Question: Optivisor v "Dental" Loupes

[Crossbolt]

Does anyone have any particular experience or thoughts on use of something like an Optivisor versus surgical or dental loupes? I'm wondering if the latter are any improvement but if so I'm guessing to be of value they need custom fitting like glasses which becomes expensive and out of the hobby or beginner realm.
Jeremy

 

[John B.]

Hello Jeremy,
Many years ago I used surgical loupes, Neitz Binocular brand.
Thought I would "move up" from my Optivisors and have more freedom from my scopes.
Trouble I found was keeping my head steady enough and the loupes focused while engraving.
I would advise a trial before you invest in them.
Doctors and other engravers make them work but they are not for everyone.
YRMV.

 

[pmace]

An inexpensive (used) name brand microscope is light years ahead of either. Magnification, clarity, stability and posture are all much better. I tried both and couldn't work with either.

 

[hemmingway]

I used a optivisor for 30 years before I got a microscope. Young eyes do not need more. I still use the optivisor half the time. Save your money and only buy the best when it comes to optics. You will be using them for hours at a time.

 

[Crossbolt]

Hello Jeremy,
Many years ago I used surgical loupes, Neitz Binocular brand.
Thought I would "move up" from my Optivisors and have more freedom from my scopes.
Trouble I found was keeping my head steady enough and the loupes focused while engraving.
I would advise a trial before you invest in them.
Doctors and other engravers make them work but they are not for everyone.
YRMV.

Yeah. I'm wondering if the cheap stuff in this case is good enough for proof of concept testing. Usually it isnt, but it might at least give me a feel for big picture issues.
Jeremy

 

[Crossbolt]

An inexpensive (used) name brand microscope is light years ahead of either. Magnification, clarity, stability and posture are all much better. I tried both and couldn't work with either.

I agree that given roughly equal cost I'd go for a used 'scope. There are things a scope limits though. I'd definitely want flexibility of a non 'scope option.

 

[TFACARVING]

An inexpensive (used) name brand microscope is light years ahead of either. Magnification, clarity, stability and posture are all much better. I tried both and couldn't work with either.

I agree completely the only draw back to a microscope is lack of mobility however as stated much more stable to work with while at work if I can use my managers bench I do for that fact the loups and optivisors require you to maintain a specific distance from the work piece whereas you could put a headrest on a scope and not have the strain associated with the former

 

[monk]

i've used them all. the surgical type were nice. but they had maybe 13 " focal length. they made me feel as though there was some sort of "disconnect" between the object and my eyeballs. they also added a lot of pressure to the bridge of my nose. i soon gave up on the telescopic type. i still use optivisors and the scope. that is when my eye stabilizes. i have a jumping eye. it sometimes plagues me for days on end before they calm down. i don't hand engrave at all when they are actively jumping about.

 

[Tim Wells]

I have used both Zeiss surgical binoculars and the kind dentists wear where the binocular is mounted literally through the lens of the glasses. This type is made by "Design for Vision" . The latter are a lot lighter and both are expensive.

I like them for doing scroll work while sitting straight up with a long working distance, they're handy for that. If you get the right power magnification you won't have a problem keeping them still, in other words having the equivalent power of the typical optivisor lens but at a much greater working distance.

If you choose one too powerful, you'll drive yourself batty holding still enough to do anything.

The Design For Vision version has to be fitted to you to get the
interpupillary distance and focal point right as they are not adjustable. They all take getting used to.