| 1.50 Standard Plastic | 1.49–1.50 | Approximately 2.0 mm | Approximately 58 | Lightweight, economical, and generally comfortable for mild prescriptions. Usually requires a protective hard coating. | Usually requires a UV-absorbing treatment or coating; not every clear lens blocks the same amount of UV. | Better impact resistance than mineral glass, but lower than polycarbonate and Trivex-type materials. | Approximately −2.00 to +2.00 diopters | $20–$80 | Commonly produced to ISO 8980-1, ISO 8980-2, ISO 14889, and applicable regional requirements. | Very high; widely available through optical laboratories and online prescription services. | Best value for mild prescriptions |
| 1.56 Mid-Index Plastic | Approximately 1.56 | Approximately 1.8 mm | Approximately 40–43 | Thinner and lighter than standard plastic, with a moderate balance between optics, price, and appearance. | UV performance depends on the material formulation and coating specification; verify the stated UV wavelength range. | Suitable for everyday use when manufactured and edged to applicable optical safety requirements. | Approximately −3.00 to +3.00 diopters | $30–$110 | Typically specified against ISO 8980 series requirements and local prescription-lens regulations. | High in Asia, Europe, and many international online markets; moderate in some smaller markets. | Balanced everyday option |
| 1.60 High-Index Plastic | Approximately 1.60 | Approximately 1.6 mm | Approximately 40–42 | Noticeably thinner than 1.50 plastic and suitable for moderate prescriptions. Often supplied with anti-reflective coating. | Many formulations provide strong UV absorption, but certification or a written specification should be checked. | Good everyday durability; edge thickness and frame design still affect practical strength. | Approximately −3.00 to −6.00 or +3.00 to +5.00 diopters | $45–$160 | Commonly aligned with ISO 8980-1, ISO 8980-2, ISO 14889, and regional conformity requirements. | High; broadly available from prescription laboratories worldwide. | Best general-purpose high-index choice |
| 1.67 High-Index Plastic | Approximately 1.67 | Approximately 1.4 mm | Approximately 31–32 | Thin and relatively light for strong prescriptions. Optical chromatic dispersion is higher than in 1.50 and Trivex-type materials. | Usually includes substantial UV absorption, subject to the exact material and coating specification. | Appropriate for routine prescription wear; not normally selected as the first choice for high-impact occupational protection. | Approximately −6.00 to −10.00 or +5.00 to +8.00 diopters | $70–$240 | Usually manufactured to ISO 8980 series requirements; impact claims must be verified separately from refractive-index claims. | High in developed optical markets; moderate to high in international online supply chains. | Best for strong prescriptions requiring a thinner profile |
| 1.74 Ultra-High-Index Plastic | Approximately 1.74 | Approximately 1.2–1.3 mm | Approximately 32–33 | Thinnest commonly available clear plastic option for very strong prescriptions. Higher material cost and lower Abbe value. | Typically provides strong UV absorption, but the final specification should be confirmed before purchase. | Suitable for everyday prescription eyewear when properly processed; not a substitute for certified safety eyewear. | Usually above approximately ±8.00 diopters | $110–$350 | Commonly referenced against ISO 8980 and ISO 14889; local labeling and prescription-lens rules may also apply. | Moderate to high; more dependent on laboratory capability and prescription complexity. | Best for very high prescriptions and maximum thinness |
| Polycarbonate | Approximately 1.586 | Approximately 1.6 mm | Approximately 29–31 | Lightweight, naturally UV-absorbing, and highly impact resistant. Chromatic aberration can be more noticeable than with higher-Abbe materials. | Usually provides inherent UV protection up to approximately 380–400 nm, depending on formulation and product specification. | Excellent impact resistance; commonly used for children’s eyewear, sports eyewear, and many protective applications. Safety certification must be product-specific. | Approximately −4.00 to +4.00 diopters | $45–$170 | May be supplied to ISO 16321, ANSI Z87.1, EN 166, or other safety standards when explicitly certified; ordinary prescription lenses are not automatically safety-rated. | Very high worldwide, particularly for children’s, sports, and safety-related eyewear. | Best for impact resistance and active use |
| Trivex-Type Impact-Resistant Material | Approximately 1.53 | Approximately 1.8 mm | Approximately 43–45 | Combines high impact resistance, low density, and better optical clarity than polycarbonate for many wearers. | Many formulations provide strong UV protection; confirm the manufacturer’s stated transmission limit. | Excellent impact resistance and good suitability for rimless, drilled, children’s, and sports frames when properly certified. | Approximately −3.00 to +3.00 diopters | $70–$220 | May be supplied to ANSI Z87.1, ISO 16321, EN 166, or equivalent standards when the finished product carries the relevant certification. | High in North America and Europe; moderate in some other regions. | Best optical-safety balance for active wearers |
| Photochromic Plastic | Usually 1.50, 1.56, 1.60, or 1.67 | Depends on the base material | Depends on the base material | Darkens in response to ultraviolet light and, depending on the formulation, some visible light. Performance varies with temperature and vehicle use. | Typically provides UV protection while clear and activated; verify whether the product is intended to block UVA and UVB. | Impact performance is determined by the base material, not by the photochromic function alone. | Available across mild to strong prescriptions, subject to material and laboratory limits | $90–$300 | Optical performance is generally assessed under ISO 8980; photochromic activation and transmission claims require product-specific testing. | High in major optical markets; moderate where specialized coating and activation technology is less common. | Best for changing outdoor and indoor light conditions |
| Polarized Plastic | Usually 1.50, 1.56, or 1.60 | Depends on the base material | Depends on the base material | Reduces glare from horizontal reflective surfaces such as water, roads, and snow. It is not the same as a UV-blocking specification. | Must be confirmed separately; polarization alone does not guarantee complete UVA and UVB protection. | Impact performance depends on the underlying lens material and any safety certification. | Commonly available from approximately −6.00 to +4.00 diopters | $80–$280 | Optical quality may be evaluated under ISO 8980; sunglass transmission and protection may be assessed under ISO 12312-1 or applicable regional standards. | High in sunny, coastal, driving, fishing, and outdoor markets; moderate for complex prescriptions. | Best for glare reduction outdoors |
| Mineral Glass | Approximately 1.52–1.90 | Often 2.0 mm or more | Approximately 40–60, depending on composition | Excellent scratch resistance and stable optical properties, but heavier and more brittle than modern plastic materials. | UV protection depends on glass composition and applied treatment; it should not be assumed from the material name alone. | Lower resistance to impact and breakage than certified impact-resistant plastics; unsuitable for many active or occupational applications. | Available for a broad prescription range, subject to laboratory and frame limitations | $60–$250 | Typically assessed under ISO 8980 and ISO 14889; safety eyewear requires separate impact testing and certification. | Limited to moderate; less commonly offered by mass-market laboratories than plastic lenses. | Best for scratch resistance when weight and impact risk are acceptable |
