Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: High Hyperopia problems whit Autograf 2

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    152

    High Hyperopia problems whit Autograf 2

    we are having problems whit high hyporopia +6 or more.

    We are using Autograf 2 lenses ? ( we get them made at swisscoat)

    we have changed one cutomer to essilor comfort short whit succes but why do they work better ?

    best regards

    Peter

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    If they work better why not use them and not worry about it?

  3. #3
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    152
    its a matter of price

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    939
    With a +6 or higher, price shouldn't be an issue. Accept nothing less than the Hoya ID or the Zeiss Individual (Hoya ID will come out thinner and, more importantly, flatter though).

    If the customer absolutely refuses to pay for the product you recommend, then there a few lens designs that should be 'ok'.

    On the topic of why the comfort works... comfort always works.

  5. #5
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    4
    Zeiss individual is not realy an option !!! they dont work at all, basicly the worst produkt we ever tried. but Hoya ID i dont realy know, only that the progression is devided on both surfaces so not the best design in my book, but oki i will try it out
    best regards
    Peter

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    939
    Please explain why dividing the progression between the front and back is a negative... I've heard arguments that it makes no difference but never heard someone say it's inherently a bad thing. Personally I think it's a great idea.

    The Individual is fine if dispensed correctly. We had major problems with it at first as well. But if you don't want to use it then the GT2 3D is fantastic... arguably better, even.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Ski: Ziess individual is the best progressive lens I have ever worn. Wish the coatings were as good as the optics.

    Chip
    Last edited by chip anderson; 07-10-2012 at 06:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    north of 49
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,002
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    Ski: Ziess individual is the best progressive lens I have ever worn. Wish the coatings were as good as the optics.

    Chip
    You are not alone in wishing that! IMO, they tried too hard to toughen it up.
    Eyes wide open

  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    939
    Zeiss coatings have improved a lot in the last few years... I would say they're quite good at this point in time. Our practice uses mostly Hoya and Zeiss lenses, and the Hoya coatings range is far, far superior.

    But the lenses themselves are great.

  10. #10
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    A concave curve on the front of a progressive (convex) will increase distortion at a higher rate than on the back, in a myope. Anything on the front has more potential for a negative visual impact. The rate of distortion decreases for hyperopes. So at some point in very high hyperopes it makes sense to move some of the add to the front, thats why Zeiss does it for the Individual, as the back gets flatter. A concave curve on another concave curves still creates distortion, but at a lower amount.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert_S View Post
    Please explain why dividing the progression between the front and back is a negative... I've heard arguments that it makes no difference but never heard someone say it's inherently a bad thing. Personally I think it's a great idea.

    The Individual is fine if dispensed correctly. We had major problems with it at first as well. But if you don't want to use it then the GT2 3D is fantastic... arguably better, even.

  11. #11
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    95% of progressives are designed for Myopes because most patients are myopic. The change in Hyperopes involves prism through the corridor, because in a myope the inherant prism effect is out and away, for myopes in up and in (relative to the corridor). As the eye moves through the corridor, the virtual lens is moved relative to the eye.

    There only 3 lenses in the US that compensate for this effect in the US. Zeiss Individual, Seiko Surmount, and Kodak Unique. They all take the near power, the distance power, the relation to OC and corridor lenght and redesign, and realign the corridor to compensate for prism using the near PD by moving the Virtual Lens closer to the true path that they eye is expected to take.

    The Auto II have a very narrow corridor so its likely to see this effect in greater amounts, at lower powers.

    +6.00 is inducing enormous amounts of unwanted prism as the eye travels through the lens and farther from the OC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Powers View Post
    we are having problems whit high hyporopia +6 or more.

    We are using Autograf 2 lenses ? ( we get them made at swisscoat)

    we have changed one cutomer to essilor comfort short whit succes but why do they work better ?

    best regards

    Peter

  12. #12
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    It seems that my Zeiss Purecoat lenses scratched faster than a cheap AR. Good looking, not long lasting.

    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson View Post
    Ski: Ziess individual is the best progressive lens I have ever worn. Wish the coatings were as good as the optics.

    Chip

  13. #13
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    Although I love the GT2-3D for distance, its one of the best, I find the Intermediate, although wide, is at a very low angle so its terrible for my PC (laptops are good). As well, even in my 1.50 add the reading is the most narrow I have ever worn. Its great for cel phone or lap top users, but for PC users who read a lot, its terrible in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert_S View Post
    . But if you don't want to use it then the GT2 3D is fantastic... arguably better, even.

  14. #14
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Down in a hole!
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    13,078
    Sharpstick,

    Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with progressives. I find it fascinating and I learn a lot from the posts!



  15. #15
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    152
    thats new for me that Auto II have a very narrow corridor, what lens does then have a wide corridor ? i once heard that Summit pro have a wide corridor it that true then ?

    best regards
    Peter

  16. #16
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    134
    The Autograph 2 recommended base curve chart tends to stay flat as you get into the higher plus powers. This makes the Autograph 2 bi-convex in the reading area. I noticed this a few weeks ago and wondered if it would be a problem. Because the entire power is placed on the backside of the lens of an Autograph 2, I have always believed that the add should be considered when selecting the base curve.

  17. #17
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    The Seiko Surmount has an enormous intermediate zone, the widest I have seen. its narrower in the reading, but there is a WS version for a wider reading area if you need wide reading too. Since the geometry is reversed, it may take a day or two extra for a prev progressive wearer to adapt, but after that it could blow your patient away IMHO.

    I have not tried the Summit Pro, but Hoya lenses generally have a wide intermediate as well, but with much narrower distance than the Surmount.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Powers View Post
    thats new for me that Auto II have a very narrow corridor, what lens does then have a wide corridor ? i once heard that Summit pro have a wide corridor it that true then ?

    best regards
    Peter

  18. #18
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    152
    My Lab told me that they use a Seiko BP design and a shamir SOL design, never heard the terms before, what lens is that?
    do any one of you now that ?

    best regards

    Peter

  19. #19
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    68
    We use the Shamir Auto II quite often. We have found that fitting at lower pupil margin, especially in higher powers to be most beneficial. When fit traditionally at mid pupil, we hear complaints of noticing the unwanted astigmatism at distance even in moderate powers, which compounds with high powers. This adjustment of lowering the MRP to lower pupil seems to help. We almost never refit out of an Auto II. We also use HR, Trivex, or Hi Index and stay away from Poly at all costs.
    Also, are you properly fitting the frame and then sending that frame to be fitted with lenses? This also helps as we see far less complaints complete jobs than with lens only trace jobs.
    Hope this helps.

  20. #20
    Master OptiBoarder NCspecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by Fezz View Post
    Sharpstick,

    Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with progressives. I find it fascinating and I learn a lot from the posts!

    I completely agree, I started fitting Seiko Surmounts for my high plus pts with enormous success due to Sharpstick's information about the lenses. I feel like my progessive knowledge has increased at warp speed because of these type of threads.
    "Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened beings; only enlightened activity." -Shunryu Suzuki

  21. #21
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    141
    Is the Seiko Surmount better only for hyperopes, or for myopes and hyperopes?

  22. #22
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter Judy Canty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    7,482
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpstick777 View Post
    Although I love the GT2-3D for distance, its one of the best, I find the Intermediate, although wide, is at a very low angle so its terrible for my PC (laptops are good). As well, even in my 1.50 add the reading is the most narrow I have ever worn. Its great for cel phone or lap top users, but for PC users who read a lot, its terrible in my opinion.
    You might want to try the Zeiss Individual 2I for those patients. Specifically designed for a wider intermediate.

  23. #23
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Down in a hole!
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    13,078
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmoon View Post
    Is the Seiko Surmount better only for hyperopes, or for myopes and hyperopes?

    I have been using it with success for hyperopes and myopes!

  24. #24
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    3,137
    It's a great lens for every RX, because the design adjusts completely based on the Add and Sphere power. Its the widest intermediate of any progressive I have ever tried.

    Quote Originally Posted by oxmoon View Post
    Is the Seiko Surmount better only for hyperopes, or for myopes and hyperopes?

  25. #25
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    space
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpstick777 View Post
    95% of progressives are designed for Myopes because most patients are myopic. The change in Hyperopes involves prism through the corridor, because in a myope the inherant prism effect is out and away, for myopes in up and in (relative to the corridor). As the eye moves through the corridor, the virtual lens is moved relative to the eye.

    There only 3 lenses in the US that compensate for this effect in the US. Zeiss Individual, Seiko Surmount, and Kodak Unique. They all take the near power, the distance power, the relation to OC and corridor lenght and redesign, and realign the corridor to compensate for prism using the near PD by moving the Virtual Lens closer to the true path that they eye is expected to take.

    The Auto II have a very narrow corridor so its likely to see this effect in greater amounts, at lower powers.

    +6.00 is inducing enormous amounts of unwanted prism as the eye travels through the lens and farther from the OC.
    I'm so late to the party, but how does the prism thinning affect these prismatic effects? I'm assuming that prism thinning would negate the effects somewhat?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Recommendation for child with high hyperopia
    By aquahmonk in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 02:36 PM
  2. production problems of ASPH products and high index materials
    By essegn in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-25-2010, 07:54 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-03-2009, 12:12 AM
  4. What to do whit Summit Pro
    By Mr.Powers in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •