I just spoke with some folks from Shamir yesterday that discussed this very same thing.Originally Posted by HarryChiling
I was intrigued...................until the techno-babble, market speak, kicked in and then I suggested that they leave my office. What you mention makes sense and it is worth investigating further.
The ratio of unwanted astigmatism to add power? I didn't know it was that low, thinking somewhere around .75 : 1.00 was the state of the art.
"The fundamental relation appears to be between power rate and zone width, each of which is highly related to sizes of the intermediate and near viewing zones. The maximum amount of astigmatism is related to zone width, but not to maximum power rate. The amount of astigmatism is unrelated to the size of the near zone. The pattern of correlations between the optical and viewing zone parameters help identify the underlying optical relations of PALs." (Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:350–361)
One guess is that the zone widths (near/intermediate) will be lessened to decrease the unwanted astigmatism, with the assumption that their premium lens will be fit by the more experienced and accurate fitters.
Some of us will do our own blind testing- let's meet in a couple months in the 'Eyecare Professionals Only' forum and discuss the results?
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Amen to that... I'm pulling my hair out just trying to find a SINGLE rep that can explain anything to me. I am literally speaking to "order-takers" simply trained to enter information into forms/computer programs. Sorry for going off on a tangent here, but it's frustrating.
Do you put salt on your food before tasting it?
[QUOTE=Robert Martellaro;425356]I'm not an Essilor fanboi, but fair is fair. I'll judge the lens performance by wearing it, reading the patents related to the design, if any, read the white papers, and the clinical research/double blind testing.
Finally someone with sense. Essilor brought the worlds first true PAL. They invest more money in lens development then any other lens caster.
The big E as they get called a lot, have dodgy marketing BS that could well get customers coming into your shops asking the buy the new Valilux lens. How awful. Get over yourselves !
Robert, I am with you on this one. Although we can reduce distortion on the curves 90 degrees to the umbilic, its inherant that we can't reduce distortion even in free-form along the umbilic curve to the degree that they claim, which is zero. We still have asymetrical curves in any progressive that simply don't have a single focal point.
Physics.
I have found more distortion than that in my mapping of the Autograph II. What I have found is that the Auto II puts a small amount of distortion everywhere, so I imagine at some points it disapears from detection because some areas fall below the threshold. We take away the threshold though and the total distortion is good, but not perfect.
In my Auto II's I see just a tiny bit fuzzy everywhere, and still have low end unusable areas to the left and right of the reading.
Fitting.
I have fitted every Varilux PAL that has been made. I have worn all of them starting with the Infinity and each new lens has been better than one before. I now wear the Eyecode which is the clearest lens and the best clarity of any. I have also worn many of the others but get the best and sharpest vision out of the Eyecode and waiting for the Varilux 4D. Yes over the years E and I have made a lot of money together.
Panamic was better then Comfort?
I wore the Panamic and had not problems nor did my patients.
I have over 25 Free-form lenses in my most recent RX and among the 3 Varilux lenses I have, they are all near the very bottom of the list if I had to rank them. I have not tried the Eyecode yet, but after the terrible lenses I have worn I have almost given up on buying another pair of Varilux to try. I hope the S is good, it will be the first decent Varilux lens in a long time. What other lenses have you specifically tried?
I have worn the Gradal Individual, Autogragh, Physio 360 and now the Enhanced Eyecode. I have found the Varilux lenses to be better than the others.
I am not being negative or provoking you. Just my opinions of course, but in what zones and uses do you find each Essilor lens good?
But I have yet to wear a Essilor lens that is clear edge to edge in the distance, like the Auto II, Seiko Succeed or Supercede, or Ziess GT2-3D. I have never seen a lens with less Geometric distortion than the Auto II, but I get a little bit of fuzziness every where. I have found all the Essilor lenses intermediate zones to be narrower than average, but slightly wider than the Auto II, but about 1/6 the width of the Seiko Surmount.
Good is such a general word, what does it really mean in progressives?
I have great distance vision, wide intermediate, and greater reading than any progressive that I have worn. Of course this is the first lens that I have worn using the Visioffice, and after the upgrade I think that it will even better.
If the patient wears the lens, and indeed feels as though there is no perception of distorted vision - particularly if they're comparing against an older PAL design, then that is indeed zero distortion. No amount of tech talk will convince a patient that their lens is swim free. Ultimately it's what the patient sees and feels that matters - not the ability of rep X, Y or Z to convince me of the tech prowess of this or that lens design, or their new whiz-bang free form generators, or X-generation lens tech. Essilor understands the importance of branding and has done an excellent job worldwide of becoming relatively well known in terms of optical products. Of course, if all their products we're half as bad as many posters on these boards make out, they obviously wouldn't be where they are. If Essilor has been able to complete even half of their stated goals with the S design, it will be a revolutionary change to the PAL market...and one that others will fall over each other to try and duplicate.
Time, and patients perceptions will tell.
Deleted.
Last edited by Judy Canty; 10-02-2015 at 08:00 PM.
I wear my old Naturals and see fine,thank you!
"Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde"
woah... uh. perhaps a tad bit excessive? :)
Thanks Uilleann well said,
I am waiting for sharpstick's comment to tell you you're wrong. He seems to be the world knowledge on Essilor lenses.
Sounds like an ex employee with a grudge.
25 pairs of Progressive lenses ? You are clearly a person who cannot make their mind up.
Please, please , please accept the fact that some people ( actually a few million over many years ) like Varilux lenses. They find the offer good wide areas of distortion free vision.
You are entitled to your opinion , but so are others. Or is anyone with a different opinion to yours, wrong ?
Maybe some of us like to try out all our options. I know I appreciate both when I can speak from experience, and hear someone else's experience. While I have had decent luck, and in my career fit many a varilux lens with success.. However I have had more success in both patient satisfaction with turn around and with actual viewing in many other lenses. Didn't matter which lab I used (and I tried several ELOA/NON ELOA/Partners), I had the worst luck in getting things back in a timely fashion and right.
I personally love my Auto II's, but looking forward to the pair of Individuals I have on order, and the Digital 5.0 mod..
"Some believe in destiny, and some believe in fate. But I believe that happiness is something we create."-Something More by Sugarland
Actually, companies sometimes ask me to test their progressive lenses, and ask me to make comments during the refinement stage. I also end up trouble shooting different problems with different companies when they ask, and sometimes receive their PAL in my power as part of the process. I end up with a few lenses. In a few cases where I don't get them gratis, I will try out as many lenses as I can to make sure they offer something to my customers.
I have no grudge against Essilor, and have only consulted for them, I have never been an employee, and will tell you the same thing I have told them: Their products the last few years have been disappointing.
I hope they come out with something good, but when you start wearing other lenses, a lot of other lenses, you find Essilor is frankly now behind.
I don't care how many they have sold, that is a function of marketing and business strategy, not lens quality.
People can have their own opinion, but I question how large of lens sample they are drawing from. If you have only worn a few products its not a broad base to have an educated opinion. Simple statistical analysis.
I've had my S 4D for 2 days now..Improved design? (Compared to Ipseo) Slightly. Particularly Distance, off axis. Very clear edge to edge. The lower, outer peripheral area is within .25 - .50 D of my distance power along the 180, but has almost +1.5D of astigmatic overage along the 90 (remember, this is the temporal, lower area). Basically very little swim effect.
Itermed. and near functional, not necessarily wider.
Yes, there is distortion, but it's mostly isolated to the left and right of the umbilic (outer/inner, lower periphery).
Bottom line: Very good lens, but only a slight improvement over Ipseo, and no, it's not revolutionary.
Rx; +.25 +1.00 x 80 +2.50 add
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks