Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Zeiss Officelens

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    1

    Confused Zeiss Officelens

    ZEISS OFFICELENS

    I have seen virtually NO information on the Zeiss "Officelens". This lens comes as a "Book", "Desk", or "Room" design, depending on how far out a patient needs to see from their computer screen. I talked to one of our lab men and got pretty confused on exactly how to write a prescription for this lens design. Can anyone out there make it simple for an "Old Timer' who's been at this optometric profession for almost 50 years ? Thanks...
    Dr. Z.

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter lensmanmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Zelnar View Post
    I have seen virtually NO information on the Zeiss "Officelens". This lens comes as a "Book", "Desk", or "Room" design, depending on how far out a patient needs to see from their computer screen. I talked to one of our lab men and got pretty confused on exactly how to write a prescription for this lens design. Can anyone out there make it simple for an "Old Timer' who's been at this optometric profession for almost 50 years ? Thanks...
    Dr. Z.
    Dr Z,

    We produce a similar design from IOT, which I have to admit, I love. The IOT Office Reader is very similar to the Zeiss Officelens, so I will use the same verbiage. I wear all three 'distances' depending on what I'm doing. When having meetings with people in my office, I wear the equivalent of the 'Desk', as it allows me to clearly see the person I'm speaking with, yet read and view my laptop with ease. When I'm in a meeting in a conference room, I wear the 'Room'. This gives me more distance, so that I can see faces up to 10' away. When I'm editing my photographs or working on spreadsheets, I wear the 'Book'. Full and wide intermediate and near, perfect for enhanced computer work.

    The beauty of both designs (IOT and ZEISS) for the Optometrist AND the Optician is the simple fact that there is no need to transpose the RX for intermediate use. No need to determine how far one sits from the monitor for RX adjustments. The practitioner just needs to provide the full RX to the optician, the optician enters the RX into the POS, the lab receives the RX and we just let the calculator do the necessary computations. The only thing that the optician needs to figure out is what the best 'distance' for the patient is and then make the recommendation. Even the fitting height is taken as a regular PAL. Easie-peasie.

  3. #3
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    There's a lot of educated guessing and assumptions with these types of lenses, so caveat emptor.

    Here's how it's done using a traditional PAL or segmented multifocal. When the appointment is made, tell the client to measure the distance from their cheek or eyeglasses to the center of the desktop monitor display, and then to the desktop. Refract that distance, typically 60cm to 70 cm, and 35cm to 45cm to the desktop. Select a PAL that has a wide clear distance zone. Corridor length does not have to be fast and/or short because of the low add power, typically +.75 to +1.25, but should be adequate for their visual needs. For example, lawyers and radiologists will have distinctly different needs at near.

    The primary advantage with these 'office' type lenses is that they provide a distance window at or above the primary gaze. Unfortunately, the price we pay for that capability is a much narrower intermediate zone width (see the illustration below), not a good idea with todays 27" and bigger monitors or multiple monitor configurations.

    Moreover, if the lens design does not calculate the power based on the measured work distance (to the best of my knowledge none of them do), a monitor at 55cm gets the same power as one at 80cm, and that's just not going to be optimal, or may be downright rejected, especially with absolute presbyopes.

    For those who are ambulatory or are unable to adapt to the the distance blur, one might underplus the distance portion (now the intermediate).

    Hope this helps,

    Robert Martellaro
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Office PAL.png  
    Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 12-21-2016 at 04:03 PM.
    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.



  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder lensgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    504
    Dr Zelnar I work for Zeiss and would be happy to send you information. My email address is brent.mccardle@zeiss.com
    Our office lens is a soft design allowing for wider intermediate and near. The feedback I have received is great, but you would need to try it.

    The amount added to the distance and subtracted from the add is:
    Room +0.25 This gives up to 14 ft distance
    Desk +0.50. This gives up to 7 ft distance
    Book +1.00. This gives up to 3 ft distance.

    The distances come from the focal length of the power. 1/0.25= 4 meters or 13.12 ft

    I agree with Robert in that you should determine the actual distance needed to be accurate.

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    There's a lot of educated guessing and assumptions with these types of lenses, so caveat emptor.

    Here's how it's done using a traditional PAL or segmented multifocal. When the appointment is made, tell the client to measure the distance from their cheek or eyeglasses to the center of the desktop monitor display, and then to the desktop. Refract that distance, typically 60cm to 70 cm, and 35cm to 45cm to the desktop. Select a PAL that has a wide clear distance zone. Corridor length does not have to be fast and/or short because of the low add power, typically +.75 to +1.25, but should be adequate for their visual needs. For example, lawyers and radiologists will have distinctly different needs at near.

    The primary advantage with these 'office' type lenses is that they provide a distance window at or above the primary gaze. Unfortunately, the price we pay for that capability is a much narrower intermediate zone width (see the illustration below), not a good idea with todays 27" and bigger monitors or multiple monitor configurations.

