> Quote - @ MikeJ, > > I will be interested to see how it looks with a texture on it, and the difference between the concave and convex morphs. Judging from the diagrams I have seen, the lens looks a rather small to me, but if you have it grouped separately I guess it will be easy enough to change the size.

OK, well here it is. Forgive me the crappy textures and shaders, but I didn't put much time into that, just sloshed some brushes around in Photoshop. ;-)
(Click image for larger size, as BB would say...)

The individual frames are labeled, so it should be fairly obvious what's what.
Yeah, the lens is kind of small I guess, but I enlarged it for these. I don't think it really added anything in a side view though, even with refraction on for it.
The images don't show any real drastic changes, but are subtle enough differences to be able to see.
Possibly if I had tried to model a more physically accurate eye it might have been different.
Also, the morphs aren't particularly extreme, just more or less within what it seems to me to be as far as I should go in either direction. The one that shows "convex - no refraction" doesn't look like it protrudes much, and maybe I didn't pull it out far enough, but without it all you see is a fraction of that - a tiny sliver.
When I say "refraction", I'm referring to refraction on the cornea and nothing else - I used a refraction value of 1.37, which is a number I found on teh interwebs on some eye geek site. ;-)

Quote -
oh, and wow, that's a lot of polys.  how much is one eye?

It's 5,792 polygons for one eye. You should see the hi-res version I had. ;-)