When do you not recommend IOT Camber progressives???

[Uncle Fester]

I've read the rave reviews and wonder when this design is not a good choice.

Feel free to chime in!!!

[Elvis Is Alive]

IMO, they are one of the best, if not the best design currently on the market. Variable base curve is especially suited well for plus rxs.

Not a good choice for budget conscience pts :)

[drk]

i remember hearing that sometimes it's difficult to "register" or align the blanks such that the backside surfacing is correct. That could be true of any dual-sided PAL for all I know.

[Paul Smith LDO]

Tried them a few years ago for a couple of difficult to fit PAL previous non adapts from another shop. May not be the best candidates for a new PAL design for me but is there ever a good time to try a newer product on anyone. That being said neither felt comfortable in the lens. Even the lab recommended not using the Chamber and suggested another IOT design, both patients complaints were related to traversing vertically within the channel. Don't recall having issues with the channel in digital designs other than longer Vs shorter corridors. Restyled both in the Shamir Element with occupational designs for work whilst at the computer and, Bob's your uncle. I've had good success with IOT designs in general but haven't felt compelled to try the Chamber again.

[Kwill212]

I've fit 90+% of my PAL patients in various Camber designs for about 10 years now with nary a non-adapt, and many happy patients. I have not run into a situation where I wouldn't recommend it for normal primary pair use, other than cost of course. For myself, the newest iteration (Camber Steady Plus), was instantly great. No adaption required. It felt almost SV with it's lack of swim.

[Uncle Fester]

Thanks for the replies!

Just browsed this site:

https://www.camberlens.com/lens_designs.aspx?langId=1

Love the last "Lens Design" page.

Is $1,200 a pair about right?


Is the Clear UV 420 the AR?

[Kwill212]

UV 420 is a in-mass filter up to 420nm. It's nothing to do with Camber or IOT just a material option. I assume its from Mitsui, UV+420 cut. But I'm not positive.

Is $1,200 a pair about right?

I would be rich if it were. No, it is comparable to any top lens from the major manufactures, Intelligence, Individual, S,X,XR, etc. I actually find cost to be less than those, depending on the lab. Certainly not more expensive than those. Price can also vary by design, Camber isn't a lens design it is just a blank. So you can get multiple different designs on a Camber blank at slightly different price tiers. Older Camber 45, 65, Camber Steady, Camber Steady +, etc.

[Uncle Fester]

Kwill- That's with all the bells and whistles and a $250 frame (oopps forgot that!) 1.74 premium ar transition polished and about what we charge around here before the obligatory minimum 20 to 30% discount.

What AR do you like best?

[Kwill212]

Kwill- That's with all the bells and whistles and a $250 frame (oopps forgot that!) 1.74 premium ar transition polished and about what we charge around here before the obligatory minimum 20 to 30% discount.

What AR do you like best?

So $950 for lenses, after discount about $715? Sounds close for that combo, but I've never ordered, nor am I ever going to order, 1.74 transitions. I have a very hefty 1.74 upcharge purposely to discourage the "but I need the thinnest possible" crowd. I have a very, very simple price list. 2 prices for all IOT progressives(compensated or non-compensated), no discounts, all materials(except 1.74) are the same price. I make more on low index and less on high index, but It all evens out in the end, and if you read my soapbox rant in the trivex vs poly thread, I'm coming out ahead. All options are bundled into the one cost except photochromatic, polarized and sunclips. Yes 1.67 and CR39 retail for the same cost, I charge for my time and expertise not material selection. Like I said, from the Labs I use the most, IOT lenses are about 20%+ less expensive than the top lenses from the big brands. One lab I occasionally use, charges the same as top tier brands. So YMMV by lab.


I'm not real partial to one AR being "the best". I've not seen a standout that makes me need one over the other. I've tried many "house brand" ARs that have worked just as well as name brand. EX3(Have not tried EX4 yet) is good. I avoid Essilor like the plague but order a few of theirs as testers for family when a new ones comes out. The best AR ever made IMO was the old Signet Armorlite Clean N Clear. Before the evil empire bought them out. I still have a few patients from ~2010 wearing the same lenses with Clean N Clear that look pristine. I think today's best coatings are probably a little more slippery and a little less reflective, but Clean N Clear was indestructible, nearly unscratchable. Essilor bought out Signet and changed the formula. Tale as old as time.

[drk]

Kwill, I love the idea of a super-simple fee structure.

I would like to vote for Zeiss Super ET as the greatest AR of all time.

[jefe]

I wouldn't recommend them for minus patients or for those people who end up having a low fitting height.

[edKENdance]

I've worn 3 Cambers in 3 different designs and can't say I've noticed any mind blowing differences between the Camber and Standard Endless IOT lens designs which I love. I'm sitting around a +5.50 with a 2 add so I should be amongst those that feel the benefits the most. Labs, of course have to pass pretty stringent testing in order to sell Camber lenses but I am left with the impression that a lot of this isn't being accomplished in the day to day. I'll add that the 3 Cambers I've tried have all been from different labs but they all hit the same. The Camber blank is a beautiful conception and perhaps it hasn't been made properly for me by these different labs, like the choicest cut of meat that's been prepared by an unskilled cook. I'll also add that the placement of the Y marks combined with the lab's engravings have always looked like a disaster...so in short, I sell IOT designs all day long but couldn't recommend a Camber.