Varilux S Series

[optical24/7]

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

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but there is distortion in the 4D. As I said earlier, this lens is only slightly improved over an Ipseo.

[AngeHamm]

Our Essilor regional rep-guy came in this week to show me the new Varilux S lenses. Like a lot of you on this forum, I was VERY skeptical, and assumed much of the lens would be "marketing based". I have to say I AM IMPRESSED. I was shown an uncut lens blank, 4 base, (lens was not surfaced yet). There is LITTLE to NO swim AT ALL- the lens is seamless down through the reading area at the bottom, as well.

I am eager to actually fit one of our patients in this lens and see what they think. It is true that the 4D version is only compatible for use with the VISIOFFICE tool, but the other styles can be fitted by taking panto/wrap/vertex measurements like many of the enhanced-fit digital progressives. Varilux S is also TRUE DIGITAL- both sides of the lens are digitally generated to precisely match PD, etc.

I cannot tell you how impressive I found this technology. I began my Optical career as a lab technician, and I am familiar with many different brands and styles of PAL lenses out there... nothing I have see thus far has EVER come close to how CRISPY CLEAR these Varilux S fancy pants lenses are!! I am anxious to hear what other dispensing Opticians think after they have actually fitted someone in this new Essilor product. We will see how much of this is HYPE and how much of what Essilor claims is really true!

=D

Our patients and staff who have tried it have been similarly impressed.

[RT]

I was shown an uncut lens blank, 4 base, (lens was not surfaced yet). There is LITTLE to NO swim AT ALL...

Varilux S is also TRUE DIGITAL- both sides of the lens are digitally generated to precisely match PD, etc.

These two statements conflict with each other. If the lens is truly generated on both sides, then the raw uncut blank will not have any meaningful features on it. And if the backside of the lens is digitally surfaced to put the progressive elements into the final lens, then perhaps they still have the opportunity to put the "swim" back in. Ultimately, some measurable data from the finished product would be helpful.

[Judy Canty]

Deleted.

[optical24/7]

I can absolutely guarantee it is not *surfaced* on the front side. *Any* lens that comes in Transitions is not front surfaced. (It would remove the transition layer).

[DanLiv]

It is not surfaced front side, the blanks are digitally molded with part of the progressive design on the front like the rest of the Enhanced lenses, and the remaining complimentary portion of the Rx and design is digitally surfaced backside. Still their "dual-add" philosophy.

[optical24/7]

I agree Dan, There's nothing wrong with dual add designs, for some patients, it may be the best. But Essilor (Varilux) does not have any design front surfaced. This is word of a second rep for them claiming *total* front and back side *freeform*. ( Mine being the 1st, I heard..) Just ask them this if yours says this.." How do they offer Transitions with both sides surfaced?"

They are not sending them off to Transitions to have it added after fabrication after each individual lens is made (which would be a must). Bottom line: Transitions = no front side *grinding*.

[optical24/7]

I want add, I still think this is a very well and designed PAL. It just doesn't live up to the hype of " Limitless Vision". There are lenses similar in design at a much lower cost to practitioner and patient.

[Craig]

i love the IOT lenses for (wholesale pricing removed) less per pair!! I have not seen the price difference justified between Super S and no name that lets you pick the base curve. The no name wins out big time in our world.
Craig

[Robert Martellaro]

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

Tried a comparison between the Varilux S Design series lens and the Seiko Surmount for myself. Both the same Rx. I did not see too much of a difference between the two although the "S" was a little clearer in the extreme periphery. Seeing that I have been dispensing free form lenses for about 2 1/2 years, I cannot take the chance that I would have a patient pay $150 more for this lens and not see a true benefit from it going into this from a good free form lens. Now, the "4D" may be better but, with my location, I need to wait for the price to come down.

Rx: +0.25 -1.00 x50
-0.50 -1.25 x125
Add: +2.25

And this, my friends, is how you determine the functionality of PALs- wear them. If you're too young to do so, use a test subject (guinea pig) who wears an add above +1.75 @40cm. Frames and Rx must be identical for a realistic evaluation.

I'll do a review when I can source this lens from an independant lab (another month or two). Until then, thank you both for sharing.

[sharpstick777]

Great input, is the intermediate inthe Surmount wider than the "S"? I would expect it to be. Great RX to test with.

Tried a comparison between the Varilux S Design series lens and the Seiko Surmount for myself. Both the same Rx. I did not see too much of a difference between the two although the "S" was a little clearer in the extreme periphery. Seeing that I have been dispensing free form lenses for about 2 1/2 years, I cannot take the chance that I would have a patient pay $150 more for this lens and not see a true benefit from it going into this from a good free form lens. Now, the "4D" may be better but, with my location, I need to wait for the price to come down.

Rx: +0.25 -1.00 x50
-0.50 -1.25 x125
Add: +2.25

[sharpstick777]

According to the Essilor exec I spoke to, they say the lens is dual side Free-form. One speculation I heard is that they are using a reverse asymetrical aspheric design to effectively create some add on the front. My guess: They are blending features of the Definity and the Auto II in one lens.

[optical24/7]

According to the Essilor exec I spoke to, they say the lens is dual side Free-form. One speculation I heard is that they are using a reverse asymetrical aspheric design to effectively create some add on the front. My guess: They are blending features of the Definity and the Auto II in one lens.

They can not be surfacing both sides because....

I can absolutely guarantee it is not *surfaced* on the front side. *Any* lens that comes in Transitions is not front surfaced. (It would remove the transition layer).

[Wes]

An essilor rep I talked to last month says the front is molded and the back freeform surfaced.

[Judy Canty]

Deleted.

[Wes]

Yep, they said that too.

[Judy Canty]

Deleted.

[Wes]

Someone was doing an online CE about "freeform" the other day and was asking me to explain some of the terminology regarding the subject. My response was that the technology is so new that the industry hasn't settled on definitive terminology to date, therefore we don't have simple tools (words) to explain the variety of complex iterations yet. "Freeform" and "digital lens" can mean just about anything. Front standard mold, digital freeform back; Front digital mold, standard surfaced back; Front and back digital freeform; Front sphere, Back digital freeform progressive; etc...

[Judy Canty]

Deleted.

[jefe]

i love the IOT lenses for xxx less per pair!! I have not seen the price difference justified between Super S and no name that lets you pick the base curve. The no name wins out big time in our world.
Craig

Please edit out the wholesale price.

[Fezz]

Please edit out the wholesale price.

Taken care of!

[SailorEd]

Great input, is the intermediate inthe Surmount wider than the "S"? I would expect it to be. Great RX to test with.

They are both about the same, maybe a little wider on the S Design but not so much of difference. I just tried them both on while I am typing here. Again, a good lens, maybe better, but to pay $150 more for, I'd lose patients.

[Robert Martellaro]

http://sseries.variluxusa.com/Techni...Nano-FINnb.pdf

[Scooter224]

Finally... I got my S4D last week. They are ok, but far from perfekt. What I can say is that there is a little less swim effect than in my Ipseo. But with the Ipseo the view is really sharp. With the S4D it feels a bit blurry. Reading with the Ipseo is way better than with the S4D.
So overall I can say that the Marketing is much better than the glass.

[Uilleann]

Received mine yesterday (4D), so haven't had a great deal of time behind the lenses, but when compared against two previous in-house digital/FF styles from a couple different labs, the S is vastly superior. Rx is low myopic, touch of cyl in the OD, add of 1.50. The first set of lenses were ok OD, but the OS was as swimmy as an Olympic sized pool. Even after four weeks in, the lenses are not comfortable. Pair two was slightly better , but felt harder down the corridor making the intermediate quite difficult - even with my low add. With the S, I have picked up no swim. Instantly upon putting them on the first time, they literally felt as comfortable as SV from my own subjective viewing impressions. I honestly didn't expect as dramatic a difference, but for my own personal comparison between these three, the S wins hands down. Who knows...