Single-lens or two-lens mask?

[12th Man]

When it comes to masks do you prefer a single-lens or two lens-mask? Or, does it really make a difference?

I've always used a single-lens mask, no complaints has always worked great for me. My son just bought me a new two-lens AquaLung Reveal X2 mask. It looks and feels great and sucks up air tight. I keep bouncing back and fourth from my single-lens to the two lens and I really can't tell the difference except maybe in my mind.

I'm assuming this is probably one of those personal preferences things. Just curious which ones y'all prefer?

 

[David Wilson]

Any new technology makes a good servant but a bad master. When microcomputers first came on the scene in the early 1980s, there was a BBC TV series here in the UK to help people learn how to use them. One of the presenters explained how he still used his fountain pen to write personal letters while understanding all the conveniences and benefits of using word-processing software. He urged his audience to be sceptical of the commercial hyperbole surrounding new technologies and only to adopt them when the older alternatives were no longer fit for purpose. Too many people adopt every new technology that comes along uncritically and without reflecting how steep the initial learning curve will be and how little or how much they will personally benefit from the innovation.

As a "vintage equipment snorkeller" beginning in the early 1960s, I've always swum with single-lens dive masks and I've built up quite a collection of them now both for sentimental reasons and for research purposes. I strongly believe in the principles of "if it ain't broke, why fix it?" and "just because something's new doesn't mean it's better", so in my case I've never seen the point of moving on to twin-lens models. To others, such a move might be a "no-brainer", but not to me. At the same time, I do understand why underwater hockey players insist on twin-lens masks for safety reasons, because they use a heavy puck that might smash through a large single lens but never penetrate smaller twin lenses. This said, single-lens models have served me well enough over six decades to be my masks of choice.

 

[kablooey]

I've used both throughout my two decades of diving, and have not developed a preference.
I consider proper fit the most important characteristic I'm looking for in a mask.
Durability is also important.
Lens configuration is secondary, as long as it doesn't effect field of view.

That said, I now use the double-lens variants exclusively.
I have prescription lenses installed in my primary and back-up masks.
If my vision changes, and one side needs to be updated, I just need to replace that side's lens.

Once the prescription lenses are bonded into place they can not be removed,
The whole piece of original glass must be replaced.
With a single-lens mask I'd have to replace both prescription lenses because they're stuck to the same glass below. See @JackD342 's post below.
That's double the expense.

There are some models of prescription masks that have user replaceable corrective lenses, but all the ones I've seen are also double-lens.
The SeaVision models are such a mask, and I own a couple. They are excellent masks, in my opinion, and their customer service is very good.

Currently my primary mask is a ScubaPro FluxTwin.
With the addition of prescription lenses it's the second most expensive piece of gear I dive with, after my regs.

And yes, I've had to change out a prescription lens several times in recent years due to on-going serious problem and surgeries in one of my eyes.
Getting older has it's downside.

K.

 

[lexvil]

Yes

 

[12th Man]

And yes, I've had to change out a prescription lens several times in recent years due to on-going serious problem and surgeries in one of my eyes.
Getting older has it's downside.K.

I'm 59 and have been blessed with good eye sight. That was until three weeks ago. Wife and I were in Belize on a two week dive trip. Half way through the trip, I found it harder and harder to read my phone and messages. My arms weren't long enough any longer. When we got back I went to Wally World and picked up a 1.5 set of readers to use. Four days later I went back to WW and picked up a 6 pack of readers and have them all over the house and my truck.

I have my first eye doctor appointment on Monday for an eye exam and new glasses. Seems I'm having to wear the readers all the time. Getting older does have it's downside!

 

[Jcp2]

Costco has reader 3 packs for $15. I know that I have at least four of these packs judging buy the styles floating around the house, cars, and office, in addition to various singles that collapse, fold, or otherwise travel easily.

 

[JackD342]

I've used both throughout my two decades of diving, and have not developed a preference.
I consider proper fit the most important characteristic I'm looking for in a mask.
Durability is also important.
Lens configuration is secondary, as long as it doesn't effect field of view.

That said, I now use the double-lens variants exclusively.
I have prescription lenses installed in my primary and back-up masks.
If my vision changes, and one side needs to be updated, I just need to replace that side's lens.

Once the prescription lenses are bonded into place they can not be removed,
The whole piece of original glass must be replaced.
With a single-lens mask I'd have to replace both prescription lenses because they're stuck to the same glass below.
That's double the expense.

There are some models of prescription masks that have user replaceable corrective lenses, but all the ones I've seen are also double-lens.
The SeaVision models are such a mask, and I own a couple. They are excellent masks, in my opinion, and their customer service is very good.

Currently my primary mask is a ScubaPro FluxTwin.
With the addition of prescription lenses it's the second most expensive piece of gear I dive with, after my regs.

And yes, I've had to change out a prescription lens several times in recent years due to on-going serious problem and surgeries in one of my eyes.
Getting older has it's downside.

K.

@kablooey you may want to question that inability to remove old lenses. My lab does remove old bonded lenses to change a prescription, and even does so for no charge if they are also installing the new lens. Obviously not all glues are the same, but there might also be an incorrect assumption in play here.

 

[Andrew Dawson]

Personally, I found that the two lens masks are easier to pinch my nose for equalizing...with thick gloves on. There is more room in there to get at your nose. It could be the masks I am using...OMS 2-window [I am not sure the model, need to look it up, but was made in 2007] vs a Scubapro Solo [1-window mask made last year].

The two window OMS I absolutely love, so comfortable, so easy to get at my nose to pinch and equalize...and the field of view is not much less than the Scubapro Solo.

I enjoy the single lens masks for being able to see macro life up close with both eyes [objects near in front of my face]....and mentally, I like the idea of looking out one big window instead of two. I am currently getting adjusted with the Scubapro Solo and really enjoying it.

 

[kablooey]

Seems I'm having to wear the readers all the time. Getting older does have it's downside!

When I had bifocal lenses installed in my mask for the first time it was revolutionary for me.
I could finally see all the little creatures I'd overlooked over the years.

K.

 

[Jcp2]

I put a pair of DIY plastic reader lens in my single pane atomic mask at the same level that I have my bifocal split set on my regular glasses, and used a little silicone caulk to keep it in place, as per a prior post on this board. I used a mirror to line it up just right with my pupils, just a couple of mm down from the level, and it works really well. I really should get this done with a professional, but I'm experimenting with how long this will last. I do have an official premade bifocal two lense mask as a backup, but those lenses are mounted quite a bit lower, and are really just good for a quick look close with an unnatural to me downward gaze for prolonged close usage.