Review: Varilux Comfort 1.67

[hcjilson]

Product: Varilux Comfort 1.67
Vendor: Varilux/Essilor
Vendor Home Page: http://varilux.com/index.cfm
Category: Other
Reviewer: Harry. C. Jilson (hcjilson)

Ratings:
Quality: http://www.optiboard.com/images/5star.gif
Ease of use: http://www.optiboard.com/images/5star.gif
Client acceptance (if applicable): http://www.optiboard.com/images/5star.gif
Customer service of the manufacturer or distributor: http://www.optiboard.com/images/5star.gif
Value: http://www.optiboard.com/images/5star.gif
Overall: http://www.optiboard.com/images/5star.gif

Review:
My love affair with the Varilux Comfort lens began in 1994 when the product was introduced at a seminar in Hyannis. At the time, I was an unhappy progressive non adapter, who had considerable trouble with all hard lens designs. This stemmed from the amount of time I spent on the road and the inability to safely use the side view mirrorrs with progressives. I thought I had sucessfully solved the problem with Sola Smart Segs.

At the seminar we were told that this was a product the consumers had named.Varilux had used the word that most of the trial respondents used when describing the lens. I remember remarking at the seminar, that all the Comfort was, was a “new and improved” lens to separate us from additional money without giving us anything new! In a sucessfull effort to keep me quiet, I was given a complimentary fit by Dave Cuffe who was with Varilux at that time.

I received my first pair and clearly remember looking all around, and being in focus wherever I looked. Honest to Betsy, my first response was, “These ARE comfortable”.I adapted to them right away and loved the ‘soft ‘ design. The Varilux Comfort became my lens of choice at that instant. Followed by the Panamic when frame sizes dictated lower fitting heights. Then came the rimless revolution, and the Comfort, even in Poly, was not suitable for drilling. (Others of you may disagree, but my experience was that the lenses failed on occasion.

It was at this point my “affair” with Trivex began. A totally drillable, light weight, and soft design from 2 manufacturers then became my first and only choice for drilled rimless. My friends at Varilux and Essilor told me I was missing the boat, and you can find most of the banter by running an Optiboard search on Trivex. At the OAM meeting in April, Fran Lynch (Varilux MA., RI. rep and friend) suggested that the Varilux Comfort 1.67 was as “drillable” as Trivex, and arranged for another complimentary fit so that I could test it. I lept at the opportunity to get my Comforts back.

I’ve had them a week, and when I tried them on for the first time, I had the same feeling I enjoyed 9 years ago, but now I was in a rimless mounting, comparing them to my other rimless mountings. Essentially there is no noticeable difference. I weighed them. Trivex 52eye recangular rimless= .5 oz 54 eye same shape just 2 mm bigger+ .7 oz. 2/10ths of an oz doesn’t weigh much! I will leave it to others to say wether or not the eye can detect the difference in abbe values between trivex and 1.67, but I can tell you that I cannot.

My only complaint is that the Comfort 1.67 is not available in Transitions. I understand this is in the works and will be available, but sadly, not in time for this review. In short, the 1.67 Varilux Comfort is a remarkable product, bringing with it all that made its parent a great lens, and adding the ability to be used in the drilled rimless mountings of today,

Would you purchase this product or other products from this company based on your experience with this product?
Absolutely!

[Jo]

The Varilux Comfort became my lens of choice at that instant. Followed by the Panamic when frame sizes dictated lower fitting heights.Nice review Harry.

Would you be able to give us a hint about your Rx and would you be able to compare Comfort to other 1.67 progressives such as Proceed II beyond cosmetics?

(Just one point. Friday I was talking with our Varilux rep who said that he wouldn't stray too much lower than Comfort with Panamic fitting heights; Panamic isn't supposed to be a short corridor lens. Speaking of short corridors, it would be great if someone was able to write a review for Ellipse. We haven't fit one yet so I don't have any clue how patients will react to it. I know that Compact is one of our higher non-adapt progressives. Perhaps short corridors in general just need to be taken with a grain of salt.)

[hcjilson]

Rx OD +4.25 -.75X110
OS +4.00 -.50X10
Add +3.00 OU

Have only tried GPWide Hoya and Younger Image, both in Trivex Transitions.Both excellent lenses BUT I am very happy to have my Comforts back.
Mfgs minimum reccomended fitting height Comfort+22mm Panamic= 18mm.

I agree that higher is better but some women are harder to convince! :):)

[For-Life]

Comfort used to have a fitting height of 22mm, but like many other progressive lenses it is now advertised with a 18mm fitting height.

I have fit one 1.67 Comfort since it came out. I usually fit the Panamic or the Ovation, but she was previously wearing the Comfort and it was great that I could use that one.

[karen]

Speaking of short corridors, it would be great if someone was able to write a review for Ellipse. We haven't fit one yet so I don't have any clue how patients will react to it. I know that Compact is one of our higher non-adapt progressives. Perhaps short corridors in general just need to be taken with a grain of salt.)
Jo-spent some time a a meeting a few weks ago with lab people from all over and was sitting next to a gentleman that had just switched from Panamic to Ellipse to see how it stacked up. He LOVED the Ellipse-even on the computer. I am kicking myself for not asking his RX or add but he raved about them. He is very open minded about maufacturers (read: not an Esslior groupie) -not that there is anything wrong with that Pete ;)

I think the Compact design is too hard and that is why people don't adapt well . Don't particularly care for that lens... I don't think short corridors are for everybody. Just had to troubleshoot a job for an account with a Piccolo fit at 17 (recommended ht) with a 2.75 add that they had bumped up a half a diopter ( :angry: ) She was 65 and had been wearing what I call a "full field" PAL at 21 and could not see to read. I think these lenses are best for emerging presbyopes with low adds. That is how I present them to my accounts. I suggested they change they frame and pick a different design-they tried an Ellipse. I will let you know how it turns out!

[drk]

I have one patient from 2 weeks ago in an Oakley frame with an Ellipse set at 16mm. He did great at dispense. Very low minus with +1.00 add. When we do a followup call, I'll post.

[Jo]

Karen & drk,

Thanks for the info and please do let me know how they work out.

[amanda]

Comfort used to have a fitting height of 22mm, but like many other progressive lenses it is now advertised with a 18mm fitting height.

I have fit one 1.67 Comfort since it came out. I usually fit the Panamic or the Ovation, but she was previously wearing the Comfort and it was great that I could use that one.

This was info in 2002 though but makes one wonder in 4mm reduction in fitting height.

At http://www.2020mag.com/issues/2000/mar/lenschoices.htm

One issue that dispensers should be aware of is some industry experts believe that, in order to remain competitive, a few lens manufacturers have reduced the minimum fitting heights of their existing progressive designs without changing the composition of the lenses. As a result, dispensers may be unwittingly fitting progressives with significant portions of the near and/or distance areas removed. Experts say dispensers should carefully review the specifications of the progressive designs they sell. Progressive markings usually indicate where each of the “segments” (distance, near, etc.) are located.

“You can see in some where they are cutting into the near circle to fit into smaller frames,” says Bright, referring to the markings on the lens. “You have to be leery of that because it will affect the patients’ vision.” Optician Carter Lowry, owner of New Opticians in Lexington, Va., knows of one lens manufacturer that reduced its minimum fitting height by 4mm over the past year, without changing the design of the lens.

This is not to point out a vast industry conspiracy but rather to caution dispensers against fitting progressives into smaller frames without verifying the minimum fitting heights of the lenses they use. Lowry, like many others, does so through trial and error (i.e., wearing the lenses himself).

[spartus]

The Comfort, as near as I can tell (through documentary evidence as well as talking to my Varilux rep), was redesigned. A look at Essilor's UK site (http://www.essilor.co.uk/lenscatalogue/prodinfo.html) shows two Comforts: a standard Comfort with a 22mm fitting height, and the Comfort Small (http://www.essilor.co.uk/lensinfo/varilux/comfortsmall.html), which I assume is the only Comfort we get over here.

That said, I've fit a large number of Comforts, Small or not, at 18-20mm with virtually no complaints.

[Christina]

I'm not a professional, but am thinking of getting the Varilux Panamic lenses for my next eyeglasses. I was wondering about a couple things from your review -- what's the different in the Panamic vs. Comfort? Is the total difference in what you call the recommended min. fitting height? The frames I want to get probably have 20-22 from fitting cross. I don't intend to get any that would have less then 20, and I'm trying to find a pair with 22 to have as large a reading area as possible.

If you had 20-22 would you def. use Panamic? Along with the question is something an optician told me last weekend when I was frame shopping -- I think, to be honest, I had trouble understanding what her point was and was getting very confused. I think she was telling me that if a lens had a minimum fitting height of 18, for example, you shouldn't put it in a frame that actually had more space of 20-22. Is that right, or did I misunderstand her? I thought from what I've read all over that this is indeed the MINIMUM recommended, not the ONLY recommended, and more space would be a bonus, not a negative. Because most lenses now are saying 18 mm minimum that I'm considering, but I don't want a frame that small because I want more reading area.

Second question is the 1.67 thing. I wear 1.56 now. Is that going to be hard to get used to? An optician said it could take two weeks. That seems really too long to be acceptable to me, as I got used to my first progressives within a day. I'm just worried that if it takes that long to get used to, that you won't be able to change glasses if you are adapting to only one type of lens. For example, I have a backup pair that is only 1.56, and a pair of sunglasses, and I want to be able to still use them as my general prescription hasn't changed that much (it is entirely the same except that the ADD went from +1.75 to +2.00). If it takes two weeks to adapt to this 1.67 index, I imagine you can't see very well any more in other glasses that are only 1.56. At least, that's what I'm afraid of.