a kid - a giant gift that made me unbelievably happy. What's more, as I got accustomed to the glasses I learned to push the slider just a bit more and discovered that my standards for good vision had never before come anywhere close to the possible. I can now see, in shooting position, the pinpoint specks of carbon on the rear surface of the front sight of my ported Glock 24. I can perfectly see the pattern of worn Sight Black and the underlying red nail polish on the front sight of my old PPC pistol. If some fuzz gets caught on my front sight, I can see the individual strands of fabric of which it is composed.

For traditional target shooting with iron sights, my bad eyes have actually become a virtue. I get perfect front sight focus but both the rear sight and the target are ridiculously fuzzy. I actually get that sight picture that old how-to-shoot guides used to show where the target is totally fuzzy, the rear sight is grey/out of focus, and the front sight is sharp. Because of this (and this is the big benefit) I have much less temptation to shift focus downrange. I can more consistently concentrate on my front sight simply because it's the only thing I can truly see. For someone who likes playing at traditional marksmanship, this is a gift of renewed visual acuity sufficient to make me weep tears of joy. (Yes, I'm serious.)

My conclusion is that I don't like them for everyday wear. The look isn't for me and the advantages of perfect focus aren't critical in my day-to-day activities. For traditional target shooting games with iron sights, they are a gift from God. Not only do they give me perfect focus but they give it to me every time, no matter how different my eyes are now as compared to an hour ago. You'd have to be diabetic to grok the full importance of that point so if you don't understand, that's OK. For those of us who do understand, it's a Very Big Deal.

I've omitted a great deal of minutiae so questions are welcome.

tl;dr version - Great for iron sights on the range. A mixed bag otherwise.