Opinions of fitting @ 17mm

[Eyefish]

Just curious what you all do. When you get a pt. in that needs a 17mm fitting hieght, do you choose a lens like the Physio w/min fit of 17, or do you fit a short corr like an Ellipse. I have had success with both ways, just wondering your reasons for choosing as "standard" or "short corr".

Thanks...

[Jacqui]

FWIW !! I wear an Autograph II 11mm in a P3 frame at about 25 high. I'm leaning more towards telling everyone to use more short corridor PAL's .

[MarcE]

THis is a good discussion. I think the standard reasoning is to use taller fitting height - Physio in your example.

However, talking to some lab managers and based on my experience, I tend to lean towards the short corridor. 4 years ago, I wouldn't have said that. But the newer short corridor lenses are much better than they were.

THink of it this way. If I take an Ellipse (I prefer Smallfit) and fit it at 16mm, instead of fitting a Physio at 17mm; the patient will have a larger reading area AND the straight ahead distance will be clearer and wider. This will be at the expense of intermediate size. However, if the add is 1.75 or below, they will be OK. If it is 2.00 or above, they will have only marginal intermediate regardless of the lens design.

Now before anyone jumps on me, I know this is in theory only and it depends on the lens design. But my anecdotal evidence and that of some lab managers I have talked to back me up.

I'm not endorsing Essilor/Varilux lenses. I'm actually leaning more towards Indo lenses these days.

[Fezz]

Physio?

Ellipse?

Why would anyone be selling those outdated and overpriced lenses? I think that there are a few good designs for 17mm heights. It depends on the patient, occupation, expectations, and the *READ* that I get on them!


;):cheers::cheers::cheers::D

[Robert Martellaro]

just wondering your reasons for choosing as "standard" or "short corr".

Thanks...

Add power, frequency of close tasks, the need for the best possible on and off-axis distance vision, reading depth, object position (monitor, music stand), known and unknown client sensitivities (watch out for the unknown ones), and their acceptance of multiple pairs are primary factors.

[sharpstick777]

If the patient is a Hyperope I would go with the long corridor every time, Hyperopic patients natually lose some width in a Progressive and a longer corridor can help compensate for that.

If the patient has a low add, they won't use their intermediate much anyway, and in those cases I would go with the short lens but drop the fitting height a mm or two.

If they have a high add, the longer the corridor the better (to a certain point). Physio is actually a good choice at 17, its not my top lens but at 17 we have never had one remake on it. Although the new short lenses are awesome I still have a few complaints on how small the computer area is, and that is just physics.

If they read a lot, but don't use the computer, a short corridor like the Definity Short can be a home run for them.

Sharpstick

[haliopt]

Hi Fezz....What lenses would you recommend other than the two Essilor lenses in this post (overpriced ...outdated). I am always interested in better and less costly prog lenses.

Thanks haliopt

[MarcE]

Hi Fezz....What lenses would you recommend other than the two Essilor lenses in this post (overpriced ...outdated). I am always interested in better and less costly prog lenses.

Thanks haliopt

I'm not Fezz, but I can tell you that I can get the Indo Expert lens that I mentioned that rivals a Physio360 (it's produced much the same way) for less price than a non-360 Physio.

[Eyefish]

I appreciate all of your help. Great advice as always. Physio and Ellipse are not all that I use, just examples that I am sure all of us have tried.

Fezz- By what *READ* you get, are you refering to the actual power that is in the near zone?

Thanks again all.

[Fezz]

Fezz- By what *READ* you get, are you refering to the actual power that is in the near zone?

No, I am speaking of the vibe that I get from the patient!

[HarryChiling]

Just curious what you all do. When you get a pt. in that needs a 17mm fitting hieght, do you choose a lens like the Physio w/min fit of 17, or do you fit a short corr like an Ellipse. I have had success with both ways, just wondering your reasons for choosing as "standard" or "short corr".

Thanks...

As a good rule of thumb a +2.00 and above gets the short and anythign below gets the standard. Of course it also depends on the visual task they are using them for and often I find instead of trying to make one pair work everywhere this is a good time to adress the need for Computer Specs as a second pair, the reality is that no matter what you do the patient isn't going to get functional intermediate out of a short pair.

[libellule]

I find that no matter which lens I choose (I am a fan of the Hoya ID Lifestyle) it helps to always place your dotted lenses on the lens template. Even if you have measured a height at 17 mm and you are using a 17 mm min. lens, it may still be cutting off the reading area. It is better to then either choose a different lens or, depending on the RX (as explained well above) choose a different frame.
In my experience too many 'opticians' are not willing to tell a patient no. I think you are not doing anyone a service by giving them something you know will not work well.

