Why has the worst optical surface ever become the biggest money maker ?

[Chris Ryser]

Why has the worst optical surface, full of distorted areas, become the largest money maker ever, in a period of 59 years ?

In the old days optical lens manufacturers used compete with the best and cleanest optical surfaces. The best lenses are still on cameras of all sorts, because any distortion would be visibly disturbing on resulting pictures.

However in the practical world of eyeglass sales, the lens with at least 30 to 40% of distorted areas over its surface has won the glory of having become the best selling multifocal lens world wide.

People that would only use a camera with only the best lenses will look through the viewfinder with their progressive lenses that are full of distorted areas.

I learned in the late 1950s how to sell those new lenses, mostly to women in their mid to late forties, because the age would not show that they wore multifocal lenses.

They always sold for more money than the optically perfect fused bifocals or multifocals, maybe the public has been totally brainwashed over the last 50 years, that optical perfection is not wanted anymore in eyeglasses.

What do you say ?

[Quantrill]

Why has the worst optical surface, full of distorted areas, become the largest money maker ever, in a period of 59 years ?

In the old days optical lens manufacturers used compete with the best and cleanest optical surfaces. The best lenses are still on cameras of all sorts, because any distortion would be visibly disturbing on resulting pictures.

However in the practical world of eyeglass sales, the lens with at least 30 to 40% of distorted areas over its surface has won the glory of having become the best selling multifocal lens world wide.

People that would only use a camera with only the best lenses will look through the viewfinder with their progressive lenses that are full of distorted areas.

I learned in the late 1950s how to sell those new lenses, mostly to women in their mid to late forties, because the age would not show that they wore multifocal lenses.

They always sold for more money than the optically perfect fused bifocals or multifocals, maybe the public has been totally brainwashed over the last 50 years, that optical perfection is not wanted anymore in eyeglasses.

What do you say ?

Well, you've got people buying frames with no prescription whatsoever. Glasses are a fashion statement now. Who wants those visible lines on their lenses when we can give you "no-line bifocals"?

When it's my turn for a multifocal lens I'll probably get tri-focals (if they are even still around in 15 years). The reason they are so popular is because they are so profitable. All the eyewear companies want nice profits and the markup is ridiculous on these "HD" lenses...

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

In all fairness, PALs have improved a lot over the years. I remember the first Varilux lens, a glass beast that was barely wearable by anyone, which fortunately started the "non-adapt" redos that persist to this day. But I agree they, like multifocal IOLs and multifocal contacts are optical garbage. However, some people love them and will tolerate anything to avoid a visible line. Lined bifocals and trifocals, unfortunately have not fared so well. The manufacture of the precision lines of yore are now infested with prismatic errors, power errors adjacent to the lines, etc. But they will always be available. I just hope they improve that precision on them. I ordered an exec bifocal from china to test their ability. It was sick. Had a region of +4 or so error just below the line. They have a long way to go. I seriously long for FD and ED trifocals. Those were some fine optics, most of the time.

[MakeOptics]

Consumer Demands, it doesn't matter what I want from a lens.

Progressive Lenses are designed using the best technology available in this day and age given the budget constraints of consumers. Progressives lenses can be made better using GRIN, digitally controlled liquid crystal and past attempts have shown that the technology has not yet matured and/or the cost is too prohibitive for a product that is replaced on a regular interval such as ophthalmic lenses.

As optical professionals we are privy to better techniques and products on the market, fringe, or horizon, but let's not lose sight of the consumer in the process and their "want's".

[Lelarep]

...digitally controlled liquid crystal...

I really do look forward to when this technology has matured enough to be a reasonable consumer product.

[MakeOptics]

I really do look forward to when this technology has matured enough to be a reasonable consumer product.

Amen, I can't wait for the clear pair that changes to sun lenses at the swipe of a finger (even in the car). Sensors, micro-controllers, and super capacitors have mature to the point now that amazing things are on the horizon, we're really waiting on the ability to interface with a lens and the production techniques to create a commercially viable option.

[Chris Ryser]

I really do look forward to when this technology has matured enough to be a reasonable consumer product.

When anything like it will be on the market it will not be sold by retail opticians .............it will go to the powerful internet giants.

You are off subject. The discussion is why the optically worst curvature has become the biggest moneymaker ever.

[optical24/7]

Chris, I've tried (and have) FT's. I prefer the utility of my PAL's. The designs have changed significantly. You should try some from this century.

[ThatOneGuy]

Why has the worst optical surface, full of distorted areas, become the largest money maker ever, in a period of 59 years ?

In the old days optical lens manufacturers used compete with the best and cleanest optical surfaces. The best lenses are still on cameras of all sorts, because any distortion would be visibly disturbing on resulting pictures.

However in the practical world of eyeglass sales, the lens with at least 30 to 40% of distorted areas over its surface has won the glory of having become the best selling multifocal lens world wide.

People that would only use a camera with only the best lenses will look through the viewfinder with their progressive lenses that are full of distorted areas.

I learned in the late 1950s how to sell those new lenses, mostly to women in their mid to late forties, because the age would not show that they wore multifocal lenses.

They always sold for more money than the optically perfect fused bifocals or multifocals, maybe the public has been totally brainwashed over the last 50 years, that optical perfection is not wanted anymore in eyeglasses.

What do you say ?

I think the implications are dishonest in your question. PALs provide useful and comfortable utility for what they are used for. No, they don't have perfect optics or even good optics throughout portions of the lens. However, the portions of the lens that are useful work pretty darn well. Similarly, they were designed to be affordable.

Just because a lens manufacturer has technology that commands a higher price so other companies can make false claims of similar technologies commanding a similar price doesn't mean they are over priced or underperforming.

[Dustin.B]

The reason why is very simple, appearance. To the vast majority of glasses customers a lined bifocal represents age and by extension fragility. Never mind that it is optically superior, it makes them look old. All you have to do is take one glance at Hollywood to know the answer, they have to protect the image of themselves they hold so dear.
A PAL is to glasses what a corset is to dresses. Beauty at the cost of comfort is what is desired, has been since the renaissance.
Naturally not everyone thinks this way but its ingrained into peoples minds because of those who do, a more educated patient may deal with the stigma for a better lens... or they might not.
Personally, I see PAL technology fully eclipsing traditional bifocals in the near future.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

To me this idea has been pushed by optical people on the public. If I had a dime for every time I've heard of an optical employee saying, "You don't want a bifocal, they are so ugly" well, I wouldn't be rich but I could take a month off...

I'm not sure if it's so much that they think they are ugly, as they are trying to upsell regardless of what the patient wants/needs are.

[Chris Ryser]

Chris, I've tried (and have) FT's. I prefer the utility of my PAL's. The designs have changed significantly. You should try some from this century.

My father was one of the few selected opticians that was given a few pairs of Varilux about a year before they hit the market in Europe and he just loved them and would never wear his regular trifocals again.

In the late 50s, I took courses given by Essel (today Essilor) teaching opticians how to sell progressive lenses and also to whom not to sell them.

There was never a warranty that they would be exchanged if it would not work out. So we had to be careful to whom we sold them.

When I had my lab we surfaced a few thousand Hoya progressives long before the French original made into Canada. So I have been familiar with them since their conception, and even if the surfacing technology is lot more modern these days, the surfaces of progressives are still full of distortion, and the reading areas get smaller as people get older.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

The reading area gets smaller as the add power goes up, often, but not always age related. One reason I rarely fit PALs on kids who need a fairly strong add (e.g. accommodative esotropia). Fortunately kids don't seem to mind looking "older".

[Chris Ryser]

I think the implications are dishonest in your question. PALs provide useful and comfortable utility for what they are used for. No, they don't have perfect optics or even good optics throughout portions of the lens. However, the portions of the lens that are useful work pretty darn well. Similarly, they were designed to be affordable.

Just because a lens manufacturer has technology that commands a higher price so other companies can make false claims of similar technologies commanding a similar price doesn't mean they are over priced or underperforming.

No dishonest question. You just answered it yourself.

However would you buy a camera that had a lens with some 40% distortion that would make pictures look just awful, but you take extra money from a consumer so he/she can see the world like the picture taken with a similar lens ?

It is not the technology a manufacturer is using, it is the optical laws that do not allow a perfect picture if you combine different curvatures on the same surface flowing into each other, which creates waves and distortion.

[Chris Ryser]

The reason why is very simple, appearance. To the vast majority of glasses customers a lined bifocal represents age and by extension fragility. Never mind that it is optically superior, it makes them look old.

................A PAL is to glasses what a corset is to dresses. Beauty at the cost of comfort is what is desired, has been since the renaissance.

Naturally not everyone thinks this way but its ingrained into peoples minds because of those who do, a more educated patient may deal with the stigma for a better lens... or they might not.

Personally, I see PAL technology fully eclipsing traditional bifocals in the near future.

I just love this one and hope all opticians will use this as the quote for every day:

A PAL is to glasses what a corset is to dress

You need a corset to bring your appearance to pleasing measure, and you need a PAL to pretend you can see perfect over the whole area of the lens.

So if you have a more educated patient, you would not push him/her into the corset ?

I just hope this near future will never happen.

[Jubilee]

I prefer the utility of my pal. I don't like the image jump of a lined multifocal. I can see edge to edge, with very little fuzziness in the bottom, temporal edge.

I can see distance, computer, near and inbetween without having to play too many neck games. Bouncing between tablets, computers, books, and then distance is seamless. Before progressives, I was always finding myself with my glasses off when I needed them on, and on when I didn't need them at all. Between the 2 diopters of ansio, the esotropia, and other issues I have, my first pair of Pals (Original autograph) was the first pair of glasses I did not want to take off!

Just because you could not adapt or don't find value in them doesn't mean that they are the evil incarnate. Different strokes for different folks.

Believe it or not, I have had patients who could not adapt to a line..

[Dustin.B]

Believe it or not, I have had patients who could not adapt to a line..

I've actually seen this myself as well, twice in the last year.

[Happylady]

Chris, you just can't believe that many people love their progressives and see great out of them. I'm one of them, I have NO issues with them. I can wear them all day and never notice any distorted areas. I think they are great.

[Chris Ryser]

Chris, you just can't believe that many people love their progressives and see great out of them. I'm one of them, I have NO issues with them. I can wear them all day and never notice any distorted areas. I think they are great.

My father did love them.

Happylady, you have been the best promoter of progressive lenses since you joined OptiBoard in 2005.

As a young optician when attending the Varilux courses in the late 1950s back in Europe we were told to sell them to the public when they start with a reading addition and the buyers would love them, which is a fact.

However you put a first time user at an older age and reading addition fro regular bifocals into Progressives you are inviting trouble.

Even the ones who had them for years do not appreciate the smaller readin areas that are actually very limited.

[Chris Ryser]

I prefer the utility of my pal. I don't like the image jump of a lined multifocal. I can see edge to edge, with very little fuzziness in the bottom, temporal edge.

I can see distance, computer, near and inbetween without having to play too many neck games.

Just because you could not adapt or don't find value in them doesn't mean that they are the evil incarnate. Different strokes for different folks.

Believe it or not, I have had patients who could not adapt to a line.

I have never had a problem adapting to a PAL and have several of them nicely stored in their cases.

My father made sure that I had a top notch education in the optical profession and also paid for the six years of it.

However I learned along the way what a clean optical surface is supposed to be, and that perfect vision should be provided by perfect lenses.

30 to 40 % of distortion in a optical lens surface can not provide perfect vision, and you can argue from here to the North Pole that it is.

However I will admit that you can get used to not noticing these areas, but as you get older and the reading area needs more addition it will also get smaller, and the distorted areas get larger.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I'm a reluctant PAL wearer who occasionally retreats to SV and Bifocals for more serious visual tasks. I agree with the smaller near and intermediate zones as the add goes up. But in my practice there's a new phenomenon that is cutting in to my PAL prescribing a bit. It is the relatively new incidence of dual, even triple large screen monitors by computer users. These people can use PALs but are usually better off with a ft-28 computer Rx consisting of a .75 or 1 add in the upper portion, and another 1 add or 1.25 in the lower. Not usable as a general wear Rx, but they love the panorama in the upper. For less rigorous monitor setups, like my own case, I opt for a computer PAL, where I use a regular PAL but push an extra +.5 in the upper and cut that amount for the add. Gives me much more intermediate vision and near area than my regular PAL which I use for non office work. The Tact or other near variables are ok, but I find the computer PAL best for in office use. The only problem with this arrangement is those many times I get halfway to the car before I realize I've got the office pair on... Sometimes I go back, sometimes I put up with a little distance blur for the drive home.

[rbaker]

Much as it is difficult to play a decent round of golf with just a single club a PAL or a FT is not going to be the answer for everyone. The optician should have a full bag of clubs and the skill and experience to use the proper one for a given situation. Hopefully, the dispenser is guided by the visual needs and desires of the customer.

[MakeOptics]

I wouldn't buy a camera with 30 to 40 percent distortion. I would and have bought PALs, I don't think the question was presented objectively enough to warrant further discussion.

[Chris Ryser]

I wouldn't buy a camera with 30 to 40 percent distortion. I would and have bought PALs, I don't think the question was presented objectively enough to warrant further discussion.

You being an optical wizard, what would you do with a PAL, you are still too young for that. And if you would wear any, your ad be in +0.50 Dioptres.

The question I asked was presenting the real facts and nothing else, and if you don't like it, please just ignore the whole thread. It is only one day old.

[lensgrinder]

Much as it is difficult to play a decent round of golf with just a single club a PAL or a FT is not going to be the answer for everyone. The optician should have a full bag of clubs and the skill and experience to use the proper one for a given situation. Hopefully, the dispenser is guided by the visual needs and desires of the customer.

Great answer!

There is not enough evaluation of the patient(i.e. what they need, what they were wearing before, etc.) which leads to the misunderstanding of smaller corridors or not being able to read due to older styles.
We think that PoW is not important, but we used to compensate an Rx for vertex distance. We have the ability to compensate and produce a lens with powers that the patient needs. Without taking PoW and compensating for it we can reduce the corridor width and change the power the patient is supposed to look through.
If a patient looks down to read in a traditional progressive lens they can be looking through an additional +0.12 - +0.25 D of add power and when they get new glasses they complain they cannot read and the blame is put on the lens design, the refraction, etc.

I wouldn't buy a camera with 30 to 40 percent distortion. I would and have bought PALs, I don't think the question was presented objectively enough to warrant further discussion.

I am not sure about warranting further discussion, but the title is a little ambiguous(""Why has the worst optical surface ever become the biggest money maker?")
I think if we take the time to take the proper PoW measurements and take a patient history(i.e. what they were wearing, etc) we can reduce the aberrations.
I am assuming the title is discussing Progressives, but not sure.
I do not believe they are the worst optical surfaces produced, are we referring to a wheel based generator and rocking the lens on a sphere pan? Newer, FF lenses correct for optical aberrations that the lenses of yesteryear could not unless you decided to use a Wollaston form or a Spazio for a SV wearer.