What would you consider an upgrade to the Essilor Adaptor

[MarcE]

Please do not post any replies that contain the term "Flat-top", including all its derivatives such as but not limited to: FT, D28, D35, TF, 7x28, seg, exec, 8x35, CT, Rd24. The only exception is the AtLast! lens as listed above.

Seems that Chip was the first one to break my rules in post #10. Why did you do it Chip? I was hopeful especially after your statement about your Zeiss Individuals being "the best thing to happen in my 40 years of presbyopia"??

You just couldn't help yourself, could you.;)

Anyway, the lenses are back from the lab, but not dispensed.

Turns out that the Indo Expert that I ordered is out of range because of the total power. So the lab substituted the Autograph II. The lenses look great, considering.

We shall see if she sees in HD . . . .

[OCP]

That's an odd assertion since the design criteria for Hoyalux ID and ID Lifestyle came from Europe.

Please tell me why the ID family got wider intermedia, and smaller distance and reading zone than Individual, Precision and Autograph then.! I guess you cant answer that, because your wrong.
This way to design lenses has always been the Hoya ideology.
Thats it.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Please tell me why the ID family got wider intermedia, and smaller distance and reading zone than Individual, Precision and Autograph then.! I guess you cant answer that, because your wrong.
This way to design lenses has always been the Hoya ideology.
Thats it.

OOH!

[RT]

This way to design lenses has always been the Hoya ideology.

Thats the "Asia" style when this region is reading vertical and not horrisontally like the rest of us.

The assertion that HOYA's ID family of designs is based on "Asia" style reading vertically and not horizontally is factually incorrect.

[hipoptical]

Someone from Hoya who knows better should answer this, but I believe this to be true:

The first Hoya lenses were designed for the Asian market, and when brought to the US (or Europe) they were not overwhelmingly received. The lenses you see today are different from those initial designs, and are better suited for the market they are sold in. I first heard "Asian-design" from my Essilor rep (see, I can say Essilor) years ago, but have not heard it in years until now.

[OCP]

Someone from Hoya who knows better should answer this, but I believe this to be true:

The first Hoya lenses were designed for the Asian market, and when brought to the US (or Europe) they were not overwhelmingly received. The lenses you see today are different from those initial designs, and are better suited for the market they are sold in. I first heard "Asian-design" from my Essilor rep (see, I can say Essilor) years ago, but have not heard it in years until now.

Hoya will always argue that this is a European design. Ofcause.
But anyone here should ask her self, why Hoya make wider intermedia and smaller reading and distance than Zeiss, Rodenstock and Shamir? Do anyone here realy think that it´s because they cant find out how to do it???
You can make the zone exactly the way you think your customer prefer, but it´s not the filosophy of Zeiss, Rodenstock and Shamir to make a progressive lens this way. They all think it´s more important with a larger distance field. One of the most fashionable stores in the world, based in Bangkok, Isoptik ( isoptik.com/ ) knows that, and are only selling Impression and never ID lenses. Hoya will ALLWAYS claim that the design is European but a secret to you all..........................IT IS NOT.

[xiaowei]

Thats the "Asia" style when this region is reading vertical and not horrisontally like the rest of us.

The assertion that HOYA's ID family of designs is based on "Asia" style reading vertically and not horizontally is factually incorrect.

It is also incorrect, because for example in China, successively after the writing reform in 1955, vertical writing/reading is no longer used for any current documents, also not writing/reading from right to left.

(However, some books will still start from the "last" flap!)

"Today, the left-to-right direction is dominant in all three languages for horizontal writing: this is due partly to the influence of English, and partly to the increased use of computerized typesetting and word processing software, most of which does not directly support right-to-left layout of East Asian languages. However, right-to-left horizontal writing is still seen in these scripts, in such places as signs, on the right-hand side of vehicles, and on the right-hand side of stands selling food at festivals. It is also used to simulate archaic writing, for example in reconstructions of old Japan for tourists, and it is still found in the captions and titles of some newspapers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon..._Asian_scripts

[Now I See]

Seems that Chip was the first one to break my rules in post #10. Why did you do it Chip? I was hopeful especially after your statement about your Zeiss Individuals being "the best thing to happen in my 40 years of presbyopia"??

You just couldn't help yourself, could you.;)

Anyway, the lenses are back from the lab, but not dispensed.

Turns out that the Indo Expert that I ordered is out of range because of the total power. So the lab substituted the Autograph II. The lenses look great, considering.

We shall see if she sees in HD . . . .

Have you dispensed them yet...any results??

[MarcE]

Sorry it took so long for an update.

Here is what we did:

As you recall, we ordered an Indo Expert, but the total power was out of range, so the lab substituted the Auto II.

The distance vision in the Auto II was great and but the near was not so good. She took them for a week and couln't get used to the "magnification", although the near vision was better.

According to her, "Everything is 1.5 times larger than it should be":hammer:

I'm sure these new high-tech lenses have more "true" vision with less minimization. But what are going to tell someone who has been seeing the world at half size for over 50 years.

Next try was a Natural 1.60 on a 2.00base, no roll. The reasoning was because of the relatively long corridor of a Natural and a MFH of 18mm, which is what the frame would allow. Also, it comes in a 2.00BC, which the OD specified. Also it comes in 1.60, which the pt prefers over 1.67, and regular plastic (this is her personnally provided history)

The lab provided a polish and charged extra for it even though we specifically said "No Polish". Not the same lab that provided the first freeform.
She immediately didn't like the polish, so I removed it per Optiboard instructions (thanks to Chip or Chris R or Harry C, I can't remember who to give credit to). Anyway, I digress . . .

She didn't like the lenses at first (maybe she was used to the "natural vision" provided by her freeform lenses). After 3 days, she really liked the lenses for distance and really liked them at near.

But she doesn't have any intermediate vision (of course not). But she claims that she did in her old specs.

In case I didn't tell you about her change in Rx: the change was an extra -0.50D in the OD and -1.00D in the OS. And we upped the add by +0.25 to a +3.00.

So she was having great luck using the top half of her old specs for computer work. But her distance acuity was 20/60:hammer:

But you can't convince her of that. She just thinks that we gave her a substandard lens. So when I started talking about a pair just for "indoor" use, she started crying. Now we are just trying to get more money from her. And she couldn't possibly be changing out different pairs of specs.

So, this is what we will do as of today:

• Add +0.25 to cyl OD and add +0.25 to sphere OS and reduce add to +2.75 (this was OK'd by prescribing OD).
• Change lens to Adaptar (which has a wider corridor, so I hear?).
• Rechecked PD. Left may have been off 0.5mm
• She picks the pair she wants to keep.

However, I haven't decided on the add. Would a higher add (+3.50) help her get into the intermediate faster and therefore be more comfortable? Or would a lower add maximize the corridor width?

High myopes please chime in.

Thanks for listening!

[rdcoach5]

That lens was a bad design

[OCP]

Sorry it took so long for an update.

Here is what we did:

As you recall, we ordered an Indo Expert, but the total power was out of range, so the lab substituted the Auto II.

The distance vision in the Auto II was great and but the near was not so good. She took them for a week and couln't get used to the "magnification", although the near vision was better.

According to her, "Everything is 1.5 times larger than it should be":hammer:

I'm sure these new high-tech lenses have more "true" vision with less minimization. But what are going to tell someone who has been seeing the world at half size for over 50 years.

Next try was a Natural 1.60 on a 2.00base, no roll. The reasoning was because of the relatively long corridor of a Natural and a MFH of 18mm, which is what the frame would allow. Also, it comes in a 2.00BC, which the OD specified. Also it comes in 1.60, which the pt prefers over 1.67, and regular plastic (this is her personnally provided history)

The lab provided a polish and charged extra for it even though we specifically said "No Polish". Not the same lab that provided the first freeform.
She immediately didn't like the polish, so I removed it per Optiboard instructions (thanks to Chip or Chris R or Harry C, I can't remember who to give credit to). Anyway, I digress . . .

She didn't like the lenses at first (maybe she was used to the "natural vision" provided by her freeform lenses). After 3 days, she really liked the lenses for distance and really liked them at near.

But she doesn't have any intermediate vision (of course not). But she claims that she did in her old specs.

In case I didn't tell you about her change in Rx: the change was an extra -0.50D in the OD and -1.00D in the OS. And we upped the add by +0.25 to a +3.00.

So she was having great luck using the top half of her old specs for computer work. But her distance acuity was 20/60:hammer:

But you can't convince her of that. She just thinks that we gave her a substandard lens. So when I started talking about a pair just for "indoor" use, she started crying. Now we are just trying to get more money from her. And she couldn't possibly be changing out different pairs of specs.

So, this is what we will do as of today:

• Add +0.25 to cyl OD and add +0.25 to sphere OS and reduce add to +2.75 (this was OK'd by prescribing OD).
• Change lens to Adaptar (which has a wider corridor, so I hear?).
• Rechecked PD. Left may have been off 0.5mm
• She picks the pair she wants to keep.

However, I haven't decided on the add. Would a higher add (+3.50) help her get into the intermediate faster and therefore be more comfortable? Or would a lower add maximize the corridor width?

High myopes please chime in.

Thanks for listening!

You or your products is not the issue here. Tell your customer to try a different optician. She loves to drag you round in her ring of problems.
You gave her Auto II and she like it, but anyway she could not accept the clearer near sight. Tell her it cant be different than that.
Just my two cent.

Mike.

[labrat13]

I think anything is better than adaptar. I have had great luck with naturals.

[jefe]

The thread started with the question, "What would you consider an upgrade to the Essilor Adaptar?"

Perhaps the better question is what is NOT an upgrade to the Essilor Adaptar?

[Now I See]

Sorry it took so long for an update.

Here is what we did:

As you recall, we ordered an Indo Expert, but the total power was out of range, so the lab substituted the Auto II.

The distance vision in the Auto II was great and but the near was not so good. She took them for a week and couln't get used to the "magnification", although the near vision was better.

According to her, "Everything is 1.5 times larger than it should be":hammer:

I'm sure these new high-tech lenses have more "true" vision with less minimization. But what are going to tell someone who has been seeing the world at half size for over 50 years.

Next try was a Natural 1.60 on a 2.00base, no roll. The reasoning was because of the relatively long corridor of a Natural and a MFH of 18mm, which is what the frame would allow. Also, it comes in a 2.00BC, which the OD specified. Also it comes in 1.60, which the pt prefers over 1.67, and regular plastic (this is her personnally provided history)

The lab provided a polish and charged extra for it even though we specifically said "No Polish". Not the same lab that provided the first freeform.
She immediately didn't like the polish, so I removed it per Optiboard instructions (thanks to Chip or Chris R or Harry C, I can't remember who to give credit to). Anyway, I digress . . .

She didn't like the lenses at first (maybe she was used to the "natural vision" provided by her freeform lenses). After 3 days, she really liked the lenses for distance and really liked them at near.

But she doesn't have any intermediate vision (of course not). But she claims that she did in her old specs.

In case I didn't tell you about her change in Rx: the change was an extra -0.50D in the OD and -1.00D in the OS. And we upped the add by +0.25 to a +3.00.

So she was having great luck using the top half of her old specs for computer work. But her distance acuity was 20/60:hammer:

But you can't convince her of that. She just thinks that we gave her a substandard lens. So when I started talking about a pair just for "indoor" use, she started crying. Now we are just trying to get more money from her. And she couldn't possibly be changing out different pairs of specs.


So, this is what we will do as of today:

• Add +0.25 to cyl OD and add +0.25 to sphere OS and reduce add to +2.75 (this was OK'd by prescribing OD).
• Change lens to Adaptar (which has a wider corridor, so I hear?).
• Rechecked PD. Left may have been off 0.5mm
• She picks the pair she wants to keep.

However, I haven't decided on the add. Would a higher add (+3.50) help her get into the intermediate faster and therefore be more comfortable? Or would a lower add maximize the corridor width?

High myopes please chime in.

Thanks for listening!

What a nightmare! :drop:

Just my thinking, here (and I'm sure this job has long been completed...but...) As the add goes up, the reading "zone" is compromised somewhat...so I would think that you would want to keep the add lower to maximize the area.

Hopefully this all got resolved and she is happy (and so are you :D)

[rdcoach5]

I'm hear again humbly asking for the combined experience of the board to help me "WOW" or at least "impress" this patient. What Progressive lens do think is best?

Here is our red-flag patient of the day:


We remade every one of these to something else.The best are
OD -8.75 -2.25 x 90something 0.75 BD
OS -9.87 -2.25 x 130something - no prism
+3.00 add
Rx notes: "High index" "2.00 BC" No mention of acuities, but I could call and get it if needed.

This new patient presents wearing an Adaptar in 1.60 with a 2.75 add and 0.50BD in the OS.

This doctor does not normally specify BCs. This was done because of a previous issue with base curve. I trust this OD and believe that a BC within 0.5 of 2.00 would probably lower our risk. But I almost NEVER specify BCs on progressives. Too dangerous IMO.
She was also a non-adapt to 1.67 HI.
She also stated that she needed the lens fit a bit low in her current frames, which had a B of 40.

B in new frame is 34 w/ a FH of 20 before any "lowering" is done.
She picked out a frame w/ a 53 eyesize, knowing full well that smaller mean thinner. But she isn't that concerned about thinness. She is a "Vision person", to use a Barryism. At least as much as she can be wearing a high-add no-line w/out AR.

She would not go for the 1.70 lens. I wouldn't mind giving her a free upgrade to 1.70, but she wouldn't go for AR so I won't give her 2 free upgrades.
1.67 is out due to previous non-adapt.

So I guess I'm going with 1.60 without AR:hammer:

The question is: Can I pick a lens that will provide her better vision (especially considering her increasing add and her shorter FH), without being so different from an Adaptar as to cause adaption problems.
Would any of you feel comfortable putting this on a 1.00BC, if the mfg lens chart calls for it?


My short list in no particular order (all in 1.60):

• Accolade
• Natural
• Element standard corridor
• Definity (maybe too soft, too different?)
• And just maybe -Zeiss Individual (even though she didn't get AR, cost is not an issue with this lens if we feel that it will provide a total WOW!)
• Adaptar
• And chime in on the AtLast! lens - if you feel appropriate.

Please pick your favorite (or another) and post 2-3 sentences explaining your rational. Remember this is a teaching forum. Thanks in advance!

Please do not post any replies that contain the term "Flat-top", including all its derivatives such as but not limited to: FT, D28, D35, TF, 7x28, seg, exec, 8x35, CT, Rd24. The only exception is the AtLast! lens as listed above.

First, almost anything is better.the Adaptar was a total failure.. if you want the best:

Autograph2 Zeiss Individual or Definity


2nd Best

GT2 Physio Creation

[eyemanflying]

Any other PAL brand in the world is better. Even a hard Navigator!

[Refractingoptician.com]

Any other PAL brand in the world is better. Even a hard Navigator!

strange, I have never had a redo with an adaptar, but then you guys certainly know more than I .

[eyemanflying]

strange, I have never had a redo with an adaptar, but then you guys certainly know more than I .

If Adaptar is your lens of choice, it certainly must be because of price and not of quality There are many more brands I would recommend over that at a better price.

I've had numerous non-adapts over the years with Adaptar. I refer to it as the non-Adaptar.

[Mr.Goggle]

keep her on the program that works for her! Someone like that probably resists anything that feels different. Some people think that anything that don't feel perfect right off the bat is wrong.

[Happylady]

strange, I have never had a redo with an adaptar, but then you guys certainly know more than I .

I put my dad in an Adapter back in the early 90's. He had worn a flat top for 20 years and liked the Adapter better. I used Adapter's quite a bit back then with no real issues. I haven't used one in years, though.

[eyemanflying]

For all those dispensers out there still supplying this garbo as their lens of choice, take a look at the calendar - it's 2009. Do yourselves and your patients a favour and get with the times.

Cut the ponytail, ditch the aviators and park the camaro.

[rdcoach5]

I'm hear again humbly asking for the combined experience of the board to help me "WOW" or at least "impress" this patient. What Progressive lens do think is best?

Here is our red-flag patient of the day:
OD -8.75 -2.25 x 90something 0.75 BD
OS -9.87 -2.25 x 130something - no prism
+3.00 add
Rx notes: "High index" "2.00 BC" No mention of acuities, but I could call and get it if needed.

This new patient presents wearing an Adaptar in 1.60 with a 2.75 add and 0.50BD in the OS.

This doctor does not normally specify BCs. This was done because of a previous issue with base curve. I trust this OD and believe that a BC within 0.5 of 2.00 would probably lower our risk. But I almost NEVER specify BCs on progressives. Too dangerous IMO.
She was also a non-adapt to 1.67 HI.
She also stated that she needed the lens fit a bit low in her current frames, which had a B of 40.

B in new frame is 34 w/ a FH of 20 before any "lowering" is done.
She picked out a frame w/ a 53 eyesize, knowing full well that smaller mean thinner. But she isn't that concerned about thinness. She is a "Vision person", to use a Barryism. At least as much as she can be wearing a high-add no-line w/out AR.

She would not go for the 1.70 lens. I wouldn't mind giving her a free upgrade to 1.70, but she wouldn't go for AR so I won't give her 2 free upgrades.
1.67 is out due to previous non-adapt.

So I guess I'm going with 1.60 without AR:hammer:

The question is: Can I pick a lens that will provide her better vision (especially considering her increasing add and her shorter FH), without being so different from an Adaptar as to cause adaption problems.
Would any of you feel comfortable putting this on a 1.00BC, if the mfg lens chart calls for it?


My short list in no particular order (all in 1.60):

• Accolade
• Natural
• Element standard corridor
• Definity (maybe too soft, too different?)
• And just maybe -Zeiss Individual (even though she didn't get AR, cost is not an issue with this lens if we feel that it will provide a total WOW!)
• Adaptar
• And chime in on the AtLast! lens - if you feel appropriate.

Please pick your favorite (or another) and post 2-3 sentences explaining your rational. Remember this is a teaching forum. Thanks in advance!

Please do not post any replies that contain the term "Flat-top", including all its derivatives such as but not limited to: FT, D28, D35, TF, 7x28, seg, exec, 8x35, CT, Rd24. The only exception is the AtLast! lens as listed above.

If ever a patient for free-forrm , this is it If the Rx is correct, check it, and measurements are DEAD ON, put this person in Autograph 2 or Zeiss Individual. If price is an object, put them in Physio or GT2 or Creation. As for the At Last lens, USE IT IF YOU WANT A RE-MAKE. Sorry , Cindy, but I will NEVER use it again!