Price vs Happiness, in glasses

[DanLiv]

When it comes to the marketing jargon with branded FF designs, don't believe everything you read.

What is there to believe then?

The marketing jargon cuts both ways. Plenty independent lab reps hype their house brand lenses and AR as "just as good" as VX and Crizal, but for much less. I find that hard to believe too. At least with the branded products there is tons of research, white papers, and studies from which I can make my own judgments. And they are the companies doing the optical research, from which they derive new products, not copying existing products. With house product there is usually nothing *but* claims.

There are products that make a significant difference, but you do need to know how they work and how to fit them. Are they worth the price? Yes. Worth more than what they currently cost? Not really. Now, if you don't understand the what and why, and simply regurgitate marketing to your patient without understanding how to properly fit/dispense the products, then you better gear up for an angry patient.

Agreed. Optical products are tools that opticians use to craft vision. A poorly trained or unknowledgeable optician will not eek any value out of a high end FF progressive, these products are not the panacea for lack of optical skill. In the hands of a very skilled optician these are the tools that close the gap between very good and flawlessly comfortable vision. Practices that blindly throw the highest end products at everyone who will pay for it are just carpet bombing to make up for lack of optician skill. In the hands of an expert golfer the right high end club can make a discernible difference. In the hands of an average golfer it may make zero difference, except in the expense. If you don't understand the difference in the products, and what makes one better than another, then you are probably not going to be able to take full advantage of the best tools.

[Quince]

ALL of these labs will give free trial pairs. If they aren't then they sure better have some amazing stats. A rep can tell me how good a lens is until they are blue in the face, but I'll have patience and wait to get feedback from those trial pairs. That's proof enough for me.

[userod]

ALL of these labs will give free trial pairs. If they aren't then they sure better have some amazing stats. A rep can tell me how good a lens is until they are blue in the face, but I'll have patience and wait to get feedback from those trial pairs. That's proof enough for me.

I get what everyone is saying. It's a spaghetti meal with spices and no one knows for sure what exactly is in it but you know how to wrap your spoon or fork around it to consume it. Just thought I'd ask. I'm afraid I still don't know how to "be sure" other than a carpet bomb or a GPS guided hit (lens design) works for just, just about everyone.

I learned Sheard's criteria (I've completely forgotten how it works and probably spelled it wrong here) so I was wondering if there are any physiological tests that could measure the performance of the eye and the lens. But that would be one helluva study.

[Browman]

I get what everyone is saying. It's a spaghetti meal with spices and no one knows for sure what exactly is in it but you know how to wrap your spoon or fork around it to consume it. Just thought I'd ask. I'm afraid I still don't know how to "be sure" other than a carpet bomb or a GPS guided hit (lens design) works for just, just about everyone.

That's not what some of us have said at all. You've been referred to product reviews, white papers, and even seeking out free samples.

[Robert Martellaro]

I get what everyone is saying. It's a spaghetti meal with spices and no one knows for sure what exactly is in it but you know how to wrap your spoon or fork around it to consume it. Just thought I'd ask.

Someone's grandfather once said- you pay, you get. Still true. I thought I should mention that you should review your first year optometry "Optics of Ophthalmic Lenses" course...most of the answers you seek can be found there.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

[userod]

That's what I thought. But then I learned more.

Someone's grandfather once said- you pay, you get. Still true. I thought I should mention that you should review your first year optometry "Optics of Ophthalmic Lenses" course...most of the answers you seek can be found there.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

[Chris Ryser]

Are there any independent studies for that statement of yours?

Plenty of them, probably by the hundreds or more...............................

However you will not find them under scientific studies, you will find them under salesmanship.

The more expensive, the better they are for everybody, the seller and the buyer.

[userod]

I get that. We can sell the cheapest PAL to most/many people and they won't know the difference. They don't ask for literature.

Plenty of them, probably by the hundreds or more...............................

However you will not find them under scientific studies, you will find them under salesmanship.

The more expensive, the better they are for everybody, the seller and the buyer.

[Robert Martellaro]

That's what I thought. But then I learned more.

Can you be more specific?

In addition to the clinical testing link that I posted on page #1,

Progressive addition lenses- matching the specific lens to patient
needs.pdf

Progressive addition lenses- measurements and ratings.pdf

Read about the potential advantages of manufacturing lenses on a free-form manufacturing platform. Darryl Meister and Mo Jalie are recommended. As I suggested earlier, do your own testing, and talk to the individual manufacturers regarding white papers, patents, clinical testing, etc.



Hope this helps,

Robert Martellaro

[userod]

I briefly looked at the 2 papers and could barely handle the youtube video sound.

All I see is a lot of variations in every lens design. Nothing jumps out as a much of a leader in all categories. It's all a mess. But thanks. I'll try to listen to the video later. Maybe people should have multiple pairs of lenses first to let them decide what works. Seems like someone mentioned that they try more than one themselves. I think docs/opticians can do that. If patients we the docs/opticians they'd do the same thing.

[Craig]

I am the founder of LenSync and we are close to launch.

[Quince]

There are also current apps available with similar concept. You can put the Rx in and go between lens styles... but I am very hesitant as to how accurate the portrayal is. There are some iffy areas when it comes to how realistic the near vision 'jump' is.

[Quince]

Robert, those links you provided look very promising. I look forward to reading the first one in more depth when time permits. Thank you for sharing!

[Robert Martellaro]

All I see is a lot of variations in every lens design. Nothing jumps out as a much of a leader in all categories.

That's because it's not possible to design a PAL that is a leader in all categories. Electroactive ophthalmic lenses should come close, but probably a decade or two before we see perfected, affordable consumer products.

http://www.vargellini.it/zaccagnini/...esbyopia-2.pdf

Maybe people should have multiple pairs of lenses

Yes, especially for presbyopes with adds over +1.75. Most of my day is spent working at distances from 40cm to 75cm, with object heights frequently close to the primary gaze.

...let them decide what works.

Your optician should be able to sort that out, with a high degree of confidence, before the purchase is made. You can do that also, if you have the time. Make sure your client is prepared to supply the object distance(s) and height.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

[drk]

I think an avid reader might believe that but what's the difference in a +1.75 OTC vs +1.75 from a lab? I know pd's might be different and not sure about sustained reading for many people for over 2 hrs. I've heard there's a "quality" difference in lens materials but I don't know what that means.

Are there any indepedent studies for that statement of yours?

Well, AT MINIMUM the +1.75 Rx lenses are fit and professionally dispensed.

The OTCs are a crap shoot. Who says they're anywhere close to their label? Who checks for defects? What about the next one up on the rack?

OTCs are fine for short term use (like, fifteen minutes).

[Robert Martellaro]

Robert, those links you provided look very promising. I look forward to reading the first one in more depth when time permits. Thank you for sharing!

Your welcome. Those studies and lens designs are old, but still extremely useful information. "The Optics of Occupational Progressive Lenses" -James E. Sheedy, O.D., Ph.D. and Raymond F. Hardy, B.S. is required reading also.

The next step is to come as close to single blind testing as possible. Even if n=1 or 2, the results are extremely helpful when recommending lenses to our clients.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

[drk]

Someone's grandfather once said- you pay, you get. Still true. I thought I should mention that you should review your first year optometry "Optics of Ophthalmic Lenses" course...most of the answers you seek can be found there.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

This.

UserOD, you and only you, presumably an educated optometrist, must educate yourself and use your brain and your education to dope out what's true and what's not.

Plus you can partner with common-interest professionals here on Optiboard, as I have. It's been invaluable.

But there are NO shortcuts.

[Chris Ryser]

UserOD, you and only you, presumably an educated optometrist, must educate yourself and use your brain and your education to dope out what's true and what's not.

Plus you can partner with common-interest professionals here on Optiboard, as I have. It's been invaluable.

But there are NO shortcuts.

However most of them are hiding behind a pseudonym, and are doing, so that they can not be held responsible for what they are posting, nor any claim the make.

[lensmanmd]

However most of them are hiding behind a pseudonym, and are doing, so that they can not be held responsible for what they are posting, nor any claim the make.

Not entirely true, Chris. Pseudonym use is not always about posting crap without repercussion.

[lensgrinder]

There are many differnces between lens designs. Some are full back surface free form, some have a degressive front, others have cascading front surface with the design on the back, and there is toricity at the top and bottom with some conic in between for othere designs.
You start a lens design by defining the surface heights using level curves, difine your power law to determine the rate of change at a particular corridor length and add power, then you know how much you need to alter the corridor region to produce the needed powers along the umbilic, now you can define your surface and how you want to distribute your surace astigmatism.
This, of course, is a basic approach, but the designer of the lens will obviously have to make design choices as to where to place the astigmatism, how long should the corridor be, should it be a softer design/harder design, etc.
Each lens designer will choose what is most important, with free form designs, these designs can be altered as the power, add, frame, PoW, center of rotation, etc. changes. For example a person who wants a wider intermediate will choose an intermediate design where there is a longer corridor as this helps to increase intermediate width, but with that change comes a trade off, you have a longer corridor thereby making it more difficult to get in to the full reading.
A traditional design is set with the original criteria and without compensation for the lens power, shape, inset, corridor length. A chief complaint from patients when moving from traditional to free form is the near power. A traditional lens will increase effective near power for the hyperope by a 0.25 D or more. When the patient switches to free form and the power has been compensated the patient feels there is no change, so a short corridor is chosen or they switch back to traiditional. The same can be said for PoW where traditional do not compensate for this, but the patient will get used to the non-compensated Rx and when it is compensated they feel a degradation of power.
When intermediae widths are discussed manufacturerers are not referring to the area that is free from astigmatism, but they choose a point along the x axis where the astigmatism is the same, for example how wide is the intermediate from 1.00 D of astigmatism along the x axis. These can be different from manufacturer to manufacturer.
One lens will not do everything and each design will solve the chief problem that the wearer is having, but will not be better for another problem.
I work for Zeiss, I am not a rep, but we(along with other manufacturers) have free form lenses that are priced lower than our traditional lenses. There is more to the cost of goods than just production. There is true research that goes in to deciding lens designs, studies to make sure claims are true, wearer trials, etc.

[userod]

There is true research that goes in to deciding lens designs, studies to make sure claims are true, wearer trials, etc.

"Wearer trials"....that's what I'd like to see. All I see is marketing otherwise, and of course, our great success with just about all PAL designs.

[Quince]

"Why do you think the price of what you're selling (in a lens or coating) is really worth more than a less expensive product?"

So we've thrown out 'yes's and 'no's for various reasons and with multiple scientific backings and personal experiences. I'm just reiterating this because you seem so unimpressed and dishearten. If you are waiting for someone to fess up that free-form is a conspiracy and there is no such thing as digital processing- don't hold your breath.

Instead be excited that there is more than you knew to be true and go get a pair!

[userod]

Ha ha, I really could care less about it all because I'll never be satisfied :)

"Why do you think the price of what you're selling (in a lens or coating) is really worth more than a less expensive product?"

So we've thrown out 'yes's and 'no's for various reasons and with multiple scientific backings and personal experiences. I'm just reiterating this because you seem so unimpressed and dishearten. If you are waiting for someone to fess up that free-form is a conspiracy and there is no such thing as digital processing- don't hold your breath.

Instead be excited that there is more than you knew to be true and go get a pair!

[Browman]

However most of them are hiding behind a pseudonym, and are doing, so that they can not be held responsible for what they are posting, nor any claim the make.

Not everyone on Optiboard has the luxury of owning our own business and being held accountable only to ourselves for what we post online. Many optiboarders work in retail locations or for ODs who may not appreciate the honest opinions or views of their staff being posted on a public forum under their own names. An optician who honestly believes that X is the best lens style but works for an office that is contracted to push Y (or whose OD holds that opinion without any sort of influence/incentive) cannot come here under his or her own name and post "X is the best lens, despite what my office says" and not expect ramifications. Ditto for sharing practice management strategies, vis a vis what works and what does not.

The anonymity of the internet lets a lot of people get away with s---, but it also allows others to bring the s---- into the light. It's a tradeoff.

[Quince]

Not everyone on Optiboard has the luxury of owning our own business and being held accountable only to ourselves for what we post online. Many optiboarders work in retail locations or for ODs who may not appreciate the honest opinions or views of their staff being posted on a public forum under their own names. An optician who honestly believes that X is the best lens style but works for an office that is contracted to push Y (or whose OD holds that opinion without any sort of influence/incentive) cannot come here under his or her own name and post "X is the best lens, despite what my office says" and not expect ramifications. Ditto for sharing practice management strategies, vis a vis what works and what does not.

The anonymity of the internet lets a lot of people get away with s---, but it also allows others to bring the s---- into the light. It's a tradeoff.

+1 to all of that!