[SailorEd]

Deleted

[SailorEd]

I find that no matter which lens I choose (I am a fan of the Hoya ID Lifestyle) it helps to always place your dotted lenses on the lens template. Even if you have measured a height at 17 mm and you are using a 17 mm min. lens, it may still be cutting off the reading area. It is better to then either choose a different lens or, depending on the RX (as explained well above) choose a different frame.
In my experience too many 'opticians' are not willing to tell a patient no. I think you are not doing anyone a service by giving them something you know will not work well.

Well Said! I completely agree. A fitting height of 17, when choosing between a Physio and an Ellipse ... If one actually measures the Physio, one would see that, at a fitting height of 17, almost half the power circle for the bifocal is "cut off". That is going to limit the person's near vision. Go with the Ellipse and the patient will be very happy. (I haven't had a non-adapt for over 4 years) and ... Yes ... I do say "no" when appropriate ... a word that many opticians do not have in their vocabulary.

[DragonLensmanWV]

FWIW !! I wear an Autograph II 11mm in a P3 frame at about 25 high. I'm leaning more towards telling everyone to use more short corridor PAL's .

Speaking of P3...
Jacqui - I was thinking of you today, so I made something.

[Jacqui]

speaking of p3...
Jacqui - i was thinking of you today, so i made something.

wow !!!

[DragonLensmanWV]

wow !!!

Now I have P3 and Orbal Perimetric shapes on display in drill mounts.:D





You should make yourself up one!

[Metronome]

Delete.

[Chris Ryser]

Funny so far nobody has mentioned to switch the frame for one that accomodates the lens you want or need,

instead of looking for a lens for the frame, ................and use your salesmanship to do it.

[Barry Santini]

Add power, frequency of close tasks, the need for the best possible on and off-axis distance vision, reading depth, object position (monitor, music stand), known and unknown client sensitivities (watch out for the unknown ones), and their acceptance of multiple pairs are primary factors.

With the sole exception of Autograph II Office, with user-determined variable design, I know of no progressive lens that is suitable for most musicians. Most of mine are either SV or bifocal.

Your advice, experience and counsel, are, as usual, welcome here, Robert.

Barry

[cocoisland58]

I'll let you know in about a week. I'm wearing an Ellipse at 17 and am about to order a Physio at 17. My add is 2.00 with dist of 3.00. I have had no issues with the Ellipse but I want to try the Physio so I can tell my patients that indeed one is better than the other (if it truely is). I still like to peek underneath the lens when inserting screws and doing my cuticles so do not want a deep lens.

[Metronome]

Funny so far nobody has mentioned to switch the frame for one that accomodates the lens you want or need,

instead of looking for a lens for the frame, ................and use your salesmanship to do it.

Delete.

[Eyefish]

Originally Posted by Chris Ryser
Funny so far nobody has mentioned to switch the frame for one that accomodates the lens you want or need,

instead of looking for a lens for the frame, ................and use your salesmanship to do it.

I do believe it is the Opticians job to educate the pt. on there best options. I do not bring my car in for service and tell them how to fix it! I do feel 17mm is plenty of room for a PAL. I rarely fit lower than that. For me, it's seems to be a cut off point in not having enough. I have fit compact designs lower, but for the average pt, especially over a 1.50 add, 17 seems to be the magic number.

[migsopt]

I would use the short corr.
As far as salesmanship, the patient wants the frame they want and as Opticians we should be able to find a lens to suit their needs. If the only issue is the 17mm fitting height, there are certainly many lenses we could use to make the patient happy. The only reason I ever switch a patient out of a frame they select is if there is no such lens that I am aware of that would work in that frame or if the RX is so that it won't work well in that frame. That is my humble opinion. :cheers:

[Robert Martellaro]

Funny so far nobody has mentioned to switch the frame for one that accomodates the lens you want or need,

instead of looking for a lens for the frame, ................and use your salesmanship to do it.

It's somewhat like a bidding war between function and fashion. Let the compromising begin, although my clients usually follow my advice.

With the sole exception of Autograph II Office, with user-determined variable design, I know of no progressive lens that is suitable for most musicians. Most of mine are either SV or bifocal.

Right. What do you play?

Your advice, experience and counsel, are, as usual, welcome here, Robert.

Thanks. I'm learning a lot from all of you at Optiboard, hopefully others are learning too.