I have a patient who loves the Comfort DRx ("best lens I've ever had"), but really wants to try Smartlife Individual 3. Which version of SL Individual 3 is going to have a corridor most like the Comfort Drx? THANKS !!
I have a patient who loves the Comfort DRx ("best lens I've ever had"), but really wants to try Smartlife Individual 3. Which version of SL Individual 3 is going to have a corridor most like the Comfort Drx? THANKS !!
Confucius say: "If man want corridor like Comfort DRX, stay married to French wife."
Confucius say: "If man want to try German wife, man should appreciate new wife's assets and forget old wife".
I'm not familiar with Smartlife lenses but one would assume there are layout charts online for you to contrast and compare.
Krystle
There will be no similarity. Essilor and Zeiss have fundamentally different progressive design philosophies, and I would even opine that they are the most diametrically opposed designs on the market. If you're looking for any semblance to Comfort DRx, Zeiss ain't it. Could be better, could be worse, but it certainly won't be the same.
could you enlighten us as to what the main differences are? Btw, times like this I wish the lens guru site was still upOriginally Posted by DanLiv
I concur with DanLiv, as from my experience fitting both Essilor and Zeiss, Zeiss lenses overall seem more inclined towards 20/20 vision whereas Essilor lenses tend more towards 20/Happy. Both in terms of zone width and clarity of vision.
100% Andy. Zeiss likes precision and shoots for maximal clarity, and likes to tout "zero distortion above the 180". Well, if none of that unwanted astigmatism is in the corridor and as little as possible is pushed above the 180, its gonna be heaped in the lower peripheries creating more of a "hard" design with very noticeable edges of clarity in the corridor. Essilor likes happy wearers, even if they are not seeing as precisely as possible. They spread the unwanted effects out over much of the lens, creating a "softer" design that diminishes the perception of that distortion.
Imagine you have a Zeiss lens with zero distortion in the corridor but 1.5D cyl in the periphery. Turning off axis immediately subjects the wearer to a 1.5D change in power. In an Essilor lens they would pull 0.25 from the periphery into the corridor. You might be getting 0.25D extra distortion in the corridor than in the Zeiss lens, but now you only have 1.25D in the periphery, so the perceived power change is only 1D. Many wearers will "feel" that they have a wider corridor because the limits are less dramatic.
If they are sensitive to design at all (which plenty of people are not), I predict your Comfort wearer is used to pretty mushy corridor edges and will immediately notice the sudden hard edge in a Zeiss, and I doubt any gains in precision clarity in the central corridor or distance will overcome their impression of a narrower reading corridor.
How would Hoya factor into this?
Sorry can't help there, I have no experience with HOYA products. But I'd like to know. Do we have a HOYA guru here?
Trickier to narrow down, since Hoya progressives basically can be divided into two rather different groups.
While all their lenses here are freeform, their entry level designs are all full back surface, while the premium designs are dual surface freeform which combine both surfaces to derive the required addition. Mathematically I think it's not a big deal whether they use one or both surfaces to form the addition, but as it so happens the design differences also sort of adhere to those two categories.
Roughly, what I've seen of Hoya lenses is as follows:
Entry level (Amplitude, Summit Dynamic, Premium Dynamic) - Generous width for the intermediate, some compromise on the distance and near. Central vision clarity somewhere in between Essilor and Zeiss. While all these designs are softer designs compared to other popular PAL, they seem to be the hardest of the Hoya range, especially for ordered addition above 2.00. I do not recommend downgrading any happy Varilux Comfort Wearer into any of these for their main PAL, although as a spare pair or even a tinted pair it works for some.
Premium (Balansis aka FD, ID series, MyStyle) - Even wider and more natural intermediate, almost comparable to some office designs. More noticeable distortion at the far periphery for distance, but near tends to be above average as well. Central clarity hardly gets a complaint assuming the refraction was done well. Much softer than their entry level counterparts, comparable in softness to any other premium manufacturer's soft designs (except the Balansis, which is a bit of a wildcard and which not many folks I know like to fit). From personal experience, while the Balansis is claimed to rival the Varilux Comfort, I've yet to see a truly Success switch in to Balansis from someone happy with Varilux Comfort... so I recommend starting with the ID series or higher if you really have to, having taken note of the other idiosyncrasies of Hoya lenses compared to Essilor.
* When I say these premium designs feature dual surface addition, I don't mean split addition between front and back. ID series and above work like cross cylinders, Balansis had a full 3.00 addition on the front with corresponding back surface concavity to form the required addition.
Overall, Hoya seems to tend towards flatter base curves also (more pronounced with the premium designs, which go even flatter sometimes since they use partial or full front surface addition), not sure how many patients would notice that variable... myself, the Summit Dynamic was the first PAL I tried (addition 2.00) that made the ground feel floating and blurry for the first couple of days. Personally, for night vision, I find my Essilor/Rodenstock/Zeiss crisper than any Japanese designs (even though for overall wearing experience I do tend to prefer the Japanese designs).
For my patients, the only successful switches I've handled into Hoya lenses from a Varilux Comfort have been into the Hoya ID or Seiko Synergy/Emblem/Superior (also by Hoya, but occasionally a little harder + improved distance seemingly at the cost of some near zone width).
Those lens switches were done due to complaints with the Varilux Comfort (coating problems, mainly), and not with concerns about vision. Otherwise, I don't try to fix what is not broken for Varilux Comfort wearers, learned that the hard and expensive way my first year on the job.
Last edited by AndyOptom; 04-16-2024 at 11:37 PM.
Nicely said, DanLiv.
One odd thing i've found is that the mystyle will come in on +8.00 BC for plus lenses. They are not made in the US and thus we can't request a BC. The Lifestyle seems just right and I think it has a little better edge to edge clarity.
Thanks for your thoughts on Hoya!
Wise post, and you would be right, except that SmartLife design fingerprint specifically changed this aspect of Zeiss lenses, so they are now tuned more for comfort.
I believe a SL ind 3 is several tiers up from the best Comfort in all respects
That would be very interesting. Would that mean ESSILOR WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG, and now even Zeiss is copying their decades-old philosophy??
Hoya and Essilor are the most interchangeable designs, ( generally). Zeiss is a different animal. It’s much easier to switch an E design for an H design, going to or switching, than either direction with Zeiss. This is a general statement, but Zeiss goes for precision in specific areas, and H and E go for “soft” transitions in most areas, ( sacrificing precision in given areas).
There won't be any resemblance at all. Essilor and Zeiss approach progressive design from entirely different angles, making their philosophies polar opposites. I'd go as far as saying they're the most radically different designs out there. If you're seeking something akin to Comfort DRx, Zeiss isn't the answer. It might be better, it might be worse, but one thing's for sure—it won't be identical.
Are you a bot that just rewrites others' posts?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks