Sola Continuum

[GeauxTigers]

Does anyone here have any experience with the Sola Continuum lens? Is it a good lens for computer work? I'm shopping around for computer glasses, and today I went to two independent optical shops and spoke to two young girls claiming to be opticians. The first one informed me "progressives are bifocals" and said she had no specific recommendations for computer lenses. The second one vaguely talked a little about some generic "Varilux" but had never heard of Sola Access, Shamir Office, etc, the lenses that were suggested to me here a few months ago. So I finally stopped at Wal*Mart on my way home, and I again explained what I wanted as "a pair of multifocals optimized for intermediate distance at the computer." The first woman was confused and tried to steer me into a general purpose progressive on her counter chart, which she called a "Natural", but then she conferred with a younger woman who actually knew a little about this. She said she can get me Sola Continuum, but she "doesn't sell it much," and in fact, she had to call the lab to determine who makes the "Continuum". I'm not ending my search for a knowledgeable local optician, but this is so hit and miss, with an emphasis on "miss" so far.

I found the two ODs I've seen in the last year are perhaps even less well-versed in the lenses that are available, so I'm again coming here for advice. My Rx for general purpose progressives is:

OD: +1.25, -4.50, 015
OS: +0.25, -3.75, 165
Add: +1.25

If anyone here is familiar with Sola Continuum, can you tell me what the Rx would look like for this lens? When I was prescribed SV computer lenses several years ago, the OD added 0.75 to the sphere. Thus, my OD sphere became +2.00. The Continuum fitting guide, however, says the difference between intermediate and near is a fixed +1.00. To get me the right intermediate for OD above would seem to imply bumping the near from 1.25+1.25 to 2.00+1.00, or 2.50 to 3.00. Would this be a problem? Also, the Base Curve Selection Chart only goes out to -4.00 cylinder for the single available 6.00 base curve, so is this a non-starter? (The range for the chart is -2.00/+4.50 sphere and -0.25/-4.00 cyl.)

Finally, what I need is to see clearly from 24-36". Anything closer or farther is gravy, but of course, rather tasty gravy. Is the Continuum a good choice for this, or is there something better?

[Chris Ryser]

Its mnot called a lens NAME..............its called mathematics...... the right RX to see the screen properly.........which is up the distance a bit and reduce the reading add a bit..............and you can use any lens.

Anybody who can refract can put a trial frame on your nose with your Rx and make the proper adjustment in front of a computer screen and the you can choose any lens name you want.

[judyseyes]

Dear Geauxtigers,

Check out Zeiss web site for info on Gradal RD.

www.zeisslenses.com

"RD" stands for "room distance, vision up to 8 feet on top of lens, with intermediate vision at center pupil for computer, woodworking and many other tasks. Judy

[cinders831]

Does anyone here have any experience with the Sola Continuum lens? Is it a good lens for computer work? I'm shopping around for computer glasses, and today I went to two independent optical shops and spoke to two young girls claiming to be opticians. The first one informed me "progressives are bifocals" and said she had no specific recommendations for computer lenses. The second one vaguely talked a little about some generic "Varilux" but had never heard of Sola Access, Shamir Office, etc, the lenses that were suggested to me here a few months ago. So I finally stopped at Wal*Mart on my way home, and I again explained what I wanted as "a pair of multifocals optimized for intermediate distance at the computer." The first woman was confused and tried to steer me into a general purpose progressive on her counter chart, which she called a "Natural", but then she conferred with a younger woman who actually knew a little about this. She said she can get me Sola Continuum, but she "doesn't sell it much," and in fact, she had to call the lab to determine who makes the "Continuum". I'm not ending my search for a knowledgeable local optician, but this is so hit and miss, with an emphasis on "miss" so far.

I found the two ODs I've seen in the last year are perhaps even less well-versed in the lenses that are available, so I'm again coming here for advice. My Rx for general purpose progressives is:

OD: +1.25, -4.50, 015
OS: +0.25, -3.75, 165
Add: +1.25

If anyone here is familiar with Sola Continuum, can you tell me what the Rx would look like for this lens? When I was prescribed SV computer lenses several years ago, the OD added 0.75 to the sphere. Thus, my OD sphere became +2.00. The Continuum fitting guide, however, says the difference between intermediate and near is a fixed +1.00. To get me the right intermediate for OD above would seem to imply bumping the near from 1.25+1.25 to 2.00+1.00, or 2.50 to 3.00. Would this be a problem? Also, the Base Curve Selection Chart only goes out to -4.00 cylinder for the single available 6.00 base curve, so is this a non-starter? (The range for the chart is -2.00/+4.50 sphere and -0.25/-4.00 cyl.)

Finally, what I need is to see clearly from 24-36". Anything closer or farther is gravy, but of course, rather tasty gravy. Is the Continuum a good choice for this, or is there something better?

no experience with the sola continuam....is that even a lens? I would and do recommend the Shamir Office, I have many many successful fits with this lens.

[Bev Heishman]

My last knowledge of this lens is it was a more forgiving version of SOLA's Access lens distributed through chains.

[GeauxTigers]

no experience with the sola continuam....is that even a lens? I would and do recommend the Shamir Office, I have many many successful fits with this lens.

Yes, it's a lens. You can download fitting guides for it and the Sola Access here:

http://www.sola.com/professionals/pd...elibrary.shtml

They seem very similar.

[Joann Raytar]

GeauxTigers,

Does this mean the pair of progressives that you last told us about didn't work or that you just want a task specific pair?

[GeauxTigers]

GeauxTigers,

Does this mean the pair of progressives that you last told us about didn't work or that you just want a task specific pair?

I'm still wearing those progressives, which I still consider excellent for general use. I've become interested in computer glasses since I got a new LCD monitor. It's sharper than my old Trinitron monitor, and not only is the display area larger, the top of the LCD display area is slightly higher than the CRT was. I've become increasingly aware that the top couple of inches of the LCD aren't totally sharp when sitting in normal position unless I tilt my head back a bit or stare at it until my eyes finally accommodate. This was less noticeable with the CRT, but it's bugging me enough with the LCD that I want to try to improve it.

(Both my chair and monitor are height-adjustable, and there are no gains to be had there. The workstation configuration, which includes a nice 28" high Anthro desk, is optimal by ergonomic standards, and more to the point, any adjustments I can make at this point only mess up something else.)

[Darryl Meister]

Yes, as Bev pointed out, the Continuum is a computer lens similar to SOLA Access. Whereas Access has two variations in progressive power (0.75 D and 1.25 D) based upon high or low add powers, Continuum has only one (1.00 D). This may make it more suitable for retailers looking for a simpler "enhanced near" or "computer" lens solution.

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusin concerning computer lenses in general. "Enhanced near" or "computer" or "occupational" progressive lenses like SOLA Continuum, Zeiss Gradal RD, and Shamir Office are designed to provide generous fields of view over a wide range of near and intermediate working distances -- even out to 6' or more. They are not designed simply to provide good vision at a computer, and the term "computer lens" is really more of a misnomer intended to convey the extended range these lenses provide over conventional reading lenses. A single vision lens would only perform optimally for one working distance, while a general-purpose progressive lens would have relatively narrow fields of view for intermediate and near use.

As for Continuum and several other enhanced near lenses, your lens prescription would be equal to your reading prescription, which would be:

OD: +2.50, -4.50 x 015
OS: +1.50, -3.75 x 165

You generally won't see prescription ranges on lens charts go out beyond a -3.00 or -4.00 cyl, since very, very few people have cylinder prescriptions that high. However, you will probably not have any more problems with this prescription in an enhanced near or computer lens than you would in a conventional progressive lens.

Best regards,
Darryl
(SOLA)

[GeauxTigers]

Yes, as Bev pointed out, the Continuum is a computer lens similar to SOLA Access. Whereas Access has two variations in progressive power (0.75 D and 1.25 D) based upon high or low add powers, Continuum has only one (1.00 D). This may make it more suitable for retailers looking for a simpler "enhanced near" or "computer" lens solution.

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusin concerning computer lenses in general. "Enhanced near" or "computer" or "occupational" progressive lenses like SOLA Continuum, Zeiss Gradal RD, and Shamir Office are designed to provide generous fields of view over a wide range of near and intermediate working distances -- even out to 6' or more. They are not designed simply to provide good vision at a computer, and the term "computer lens" is really more of a misnomer intended to convey the extended range these lenses provide over conventional reading lenses. A single vision lens would only perform optimally for one working distance, while a general-purpose progressive lens would have relatively narrow fields of view for intermediate and near use.

As for Continuum and several other enhanced near lenses, your lens prescription would be equal to your reading prescription, which would be:

OD: +2.50, -4.50 x 015
OS: +1.50, -3.75 x 165

You generally won't see prescription ranges on lens charts go out beyond a -3.00 or -4.00 cyl, since very, very few people have cylinder prescriptions that high. However, you will probably not have any more problems with this prescription in an enhanced near or computer lens than you would in a conventional progressive lens.

Best regards,
Darryl
(SOLA)

Thanks for clarifying the lens chart range. (They do like to call me "Mr. Astigmatism".)

One question about the Rx, again focusing on OD. To quote the fitting guide, the intermediate area is "1.00 diopter less than near", which using your figure above for "reading prescription", would be 2.50-1.00 = 1.50. Now, my normal distance Rx is +1.25, so that's only +0.25 difference. Assuming the +1.25 add was determined for 16" reading distance, is +0.25 add (with total power of +1.50) going to be right for 28"? It seems more logical to measure the intermediate at the most common distance, since that's what I want to optimize, rather than compute it from the near; if we were considering the Sola Access, for example, there would be two possible outcomes depending on which of the 0.75 or 1.25 versions were used.

[Lee Prewitt]

Glad to see you taking the next step!! You won't regret taking this step. You will recall that I suggested them to you in your first post. I suggest calling Shamir and telling them that you want to be put into touch with an account in your area. There number is 1-888-707-7760. One call and you will be on the short road to not only a freat pair of lenses but also a knowledgable optician who will know what you are talking about.

[Robert Martellaro]

Finally, what I need is to see clearly from 24-36".

There should be sufficient residual accommodation to keep these distances clear. I suspect that the PALs are going to have a pretty small distance sweet spot with this level of astigmatism, even when optimally positioned in front of the eyes. I suspect this is the primarily contributor to the lack of sharpness when looking across the screen. If this is true, I would recommend adding +.50DS to the distance Rx and make the lens single vision, assuming that your Rx add of +1.25 is current and is set for a standard 16". Additionally, if there are frequent tasks at 16" I would use a ST28 with the +.50DS added to the distance Rx, with the remainder (+.75DS) becoming the new add power.

Hope this helps

[GeauxTigers]

There should be sufficient residual accommodation to keep these distances clear. I suspect that the PALs are going to have a pretty small distance sweet spot with this level of astigmatism, even when optimally positioned in front of the eyes. I suspect this is the primarily contributor to the lack of sharpness when looking across the screen. If this is true, I would recommend adding +.50DS to the distance Rx and make the lens single vision, assuming that your Rx add of +1.25 is current and is set for a standard 16". Additionally, if there are frequent tasks at 16" I would use a ST28 with the +.50DS added to the distance Rx, with the remainder (+.75DS) becoming the new add power.

Hope this helps

Funny you should mention single vision, as I've been thinking about that myself. Before I get the Continuum, I'd want to know exactly where the "10mm tall power transition zone" begins. The fitting guide I linked to shows it running smack dab across the middle of the lens. This is only a rough diagram, so it might be lower than that. I'm afraid that if it isn't, I'll be viewing a large part of the screen through it, as the center of the screen is at about a 16 degree angle with level sight when viewed from 28". To get this right, I feel like I should put on a pair of glasses and mark them just below where I observe the bottom of the screen to be when downgazing from the normal position. Above that point, I shouldn't want much power gradation if any. Does that make sense?

P.S. What's ST28?

[Chris Ryser]

I would use a ST28 with the +.50DS added to the distance Rx, with the remainder (+.75DS) becoming the new add power.
Hope this helps

That's my solution too...........with the exception that I prefer an ST35 which gives me half a desk of reading space. No problem with the keyboard.

[Robert Martellaro]

What's ST28?

It's a multifocal with a line, looks like a capitol D curved side down, and is 28mm wide. Use if there are frequent tasks at 16" and involve very small text. Or, move the monitor closer and add more plus to the distance, +.75 or +1.00 and keep it single vision.

[drk]

All responses so far are very good.

I'd say, for a picky "Mr. Astigmatism" that you'd be best served by spherical CR-39 FT-35 with a nice AR coat. Shoot for +0.50 overplus at your whipper-snapper age, and go ahead to make the add a +1.00. (Not sure about the availability of +0.75 FT-35). It'll give you some leanin' back room, and you can use them for other stuff, too, like readin' small print, or whittlin'.

Yeah, they be a little homely, and probably a might thicker than other lenses, but you'd see mighty fine, sho' nuff.

[GeauxTigers]

Funny you should mention single vision, as I've been thinking about that myself. Before I get the Continuum, I'd want to know exactly where the "10mm tall power transition zone" begins. The fitting guide I linked to shows it running smack dab across the middle of the lens. This is only a rough diagram, so it might be lower than that. I'm afraid that if it isn't, I'll be viewing a large part of the screen through it, as the center of the screen is at about a 16 degree angle with level sight when viewed from 28". To get this right, I feel like I should put on a pair of glasses and mark them just below where I observe the bottom of the screen to be when downgazing from the normal position. Above that point, I shouldn't want much power gradation if any. Does that make sense?

I just tried this experiment with my current set of progressives. Marking them as best I can, I find I need 10-12 mm of "computer distance" below the center of my pupil. The bottom 8-10 mm of my current lenses are too strong for this 28" distance.

[Darryl Meister]

To quote the fitting guide, the intermediate area is "1.00 diopter less than near", which using your figure above for "reading prescription", would be 2.50-1.00 = 1.50. Now, my normal distance Rx is +1.25, so that's only +0.25 difference. Assuming the +1.25 add was determined for 16" reading distance, is +0.25 add (with total power of +1.50) going to be right for 28"?

Your add power, alone, should let you focus out to 30" or more before blurring your vision (specifically, at least out to 80 cm, which is the focal length of your add). With your relatively low add power, if you opt for an enhanced near vision lens, like Continuum, you should be able to see clearly from your reading point all the way out across a typical room.

Also, the +0.25 D add will occur in the upper portion of the lens; the region you will be viewing through most often will be slightly higher than that. With your add power, it is unlikely that you would need too much more power for intermediate viewing.

If you only want to see your computer clearly, there are other non-progressive options to consider, as Chris and the others have pointed out. For that matter, even single vision reading lenses should let you see out to 28" clearly with your add power (but not much farther).

It seems more logical to measure the intermediate at the most common distance, since that's what I want to optimize, rather than compute it from the near

An intermediate viewing distance is really nothing more than a longer reading distance, and your range of clear vision will ultimately depend upon several factors, including your add power and your amplitude of accommodation. And, remember, this lens has only one power change, which was chosen to work well across a broad range of add powers.

Nevertheless, your doctor could conceivably prescribe an intermediate power and simply add 1.00 D to it to arrive at a contrived "add power" for Continuum, but this would probably be overkill.

Before I get the Continuum, I'd want to know exactly where the "10mm tall power transition zone" begins. The fitting guide I linked to shows it running smack dab across the middle of the lens... I'm afraid that if it isn't, I'll be viewing a large part of the screen through it...

Almost all of these lenses (including Continuum) are designed with the transition zone in the middle of the lens. However, this transition zone is considerably wider than the transition zone of a conventional progressive lens.

Best regards,
Darryl

[GeauxTigers]

I got my new glasses a couple of days ago. I decided against the Continuum lens, because I couldn't wrap my head around the idea of buying computer glasses that have me looking at my display through the transition zone, no matter how deep it is. Maybe it works great, but I didn't want to experiment right now. So, I went in thinking I'd get regular bifocals, and I even marked an old pair of SV glasses to define the point above which the segment line would interfere with computer viewing. Good idea, that, because it's considerably lower than the bottom-of-the-eyelid approach. But in the end, it didn't matter, as I got ordinary SV lenses. It turned out a +1.00 add gave me excellent results from about 22-36", and the OD helped me determine they'd be acceptable for the limited amount of reading print I do at the computer. They're also OK out to about 5-6 feet, which is useful. I'm very glad I got these! They make a big difference. Thanks for the help, folks.

[Chris Ryser]

I'm very glad I got these! They make a big difference. Thanks for the help, folks.

Good for you. You made your own decision that did override all the fancy brand name lenses and you are happy. Next time think that optics is still a mathematic calculation of powers for the right distance. As everywhere in business the retailer loves to sell the more expensive versions.

[For-Life]

A lot of time OD's tell patients to get two pairs - a pair of PAL's and a pair of readers. I always tell the customer that instead of selling two pair we would do the PAL's only and if they have trouble we will do the readers too.

They always come back and say that the PAL's do the whole job plus some and thank me for not having them spend money on a product that they would never use.

[Tigger61]

I have fit many pairs of "Sola Continuum", They are a great solution to you problem. Along with "Zeiss business". The rx your doctor wrote is what you should give to the Optician that fills the glasses. The Lab takes the rx and calulates the RX from that based on manufactures specs. By these calculation it should be what you need. If there any adjustments to rx they will do a Doctors change. I have had patients send there friends to me to get the same lense. There are a wonder for people that work on computer and at a desk all day.Best of Luck!!!:bbg: