FPD is 52.5 (but I am really a grown up), and there is some decentration but not enough I think to justify all that thickness. The Physios I referred to above were not overly thick at all. Since I have gotten the GT2 I realize that the lack of thickness was the only good thing about the Physios. The GT2 has them beat hands down in every other aspect. Too bad they are so thick.
I would suggest calling Zeiss, or the lab that supplied them. I just can't imagine enough has changed to cause that much difference in thickness. Especially considering the increase in index. I know Shamir product does not allow for much variance due to the software. It was explained to me that there are not many variables allowed in the software. If these lenses are governed by a similar type of software they may not have the freedom to change the amount of prism thinning or any other parameters that we might think will enhance cosmetics.
yeah, whats the CT on each of them??
It's too thick as the lens is not a great material for drilling. Too brittle, needed extra thick to drill. I'm surprised your lab did not inform you of that. Great material, just not great for rimless eyewear. I'm surprised Darryl didn't weigh in on this one.
Interesting. I'm surprised Darryl hasn't commented as well.
I can't speak for Zeiss 1.74 as I've never used it, but Seiko's 1.74 drills beautifully with 1.8mm at the thinnest edge.
And in looking at the OP's Rx, all of the power is at the nasal/temporal edges anyway, so there shouldn't be any additional thickness needed for drilling....unless they're worried about the lens snapping in half? I doubt it.
There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.
Originally Posted by EyeCare Rich
Yes, I have come to understand what you are saying. That is why the California Zeiss lab offered to remake them in 1.67. But I was thinking in 1.67 they would be thicker so turned down the offer. Live and learn I guess.
So that I don't make this mistake with anyone else, is it safe to assume that the same script in 1.67 would actually have come out thinner than the 1.74?
I believe so, at least with the Zeiss product it sounds like. That is what I have been told by my Zeiss lab. Love the Individual design though!
Except that all the thickness is along the 180. 1.70, 1.71 or 1.74 should all have plenty of thickness for drilling in this script I would expect - particularly with such a narrow PD. Everything else being equal, the higher indices will offer a slightly thinner final thickness. Although, it does sound like it's a different story from one lab to the next. Darryl, any guesses?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks