I have read several threads on here regarding this, but I am still trying to figure it out. Talking to a lot of upperclassmen and faculty, I am told that 2.5 is all I need and it should be good enough. But reading sdn made it seem like 2.5 was not good enough? I definitely have decided against the 3.5EF because it's too heavy for me. So can I please get some opinions from people who own either and if they wish differently/if the loupes are good enough as they are? I am looking into DFV just FYI.
2.5 or 3.5sf loupes?
- Thread starter madirocks
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
3.5 EF. Ask the good people at dentaltown. A lot of them use a stand alone scope (endo) or high mag loupes. I think you might be asking the wrong people. You should ask people in private practice. I haven't met someone who wished they had lower mag. Once you go >2.5x, you don't go back. you'll get used to it.
they are heavy though. some people have neck strain even with the highest angle of declination (37 degrees i think?). neck strains didn't come from the weight but it came from having to bend your neck due to inadequate angle of declination of the loupes. these people probably shouldve opted with flip up loupes, which would make it heavier but allow for steeper angles. dfv does not make flip up loupes. i have the big 3.5 ef on the yeoman frames and i just tighten the headstrap and rest the nose piece on my mask. it makes it much more comfortable.
if heine made >3.5x loupes with longer working distances than the limited ones that they offer now, i would've gone with heine. i think their high mag loupes only go up to 16 inch working distance. that's way too short for me.
the reason why everyone at school is saying 2.5x is good enough is because they were brainwashed by the salesrep who push for students to get 2.5x. you wanna know why they push 2.5x on you? because they know you're going to upgrade to higher mag once you graduate and then spend more money on loupes. they'll lie to you saying you need to get used to 2.5x for a while before getting higher mag but really you can start with higher mag from the get go. the word got out about their business scheme and that's why you see sdn and dentaltown recommending you get >2.5x. loupes are already overpriced. don't get swindled even more.
they are heavy though. some people have neck strain even with the highest angle of declination (37 degrees i think?). neck strains didn't come from the weight but it came from having to bend your neck due to inadequate angle of declination of the loupes. these people probably shouldve opted with flip up loupes, which would make it heavier but allow for steeper angles. dfv does not make flip up loupes. i have the big 3.5 ef on the yeoman frames and i just tighten the headstrap and rest the nose piece on my mask. it makes it much more comfortable.
if heine made >3.5x loupes with longer working distances than the limited ones that they offer now, i would've gone with heine. i think their high mag loupes only go up to 16 inch working distance. that's way too short for me.
the reason why everyone at school is saying 2.5x is good enough is because they were brainwashed by the salesrep who push for students to get 2.5x. you wanna know why they push 2.5x on you? because they know you're going to upgrade to higher mag once you graduate and then spend more money on loupes. they'll lie to you saying you need to get used to 2.5x for a while before getting higher mag but really you can start with higher mag from the get go. the word got out about their business scheme and that's why you see sdn and dentaltown recommending you get >2.5x. loupes are already overpriced. don't get swindled even more.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
I regret buying 2.5x. I would recommend 3.5x.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 964
- Reaction score
- 922
3.5 or die.
- Joined
- May 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,494
- Reaction score
- 1,308
From doing a quick browse on dentaltown, it looks like a combo of the 3.5x EF DFVs with a Lumadent light would be a great bet.
Lumadent actually has loupes too, though... I wonder how good they are.
How do you tell which frames to get? I am a pretty small person so I want something that won't be too terribly heavy. The Yeomans seem to be popular.
And how much will that cost? It doesn't really matter, but I'm just curious. It looks like the light pack will be close to $500.
Edit: It looks like the loupes (without light) are about $1900 based on a recent post.
Lumadent actually has loupes too, though... I wonder how good they are.
How do you tell which frames to get? I am a pretty small person so I want something that won't be too terribly heavy. The Yeomans seem to be popular.
And how much will that cost? It doesn't really matter, but I'm just curious. It looks like the light pack will be close to $500.
Edit: It looks like the loupes (without light) are about $1900 based on a recent post.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 461
Is it better to get a non-RX version and wear it with contacts? I am assuming my eye-sight is just going to get worse anyways.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
I don't need a prescription so I can't say first hand. But, all the vendors that came to our school offered a free prescription change at least 1x during dental school, some of them 1x a year as long as you're still a student.
Depending on what company you go with it is not too bad to upgrade your RX with time (~$200 I think). I believe DFV gives you a 1 free RX update. If you go with TTL loupes I think you have to put your RX in unless you wear contacts.
Make sure to ask the rep!
Is the rational of starting out with 2.5x and keeping them for 4-5 years before using the 3.5x in order to save your eyes a reasonable one? Will the larger mag loupes weaken your eyes faster in the same way wearing glasses gradually weakens your vision and requires a stronger prescription?
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 403
I got the 3.3 and 2.5x loupes, and ended up keeping the 2.5x cuz I thought the 3.3 were overkill. But now, I rarely use my loupes. My vision is still pretty good, so I have no need for them.
Don't think you will grow into them. Return them if you don't like them. Mine are just very expensive safety goggles now.
Don't think you will grow into them. Return them if you don't like them. Mine are just very expensive safety goggles now.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
No, and no.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
Do you come from old money? http://mayoclinichealthsystem.org/locations/la-crosse/medical-services/ophthalmology/myths-and-facts
How's your back doing?
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 403
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,052
Seems like 3.5x EF is the way to go, thanks for the heads up.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,052
What is the price on those?
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
Orascoptic 4.3x is $1500. but orascoptic's magnification is weird. their 4.3x is similar in magnification to dfv's 3.5ef. in fact all of their mags are actually lower in strength than they're advertised. an orascoptic 2.5x is actually like ~2.0x. that's why orascoptic 4.3x costs less than dfv's 3.5ef. i brought this issue up to one of the orascoptic reps and she didn't deny it. she said there's no industry standard for magnification. when i tried both of them on during one of my school's loupe vendor fair, i thought orascoptic 4.8x was closest to dfv's 3.5ef (both allow you to see only half an arch) and they actually cost the same ~$1600. DFV sells 4.0x or 4.5x but i've heard bad things about em'. i heard they're too heavy, they have a small field of view, and that the manufacturers have a hard time fitting the lenses onto the frame with the correct interpupillary distance. if you ever feel the need for this high of a mag, you should consider surgical microscopes that have 4-12x mag when get into private practice.
i thought orascoptic was being really sketchy with the way they label their magnification and mislead customers. so i didn't choose orascoptic even though i thought their lenses had a sharper image and tended to not get as blurry when you make slight movement. it's noticeable but clinically insignificant. also dfv's customer service has been superb. they gave me expedited shipping for free and dfv reps visit my school more often than any other company.
have you noticed how the reps are pretty hot?
Last edited:
Wow, thank you guys so much! 2.5 is totally ruled out!
It seems like 3.5 EF is the WAYYY TO GO, but being a girl (yes I am generalizing) and someone who easily get's headache, I feel like the weight will really get to me. Will I still be able to do good dentistry with 3.5SF or do I need to suck it up and go for the EF?
Just curious, which frame are you using with that 3.8x? I was considering 3.3 high res from orascoptic, but that weight issue makes me run to standard ones. I don't know what their 3.3 high res equals in normal magnification terminology..
It seems like 3.5 EF is the WAYYY TO GO, but being a girl (yes I am generalizing) and someone who easily get's headache, I feel like the weight will really get to me. Will I still be able to do good dentistry with 3.5SF or do I need to suck it up and go for the EF?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
I would get the ultramini. Some people prefer to stay as cheap as possible and order ultralight or lumadent but if you get dfv's package deal (loupe and light) you get a large carrying case and more importantly, you get easier customer service in case something happens. these other two companies offer random warranties. if you ask them one day, they'll give you a one year warranty. if you ask at another day, they'll offer a four year warranty. they're also inconsistent with pricing. if you go to a convention they might sell battery or bulb for higher or lower than if you were to call them. these two companies are only a good deal if you can get a group deal (+10). i think with dfv you get lifetime on the bulb and maybe 4 year warranty on battery but i forgot. and if you get loupe and light package, the light ends up being cheaper than buying the light by itself.
ultralight customer service is pretty nice. i called them about a group deal. usually you need like 10 but i only had 4 people. they were okay with giving me the group deal with just 4 people. then 2 people in my group dropped but ultralight was still willing to give me and a friend the group deal. in the end i went with dfv's light to avoid the hassle of waiting several months for ultralight to ship my light and possibly having to ship the light back and forth in case something breaks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
i paid 1900 for 3.5ef loupe and light. 3.5ef loupe is 1600. light is another 300.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
While I agree that Orascoptic is a bit generous with their magnification, I would say my 3.8x are actually pretty close to the 3.5x from DFV, maybe about a 3.4x or so. The 4.8x I tried were far more mag than the 3.5x from DFV I used. Also, the orascoptic rep I talked to was a bit over-weight and not exactly the friendliest dude lol.
I went with the large titanium frames (I think) so that I could see around the telescopes without the frame sitting in the middle of my vision. They are not as heavy with long use as I thought they would be actually.
- Joined
- May 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,494
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
I have a lumadent light and it's perfect for what we need. If anything is wrong they have shipped stuff same day to classmates. Their warranty is not random, it's in writing and easy to find on their website and on the receipt you receive. If you get 10 of your future classmates to buy it, it's $299 and you can probably get cases thrown in. I don't think you need 2 batteries as I have charged mine 2x in 6 months of using it about 5 hours a/week. There is a reason Lumadent is spoken of so highly on DentalTown.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
You do have some good info in here, but to be fair I think that DFV is the odd-ball with how they label their magnification. Orascoptic labels theirs in the same way majority of companies label their mag. I don't think they are being sketchy in the slightest. They are a trustworthy company just as DFV is, just as Surgitel is and just as Zeiss and others are.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
I love my LumaDent light - its awesome. Its cheap but not cheap quality and is plenty bright too. I usually use my at just a hair under half power (has a rheostat). I have an extra one with a universal mount (but with no case) that I am looking to sell for a discount. Let me know if you are interested 🙂
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
Yeah, I have only had to charge mine twice as well. Then again I do not have it at full power, so that helps for sure.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
Glimmer, you're only saving <$100 by getting the lumadent. save yourself the headache of having to find 10 people for the group buy, having your loupe and light come at different dates, getting stuck with the smaller DFV carrying case because you didn't get the package deal (the large DFV carrying case is the size of a handgun case and the small DFV carrying case is the size of a pencil box), and possibly having to macgyver your light onto your loupe because they may or may not be a flush fit. with dfv, you're not just getting the loupe and light, you're also getting a larger carrying case which is at least $50, no hassle compatibility between loupe and light, and more convenient customer service support. that has to be worth the ~$100 difference between the two.
if you went with surgitel or orascoptic lights, then ultralight would be a much better deal considering how expensive surgitel's and orascoptic's lights are (surgitel has the best light on the market but it's really expensive). but the price for dfv light with the package deal is pretty reasonable.
my loupe package cost me $2000 (including $1500 loupe, light, and prescription).
http://www.surgitel.com/pdfs/Surgitel_Headlamps_DU.PDF
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
Just so you know, when you order a light from lumadent, they ship the proper mount to you (that is made just for DFV loupes) and often it has a case large enough for both your loupes and the light it comes with. I use the lumadent case for my loupes and light because it was more sturdy than the Orascoptic case. There is no MacGyver-ing. Also, customer service is the same since you would need to call them regardless of who it is. They are a great company to deal with from the experiences I have had.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
That's a pretty sweet deal then.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2010
- Messages
- 874
- Reaction score
- 142
2.5x DFV, 4.5x Surgitels, and 4.0x Zeiss are what I have. If you can handle it, prismatic from Zeiss is the tits! Otherwise, mo' mag mo' bettah. A 4-4.5x EF setup will cost 1700-2100 bucks depending on the manufacturer.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
Compared to other 3rd party lights I would say so. If there is no cost difference between getting a LumaDent and the OEM light, I say just go for the original light and save the time ordering it from LumaDent. Otherwise, if I was going with Surgitel or a company with a crazy expensive light I would not hesitate at all with the LumaDent. I think the DFV light has come down in the student price in recent years because LumaDent has been eating up market share.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2010
- Messages
- 874
- Reaction score
- 142
So good, the weight would be even worse on TTL though. You might try the head band mount, it's pretty good. Heine is also another alternative to Zeiss but they have some pretty terrible working distances.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
Weigh more as a TTL? You sure? I am familiar with Heine as well, and agree that they did not have the mag nor the working distance I wanted (nor a TTL for their non-headband products haha)
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
After I read that post, I was thinking the gross weight is probably less as TTL but the position of the weight may make it more noticeable and uncomfortable? Otherwise, I was of the understanding that one TTL's benefits was reduced weight.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,031
- Reaction score
- 635
Interesting. Wouldnt the TTL shift the weight closer the to face and thus lower the perceived weight (given equal weight TTL and flip up)?
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
I don't know...I was no bueno with physics haha. I was just assuming that dmdluffy was correct and working within that construct.
Is it just to be able to see bigger or is the 2.5 messing up your posture or something?
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 115
I would just like to see bigger. 2.5x at my appropriate working distance isn't much more magnified than I would see if I get very close with my natural vision. I would like to have something that is significantly more magnified than my natural vision so that I could be more precise with my work.
I would recommend getting at least 3.5 magnification, higher if you can tolerate more. I use 4.3 EF for all my general dentistry, 6.0 loupes for endo. I am the site director for an AEGD program, and for my residents each year I strongly encourage them to get at least 4.0 X magnification when they start their residency since they will get to do alot of endo and 2.5 loupes just doesn't cut it when you are doing premolar/molar endo treatment. If you ask any of my past residents, they all say they wished they had gotten the higher magnification during dental school since the difference in what they are able to see is significant.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 889
+1 for Zeiss. I heard you can now order Zeiss in the US through henry schein. if i ever decide on upgrading, it's going to be a zeiss.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2010
- Messages
- 874
- Reaction score
- 142
Yeah, Zeiss has partnered with Schein so you can't get it from Zeiss anymore apparently.
@Bereno, yeah I was talking about the shifted gravity. The overall weight is reduced cause the flip apparatus is gone but because the barrels are so long, I think it would be an awkard weight on frames. It's like get 6.0 TTLs from DFV or whoever. Super long and awkward.
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,014
- Reaction score
- 1,244
I don't mean to hijack the thread but I have a question relevant to OPs.
I don't normally wear glasses or contacts and I could read and see/ drive fine without them. However I had an eye exam(for military scholarship) and I wasn't able to see those super tiny letters lol . Then I went to get my eye checked up further at the optometrist but my the dr. said I don't really need them. I still asked for it though so I could submit my app
Now I am getting fitted for loupe soon and I was wondering if I should get the ones that have my prescription on the lense and loupe or the ones without..
Thanks.
EDIT: by the way my prescription says:
OD sphere: -050
OD cylinder: -100
OD axis: 175
OS sphere: -100
OS cylinder: -125
OS axis: 180
diagnosis: myopia
don't know if that helps...
I don't normally wear glasses or contacts and I could read and see/ drive fine without them. However I had an eye exam(for military scholarship) and I wasn't able to see those super tiny letters lol . Then I went to get my eye checked up further at the optometrist but my the dr. said I don't really need them. I still asked for it though so I could submit my app
Now I am getting fitted for loupe soon and I was wondering if I should get the ones that have my prescription on the lense and loupe or the ones without..
Thanks.
EDIT: by the way my prescription says:
OD sphere: -050
OD cylinder: -100
OD axis: 175
OS sphere: -100
OS cylinder: -125
OS axis: 180
diagnosis: myopia
don't know if that helps...
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,494
- Reaction score
- 1,308
