Free Form - Seiko or Varilux?

[SailorEd]

Ok. The lenses we are currently using are Seiko Supercede and Surmount. Patients have been happy with them but I have been reading alot about Varilux Physio DRx lenses which are also true free form and not like the 360's and Enhanced lenses previously offered by Varilux.

Does anyone have any experience with BOTH of these lenses and what are your opinions of them. That's really all I am looking for. Don't want lenses that I have to charge an arm and a leg for. We offer only free form but we want to keep the price as low and affordable as possible in this economy. (We are located in what is being called the Rust Belt) (Where we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and unemployment and underemployment is very high).

Thanks in advance.

[eyemanflying]

Ok. The lenses we are currently using are Seiko Supercede and Surmount. Patients have been happy with them but I have been reading alot about Varilux Physio DRx lenses which are also true free form and not like the 360's and Enhanced lenses previously offered by Varilux.

Does anyone have any experience with BOTH of these lenses and what are your opinions of them. That's really all I am looking for. Don't want lenses that I have to charge an arm and a leg for. We offer only free form but we want to keep the price as low and affordable as possible in this economy. (We are located in what is being called the Rust Belt) (Where we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and unemployment and underemployment is very high).

Thanks in advance.

In my opinion based on my experinece, Seiko products are as good if not better than Essilor's DS lenses. Not to mention, the price point is far better for servicing those customers/patients where cost is equally important as quality.

[rdcoach5]

Ok. The lenses we are currently using are Seiko Supercede and Surmount. Patients have been happy with them but I have been reading alot about Varilux Physio DRx lenses which are also true free form and not like the 360's and Enhanced lenses previously offered by Varilux.

Does anyone have any experience with BOTH of these lenses and what are your opinions of them. That's really all I am looking for. Don't want lenses that I have to charge an arm and a leg for. We offer only free form but we want to keep the price as low and affordable as possible in this economy. (We are located in what is being called the Rust Belt) (Where we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and unemployment and underemployment is very high).

Thanks in advance.

I just had a pair made and wore them over last weekend. Very clear and smooth for dist but reading is not good. I put back in my frame an experimental free-form from my local lab which is much superior for int and near. My Rx is not typical -9.50+1.00x015 add +2.75 so other Rx's may differ in result. To me the corridor in the DRx is too long. My seg was 19 high.

[tiben1]

I don't have any experience with the Seiko, but we have had FABULOUS success with Shamir Autograph II. SV and Progressive. Many straight top conversions, only about 5 patients between 3 offices have had an issue with them in over 3 years! We used the Essilor previously, now basically only use their digital ST lens. My patients have really loved the Autograph II lenses, and I have several patients that were so happy with their visual improvements (even though their Rx had been stable for several years), that I have several that have ordered 5 or more pairs. They use the Fixed Progressive and the SV technology in Maui Jim Rx, and Oakley is now using them for their Rx product too. Not to mention Essilor bought a huge stake in Shamir to get their hands on some technology advances. I STRONGLY recommend trying them if you haven't yet. And the Autograph Office from them is much better than the older, original Shamir Office.

[sharpstick777]

I would agree that the Auto II is great lens, but out west we have a ton of heavy computer users and the Auto II is very narrow in the Intermediate. The Seiko Surmount is about 4-5X wider in minus power, and about 6-7x wider in plus than the Auto II intermediate. The Shamir Spectrum is about 30% wider than the Auto II in the intermediate, so we making more Spectrums than Auto II's now.

There are also wide reports of Auto II's not working as well for Hyeropes.

Its not a matter of one lens being the "best", its a matter of matching your patients lifestyle and needs to the qualities of the lens. Auto II is the best for short corridors with high adds, high cyls and great for reducing spacial distortion. Its great for prev. non-adaps as its very very smooth.
But its also very very soft, which is not the best for wider near zones.

Just for reference, Seiko invented free-form in 1993 and holds the key patents that most other manufactures license, so there are not late to the game as it may seem in the US.

I don't have any experience with the Seiko, but we have had FABULOUS success with Shamir Autograph II. SV and Progressive. Many straight top conversions, only about 5 patients between 3 offices have had an issue with them in over 3 years! We used the Essilor previously, now basically only use their digital ST lens. My patients have really loved the Autograph II lenses, and I have several patients that were so happy with their visual improvements (even though their Rx had been stable for several years), that I have several that have ordered 5 or more pairs. They use the Fixed Progressive and the SV technology in Maui Jim Rx, and Oakley is now using them for their Rx product too. Not to mention Essilor bought a huge stake in Shamir to get their hands on some technology advances. I STRONGLY recommend trying them if you haven't yet. And the Autograph Office from them is much better than the older, original Shamir Office.

[chip anderson]

I've had better luck visually, etc. with Zeiss Individual, Better luck with with coatings on Essilor.

Shame you can't get Essilor coatings on Ziess lenses.

[sharpstick777]

I've had better luck visually, etc. with Zeiss Individual, Better luck with with coatings on Essilor.
Shame you can't get Essilor coatings on Ziess lenses.

I think the Individual is a great lens, even better than the Auto II in many cases, but it does have a few limitation. The intermediate is narrow, and the variable corridor can cause issues in larger frames by dropping the reading too low. As well, you can't put a short fixed corridor in a higher seg to pull up the reading area when you need to. I also think its over priced. But the geometric distorions are very low, it feels like you are not wearing a progressive and straight on distance vision is clearer than my Auto II's. It is truly a great lens as long you don't use a computer a lot, or have a 2nd pair.

We provide Essilor, Seiko and Zeiss coatings. Overall our warranty rate is lowest on Seiko Surpass, next best is Crizals, and third best is Ziess. We are seeing more failures on Ziess Purecoat than we anticipated, but it looks great.

[Judy Canty]

I would agree that the Auto II is great lens, but out west we have a ton of heavy computer users and the Auto II is very narrow in the Intermediate. The Seiko Surmount is about 4-5X wider in minus power, and about 6-7x wider in plus than the Auto II intermediate. The Shamir Spectrum is about 30% wider than the Auto II in the intermediate, so we making more Spectrums than Auto II's now.

There are also wide reports of Auto II's not working as well for Hyeropes.

Its not a matter of one lens being the "best", its a matter of matching your patients lifestyle and needs to the qualities of the lens. Auto II is the best for short corridors with high adds, high cyls and great for reducing spacial distortion. Its great for prev. non-adaps as its very very smooth.
But its also very very soft, which is not the best for wider near zones.

Just for reference, Seiko invented free-form in 1993 and holds the key patents that most other manufactures license, so there are not late to the game as it may seem in the US.

+1

[AdmiralKnight]

We switched almost entirely to Seiko's FF line over a year ago. It was a great change. I can't remember the last non-adapt we ran into. Though you might want to look at some of their lower priced FF lenses like the Succeed and the Succeed WS. Our go-to lens is an in-house PAL based on the Succeed design (I believe it's the Succeed) and it's been great. Added to the fact that I'm generally happy to choose 'Not Essilor' whenever possible.

[sharpstick777]

Have you tried the Surmount? It really is a mind blowing lens. We love it.

We switched almost entirely to Seiko's FF line over a year ago. It was a great change. I can't remember the last non-adapt we ran into. Though you might want to look at some of their lower priced FF lenses like the Succeed and the Succeed WS. Our go-to lens is an in-house PAL based on the Succeed design (I believe it's the Succeed) and it's been great. Added to the fact that I'm generally happy to choose 'Not Essilor' whenever possible.

[Fezz]

I have been using a lot of the Seiko Surmont.

Patients really seem to like it!

[star]

I think the Individual is a great lens, even better than the Auto II in many cases, but it does have a few limitation. The intermediate is narrow, and the variable corridor can cause issues in larger frames by dropping the reading too low. As well, you can't put a short fixed corridor in a higher seg to pull up the reading area when you need to. I also think its over priced. But the geometric distorions are very low, it feels like you are not wearing a progressive and straight on distance vision is clearer than my Auto II's. It is truly a great lens as long you don't use a computer a lot, or have a 2nd pair.

We provide Essilor, Seiko and Zeiss coatings. Overall our warranty rate is lowest on Seiko Surpass, next best is Crizals, and third best is Ziess. We are seeing more failures on Ziess Purecoat than we anticipated, but it looks great.

Crizal Sapphire™ lenses with Scotchgard™ Protector
is that ,what you refer to ,as next best to Seiko surpass ,?
and is it about scratch resistance quality as well ?

[rdcoach5]

For those who have tried both the GT2 and the Individual, do you think the reading is lower on the Individual? Intermediate narrower on the Individual? If so, it's more like the Physio.