Progressive 1.66

[opticat]

Looking for recommendation on 1.66 progressive lenses. Also interested in patient satisfaction, performance results, short and convention corridor progressives. Thanks for your help.

[opti-refractonator]

Go to college and learn the profession. Otherwise be more specific cause there about a thousand lenses available. I personally recommend the imnew1.67 progressive with the 16.0 inch corridor length

[Fezz]

Do a search on this site for:

Sheedy


Then study away!

[For-Life]

Many great PALs available in the 1.66

Was there something specific you are looking for? What lenses do you currently use?

[bt5050]

are we talking short corridor here ?

i usually have good success with ellispe - just because i get them pretty quick - and pt seem to love the design

if a short corr. is not needed - i have been using the accolade with allot of success and pts like it - and also like the price -

[opticat]

I thank you for your insights, I am looking for 1.66 progressives in order to help patients with Spectera insurance. I do prefer 1.67 but the price difference is more than some patients can afford. I did graduate college with hours towards my masters and have been in the profession for over 30 years, I was under the impresssion that this form was a discussion and exchange of ideas and better practices not an open invitation to insult a person looking to help thier patients.

Again thanks for the information

[Fezz]

I thank you for your insights, I am looking for 1.66 progressives in order to help patients with Spectera insurance. I do prefer 1.67 but the price difference is more than some patients can afford.

Does Spectera charge more for 1.67 over 1.66? Aren't they the same?

[For-Life]

1.66 and 1.67 are the same

[Uncle Fester]

1.66 and 1.67 are the same

Opticat-Forlife is right. The .01 difference is because of the medium used in the vacuum of the photospectrometer(?) used to determine a materials index of refraction. I think it's helium vs mercury(?). European test vs. USA. Anyone who remembers better than me is welcome to correct this!

I would use the Younger image as a go to inexpensive lens for this insurance. Of course if the person has been in another design a long and careful caveat of potential problems of changing designs would be suggested.

Also consider using 1.6 instead of 1.67. See how little difference in thickness there is by using this opticampus calculator http://www.opticampus.com/tools/thickness.php

[Bill Mahnke]

1.66 also has a lower abbe value (usually around 31/32) and it's more brittle than 1.67 or 1.60 (so it's not so good as a drilled lens).

I agree that 1.60, might prove to be the better choice in many cases.

[Uncle Fester]

1.66 also has a lower abbe value (usually around 31/32) and it's more brittle than 1.67 or 1.60 (so it's not so good as a drilled lens).

I agree that 1.60, might prove to be the better choice in many cases.

Bill-I was under the impression 1.66 and 1.67 are the same. Where's the difference besides ABBE (which I thought are the same)?

[For-Life]

There are a few different monomers. Seiko uses the M-10, Essilor uses the M-8 (I think). Either way, there are slight, and by slight I mean very slight, changes between them.

Not enough to limit your choice.

[RT]

http://www.opticampus.com/tools/materials.php

Note that in this non-exhaustive compilation of materials, there are two in the 1.66 - 1.67 range, and 3 in the 1.60 range. Note that the index shown on Opticampus uses the US "D-line" method of measurement. Results are usually slightly higher when using the non-US "E-line" method, thus allowing material manufacturers to claim a 1.67 index on a lens that in the US has an index of 1.66.

[DragonLensmanWV]

I thank you for your insights, I am looking for 1.66 progressives in order to help patients with Spectera insurance. I do prefer 1.67 but the price difference is more than some patients can afford. I did graduate college with hours towards my masters and have been in the profession for over 30 years, I was under the impresssion that this form was a discussion and exchange of ideas and better practices not an open invitation to insult a person looking to help thier patients.

Again thanks for the information

That was a pretty general question that did sound like a consumer. You might have phrased it a bit more specifically.

My recommendation is that if their Rx is strong enough to need the 1.67, then their optics will be so poor you would be better off with a 1.70.
Of course, Spectera will severely limit your choices. I ask high-myopes ( I'm a -14.) if they want thin lenses they can't see well out of or oh-so-slightly thinner lenses (but higher cost) they will see better out of.