Dean, Costco is happy to work with you. I HATED my first ever progressives (from them) and wouldn't wear them. Years later I tried again and made them redo the lenses because I felt like I had to tilt my chin down to drive with the distance vision being comfortable. I always make sure they lower the distance focal point a tad for every new prescription so I don't have to lower my chin. That works great for ME. I know we are all different and I don't need glasses at all to read but at arms length, I do need them. Don't settle with glasses that don't make you happy. It's their job to make you happy, no matter who fills the Rx. It's a law of some sort.

I have them and do not love them. They don't get dark enough in direct sunlight and they don't get dark at all if I'm in a shaded area, like if I have a baseball cap on my head.

I have them and do not love them. They don't get dark enough in direct sunlight and they don't get dark at all if I'm in a shaded area, like if I have a baseball cap on my head.
[/quote]

I agree. My normal every day glass are both progressive and transitions. They are what they are but nothing beats real sunglasses when you need them.

Years ago I had transitions too, but like many have stated here they simply did not get dark enough when I really needed them to be. I like my sunglasses to be dark and if I am out in very bright sun for very long without dark lenses I tend to get headaches. Back then, the transition lenses available from my doctor only came in glass, and so that made the frames a bit heavy and they would slide down my nose which was also irritating.

This was the year for my biennial exam and my vision had changed slightly (for the better to the surprise of both me and my optometrist) so when I had new lenses made for my night / cloudy-rainy day driving, I was able to get a second pair of frames for 1/2 price. They had a nice Ray-Ban frame that has a mild wrap around shape to them, which I like because it seems to better keep out light from the side, and I have less problem with little specs of dust and such getting blown in from the side. I almost got them done in a gradient tint like my regular non-script Ray-Bans (a lucky find while snorkeling), but decided on a solid tint.

Rex

^^^
You should have gone with Ray-Ban... ;)
[/quote]Oakley has better optics and a better field of vision. Better for sports like the cycling I do. Not many athletes wear Ray Bans for outdoor sports, they wear Oakley. :cool:

^^^
You should have gone with Ray-Ban... ;)
[/quote]Oakley has better optics and a better field of vision. Better for sports like the cycling I do. Not many athletes wear Ray Bans for outdoor sports, they wear Oakley. :cool:
[/quote]

S2KRayBan... :LOL:

Anybody know the answer to my question if a lab can add a tint to a regular pair of glasses and make them sunglasses? I don't know how it's done.

^^^
You should have gone with Ray-Ban... ;)
[/quote]Oakley has better optics and a better field of vision. Better for sports like the cycling I do. Not many athletes wear Ray Bans for outdoor sports, they wear Oakley. :cool:
[/quote]

S2KRayBan... :LOL:
[/quote]I like that. :LOL:

My prescription changed slightly (for the worse) so it was time for a major eyewear investment. I ended up buying two new pairs of glasses, both with progressive lenses. The first is clear for the office and indoor use, with a Brooks Brothers frame. The second will be polarized, tinted and mirrored Ray-Ban framed sunglasses for driving and other outdoor events. I also bought new progressive lenses for the frame that held my transitions. I hardly ever used these, so the frame is in excellent shape. The lenses will be a gray/blue tint for fishing. As the lowest cost of the three pair, I won't feel too bad if they fall over the side. Total cost for this eyewear upgrade was a tick over $1K. Hopefully I'll get five years out of the lenses and ten out of the frames.

No Oakleys at this time. Maybe down the road.

The luxottica monopoly thanks you.