We thank Dr. Galvis and team for the attentive reading of our study on defocus curves. In our study, we compared the visual performance of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOLs and found that the 4 IOLs provided patients with equally good corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). The extended depth-of-focus IOL demonstrated a slightly better intermediate CDVA, however a worse near CDVA than the other IOLs, with only the panfocal IOL presenting a better intermediate VA at 50 cm. We agree that the patients' uncorrected vergence is 0.25 D for an object at 4 m distance. In our study, the manifest refraction was performed with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts at 4 m distance, and the defocus curves were performed with the values of this manifest refraction. Thus, the vergence of 0.25 D of measuring VA at 4 m was already included in the manifest refraction used for defocus curve measurement, and consequently, the 4 m distance of the defocus curve can be seen as the reciprocal of the diopters used for measurement. The same defocus curve testing was used for all IOLs, allowing a relative comparison of the differences between the IOLs. Other published studies on the visual performance of IOLs, including that of Gundersen and Potvin, used the same methods to test VA and defocus curves.1–3 One of the main purposes of defocus curves is that they allow the comparison of the visual performance of IOLs with different designs, not just the simulation of visual performance in daily life. We agree that binocular measurements reflect more real-world viewing because of the presence of retinal disparity cues in addition to blur. However, the monocular defocus curve approach is suitable to compare the visual performance of various IOL designs. Because the main aim of our study was to compare the visual performance of presbyopia-correcting IOLs, the monocular defocus curve was the method of choice. The testing of positive IOLs in defocus curves is traditionally performed to compare the vision of preoperated patients with that of postoperated patients.4 We included positive defocus testing to allow the comparison of other published studies that had tested with an overcorrection of +1.00 to −4.00 D.2,3 We agree with the authors that positive IOL-simulated defocus testing takes some additional time; however, in our study, only 3 additional lens powers per eye were tested up to +1.50 D vs 8 lens powers for the myopic side up to −4.00 D.5 Thus, the impact on additional test time was rather low. In addition, defocus curves for both positive and negative IOLs have an important advantage in that they allow an understanding of how well residual refractive errors are tolerated by IOL designs and if the VA reduces monotonically as a function of defocus on this side. In our study, there were no differences between IOLs identified, with all IOLs showing a similar drop of VA as a function of induced positive IOLs. In conclusion, we agree that the relationship between lens vergence and distance defocus is essential for interpreting the resultant defocus curves as performed in our study.