Having plowed this ground, I'll offer my experience (please take with a grain of salt). My doctors were of virtually no help with the near/far decision, or about what type of implants to go with. Neither did I find much help from internet. So my logic on this follows. Having been nearsighted, and in glasses from school age to mid-50's (when it became necessary to deal with the cataracts), I had no issue with a continued need for glasses. Since work and hobbies (besides photography) involved significant close-up work, it made sense to me to remain somewhat nearsighted. Also, since both eyes had some degree of astigmatism, I felt it important that both eyes continue to work together...thus rejecting the idea of having one eye set "near" and the other for distance. I compromised however, and had my weaker eye set for intermediate distance, and my dominant eye set for reading distance. The result was excellent. I could see well enough without glasses to navigate around the house, and even read. With the new glasses (progressive lenses), vision was great at all distances. I should note that I rejected the "trick" implants that offer both near and distance due to potential issues with low light, that are well know with those. I did opt for a version that was to correct for my astigmatism however. Later finding out that those have slightly larger "feet" that anchor them in place. This came up because one implant is out of place and is irritating the iris. I'm not sure this would not have happened with the basic implants, but I'd not have gone for those if I had been advised of that risk. Good luck to all facing these decisions.