GP Wide Photochromic BEAT! Younger IMAGE Transitions6 !

[suwit]

Hi Everyone

I have a case with my optician
we have a customer he has been wearing Hoyalux GP wide Photochromic
and we switched to Younger Image Transitions6 with the same Rx

normally
GP wide is Hard design, narrow field for far , wide field for near,
Photochromic changing time is very slow and not so dark, turning clear is very slow and not so clear

Image is Soft Multi design , wide field far, medium field for near,
Transition6's changing speed time is very fast and very dark, turning clear is very fast and very clear


after he got the glases for a 1-2 days he said Far field GP wide is wider than the Image Transitions 6,
and he wanted us to change to GP wide photocromic. :finger:

What are your suggestions about the lenses?


Thanks you verymuch:)

[Robert Martellaro]

I don't have much experience with photochromics, except that PPG's Transitions is as good as it gets for plastic lenses. I can say that for me (finicky, myopic, 2.25 add, larger than average pupils), the GP wide is a better lens than the Image. Very good on axis distance vision. Off axis distance is average, not as good as the Shamir lenses, not as bad as the Summit CD, and most other short corridors.

BTW, the GP wide is a soft design. The only hard designs left are the Adapter, Super No-line and Vip. Maybe the Truvision if it's still made.



Did you lose a bet?

[Uilleann]

I'd agree that the Shamir lenses are very hard to beat - though I don't know off hand how many are available in the Transitions 6 presently. You could also try a Comfort 360, or Definity if so inclined. They're both available in Transitions.

[For-Life]

Just give him what he wants

[Robert Martellaro]

I believe that suwit is just trying to figure out what happened. The Image ranked high (much higher than the GP Wide) in the first Sheedy PAL measurement and rankings, and again in a similar study two years later. It apparently has superior photchromic peformance, and yet his client still preferred the GP Wide when given the choice between the two.

When I tried the Image it felt uncomfortable, with what seemed like low contrast and a very soft focus at all distances. I rated it last of all the lenses I've tried. Others have said this lens performs well, although the lower price may be providing bias.

Why do PALs perform in unexpected ways even when zone width measurements, surface astigmatism, rate of change, and power plots suggest a more predictable outcome? I believe it's a good question, and deserves further discussion.

[obxeyeguy]

Why do PALs perform in unexpected ways even when zone width measurements, surface astigmatism, rate of change, and power plots suggest a more predictable outcome? I believe it's a good question, and deserves further discussion.

No 2 people will necessarily react the same way in anything, let alone lenses. Rx variations, visual demands, and tolorance levels are all factored in.

I too have done well with the Hoya wide, mostly for the moderate hyperopes (+1.50 to.+3.00) that have a higher add. They complain of narrow reading area in a lens like a comfort, and have switched them to hoya wide with good results. Lately, I have swithced to the definity more for these folks, also with good results.

I use a few Image, mostly in polorized suns, and have no complaints. But remember, they are suns, and the true reading area tends to be used much less than in an every day Rx.

[Uncle Fester]

Why do PALs perform in unexpected ways even when zone width measurements, surface astigmatism, rate of change, and power plots suggest a more predictable outcome? I believe it's a good question, and deserves further discussion.

I suspect Robert there are as many answers to that question as there are grains of sand on the worlds beaches!