    Moreover, if the lens design does not calculate the power based on the measured work distance (to the best of my knowledge none of them do), a monitor at 55cm gets the same power as one at 80cm, and that's just not going to be optimal, or may be downright rejected, especially with absolute presbyopes.

    For those who are ambulatory or are unable to adapt to the the distance blur, one might underplus the distance portion (now the intermediate).

    Hope this helps,

    Robert Martellaro
    In the add map image posted the artifacts on the top and bottom of both sides indicate the power eases in and out gradually from intermediate to near or whichever power configuration the prescription requires. It is also very indicative of a super soft design which I would recommend for a low add intermediate near Rx, which is always the case with intermediate/near Rx configurations. The rigidity of a specific measured distance is unnecessary given an intermediate pair would be on a patient most likely to have some accommodative reserve and a range that would allow a little play in the distances. The exceptions are going to be patients with cataracts removed with a singular focus in the replacement lens, absolute presbyopes that have zero accommodative reserve in the tank, etc. The map you provide absolutely looks great for an intermediate pair and will provide the best dynamic vision vertically with very little issue horizontally meaning it covers the scenario with multiple monitors and width. If the width were to be optimized the corridor would shrink which would be 2x more detrimental to the comfort.
    http://www.opticians.cc

    Creator of the industries 1st HTML5 Browser based tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Mac tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Linux tracer software.

  6. #6
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by MakeOptics View Post
    In the add map image posted the artifacts on the top and bottom of both sides indicate the power eases in and out gradually from intermediate to near or whichever power configuration the prescription requires. It is also very indicative of a super soft design which I would recommend for a low add intermediate near Rx, which is always the case with intermediate/near Rx configurations. The rigidity of a specific measured distance is unnecessary given an intermediate pair would be on a patient most likely to have some accommodative reserve and a range that would allow a little play in the distances. The exceptions are going to be patients with cataracts removed with a singular focus in the replacement lens, absolute presbyopes that have zero accommodative reserve in the tank, etc. The map you provide absolutely looks great for an intermediate pair and will provide the best dynamic vision vertically with very little issue horizontally meaning it covers the scenario with multiple monitors and width. If the width were to be optimized the corridor would shrink which would be 2x more detrimental to the comfort.
    The map in my post above is the original Shamir Office with a +2.50 add. Contour lines are .25DC. Zone width in the primary gaze (Y=0), with .50DC limits, measures 4.3mm, and at Y=-5, 7.9mm. (The optics of occupational progressive lenses James E. Sheedy, O.D., Ph.D. and Raymond F. Hardy, B.S.)

    I had previously been fitting the AO Techinica, starting in the early 1990's. Personal trials revealed a narrow zone width at and slightly below the primary gaze. I switched to general purpose PALs with modified powers to address this issue as well as being able to tweak the monitor and desktop work distances.

    I tried the Shamir Office when it was released, providing the lab with the work distance. During the trial, I had to put -.50 over to see text on the screen clearly (about 65cm). My add at that time was +2.00 (age mid-fifties), and is presently +2.25 (age 64). Zone width on the straight ahead gaze was better than the Technica, but not as good as a general purpose PAL. The power error at the designated work distance made it an instant reject though, and consequently was only used as a general office lens, or desk lens, with limited utility for most desktop computer monitors.

    Hope this helps,

    Robert Martellaro
    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.



  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    The map in my post above is the original Shamir Office with a +2.50 add. Contour lines are .25DC. Zone width in the primary gaze (Y=0), with .50DC limits, measures 4.3mm, and at Y=-5, 7.9mm. (The optics of occupational progressive lenses James E. Sheedy, O.D., Ph.D. and Raymond F. Hardy, B.S.)

    I had previously been fitting the AO Techinica, starting in the early 1990's. Personal trials revealed a narrow zone width at and slightly below the primary gaze. I switched to general purpose PALs with modified powers to address this issue as well as being able to tweak the monitor and desktop work distances.

    I tried the Shamir Office when it was released, providing the lab with the work distance. During the trial, I had to put -.50 over to see text on the screen clearly (about 65cm). My add at that time was +2.00 (age mid-fifties), and is presently +2.25 (age 64). Zone width on the straight ahead gaze was better than the Technica, but not as good as a general purpose PAL. The power error at the designated work distance made it an instant reject though, and consequently was only used as a general office lens, or desk lens, with limited utility for most desktop computer monitors.

    Hope this helps,


    Robert Martellaro
    Zone widths are generally measured in 0.50DC increments which correlates to a spherical equivalent of 0.25DS error. I am including 2 of my designs maps in the images below. The first is a binomial function that is softer, the zones are smaller but the transitions are smoother, the second is a cubic function where the zone widths are wider but the transitions are harsh. The first design may have smaller zone widths but the lens would feel more comfortable, the second would be clearer but require much more head movement due to the steeper changes in curvature leading to drastic changes in power at the transitional areas.

    In an indoor lens, I would make an assumption that the user is going to require more comfort in the design. I personally don't like working with a lot of head movements side to side, the additional advantage to softer transitions is the better orthogonal effects with a softer design, the shape is more true to real world (less DISTORTION), the downside is higher power error as you can see with the narrow effect of the binomial design. There is no way to figure out preferences on a per-user basis so ideally certain assumption need to be made to a user in a specific environment. For the case of an intermediate we make a few assumptions:

    1) Distance isn't priority.
    2*) Intermediate power should be priority.
    3*) Near power should be secondary in priority.

    *2 and 3 can be reversed.

    From there everyone has an opinion on what makes an intermediate design better. I think softer designs are better since I would prefer a lens that requires less head movement when working, Robert I see your preference is the opposite (this isn't wrong or right otherwise the various brands would not exist). I would sacrifice zone width for smoother transitions, Robert you're the opposite. We could go on without any definitive answer to BETTER design. With more knowledge of a user's preference, we could create a BETTER design for the individual. I am working on bringing that tech to the intermediate consumer "the opticians" so that they don't have to settle for off the shelf designs for their end users the clients.

    *my design is using the intermediate design but applying it like a PAL, this is a work in progress and ultimately an intermediate design can take a move the softened top portion of the design higher into the top of the lens softening the lens even further. The important thing to remember is that anyone changes generally has an equal but opposite effect on other variables so to widen the zones the transitions become harsher, Roberts preference does have an advantage in the fact that an intermediate lens will always have a low add power, in essence reducing the harsher transitions just by nature of the powers in the lens, combine that with a longer corridor and the detrimental effects of a harsh transition zone can be reduced to negligible. These factors also help a design that is softened in an equal and opposite nature by widening the zones of more accurate power and making the lens even more orthogonal or comfortable.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails cubic.jpg   binomial.jpg  
    Last edited by MakeOptics; 01-02-2017 at 11:43 AM.
    http://www.opticians.cc

    Creator of the industries 1st HTML5 Browser based tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Mac tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Linux tracer software.

  8. #8
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    MakeOptics,

    I don't want or need an intermediate power/PAL on a task/desktop computer lens. I used to encouraged PAL wearers to try standard ST28s for their computer eyeglasses, but they would bring them back complaining of the segment. I gave up trying and now only use segmented multifocals for computer eyeglasses when their general purpose eyeglasses are segmented. Almost everyone else gets an appropriate powered general purpose PAL for their computer eyeglasses.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    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.



  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder MakeOptics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    none
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    MakeOptics,

    I don't want or need an intermediate power/PAL on a task/desktop computer lens. I used to encouraged PAL wearers to try standard ST28s for their computer eyeglasses, but they would bring them back complaining of the segment. I gave up trying and now only use segmented multifocals for computer eyeglasses when their general purpose eyeglasses are segmented. Almost everyone else gets an appropriate powered general purpose PAL for their computer eyeglasses.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    I have found the same with ST's, generally unless they are wearing them in the first place they don't want a general purpose PAL and a separate ST for their task specific pair.

    A general purpose PAL for a task-specific pair is a great idea, I can't and won't argue with that it's not only a sound choice but has a lot of benefits. After all, that's what a task specific PAL is the designer is just tweaking it with some assumptions that make them easier to fit for the optician that doesn't have the time or knowledge to adjust a general purpose PAL to work.

    It's like buying a TV dinner at the grocery store very few if any people would say a TV dinner is the equivalent of a scratch cooked equivalent meal in quality and taste, but the convenience factor means it's a viable option. That applies to all the specialized PAL's sport, sun, computer, desktop, etc they're a great convenience and combined with marketing/education make them an easy solution to a much harder visual problem that exists to the intermediate consumer, the optician, and the end consumer the client.

    When creating a series of PAL's of my own I found that instead of rigid designs if I parameterized fitting and zone variables I could use the same design with different parameters to create specialized versions of PAL's that fit the task specific segments, but in reality, they are still the same PAL as their base design just tweaked with certain assumptions that fit the vast majority in the specific task they are used for. The current digital conundrum I see is designers will loose the ability to create new and better designs if their designs are highly parameterized because each individual optician can tweak to their heart's content on the same exact design. This commoditization of the design would mean no more version 2 or 30% wider fields. That means eventually price becomes the determining factor and those with greater knowledge of optics can provide better resolution in a design that specifically matches their client's needs. My dream is of the day I can send a digital file to a lab and they just produce the lens based on my design rather than charge me by the type of design. Even if they charge by the type of design, a base fee would be preferential compared to the variations based on the manufacturer/design.

    Thank you for the discussion, I am content staying away until/unless I get to discuss with an optician of your caliber on the more advanced subjects.
    http://www.opticians.cc

    Creator of the industries 1st HTML5 Browser based tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Mac tracer software.
    Creator of the industries 1st Linux tracer software.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Needed: Zeiss Humphrey 750 I or Zeiss 745 I Visual Field
    By OphthalmicEquip in forum Optical Marketplace
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 04:26 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2009, 01:58 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 08:05 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 07:42 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2006, 12:37 AM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •