S.L.E. (Slit Lamp) Fundoscopy Lenses

[Commando303]

I haven't been to this forum in some while, and, stopping by to take a peek, I was not surprised to find mostly the same old crap clogging the gutters of conversation that led me to figure this Web site isn't worth my time: "Optometry sucks"; blah, blah, blah; bitch, whine, whine.

So, to try to break the monotony...:

Which S.L. fundoscopes does everyone like? Are most of you fans of the 90D? Something more exotic? Contact lenses?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CL Doc]

I haven't been to this forum in some while, and, stopping by to take a peek, I was not surprised to find mostly the same old crap clogging the gutters of conversation that led me to figure this Web site isn't worth my time: "Optometry sucks"; blah, blah, blah; bitch, whine, whine.

So, to try to break the monotony...:

Which S.L. fundoscopes does everyone like? Are most of you fans of the 90D? Something more exotic? Contact lenses?

I've tried them all but always come back to the one I learned on...90D.

 

[optsuker]

1st learned with a 78 & 90
My favorite now: Superfield NC

 

[Roffles]

I'm still a student, but I really like the Superfield. The Digital Wide Field is great too, but it's harder for me to use due to the large amount of glare (woohoo inexperience). I like the 78 as well, tried the Super66 but just didn't enjoy it as much.

Anyone use the Digital High Mag? Never used it, but it sounds cool. Don't see how it would be worth the money over a 78 though.

 

[Jibslider]

I'm still a student, but I really like the Superfield. The Digital Wide Field is great too, but it's harder for me to use due to the large amount of glare (woohoo inexperience). I like the 78 as well, tried the Super66 but just didn't enjoy it as much.

Anyone use the Digital High Mag? Never used it, but it sounds cool. Don't see how it would be worth the money over a 78 though.

I use the Digital 1.0 imaging lens for my general purpose slit lamp lens, and I love it. It took a little getting used to because the working distance doesn't have much play to it. I get a great magnified view that is similar to a 78, but it excels in cutting down reflections and gets me a great view through folks with cataracts. I feel it gives me superior macular views than my 78. I also keep a 90 on deck.

 

[Roffles]

That sounds great. I'll definitely have to demo one when the reps come in this year.

 

[Visionary]

IMO, the Digital Wide Field is the best SL screening lens available. I have a Super 66 for high mag, but rarely use it. For BIO, you can't go wrong with the 2.2 Panretinal.

 

[lilxkgrli]

Most of the students at my school have the 78 and 90 (if they could afford it that is). 78 was just a safe choice for most since it was the one in the middle.

 

[lilxkgrli]

also we were told to compare on the volk website just to compare the specs

 

[362.04]

I haven't been to this forum in some while, and, stopping by to take a peek, I was not surprised to find mostly the same old crap clogging the gutters of conversation that led me to figure this Web site isn't worth my time: "Optometry sucks"; blah, blah, blah; bitch, whine, whine.

So, to try to break the monotony...:

Which S.L. fundoscopes does everyone like? Are most of you fans of the 90D? Something more exotic? Contact lenses?

If you have only a budget for one lens then consider a 90D lens. It will account for almost 70% of your activities. While a 78D or even a 60D lens is also helpful, changing the oculars or the magnification level on a slit lamp while using a 90D is simulates a 78D. The nicest thing about the 90D is the balance, working distance and size/weight of the lens.