low 16 height progressive

[Chris Ryser]

10 mm .................??????????????

For-Life said:
My Essilor people tell me that they are coming out with a lens with a 10mm fitting height.

ESSILOR invented the progressive lenses and always preached in the old days that a progressive lens needs at least 18mm to be an effective reading lens and give you some decent vision in the progressive area.

If they come out with a 10mm they are just out for the buck of some of these aging baby boomer Ladies that want to wear the small kiddie frames and not show their age.

In above posting the only one that makes sense is Jediron who made the right statement.

As opticians you also should be advisors to your patients and customers and tell them that if they want one of these narrow progressives they will give up a lot of confort for a lot of money.

Maybe soon HOYA will have an 8mm progressive to beat ESSILOR at this crazy nonsense game of being fashionable bot NOT practical.

[For-Life]

Re: 10 mm .................??????????????

Chris Ryser said:
ESSILOR invented the progressive lenses and always preached in the old days that a progressive lens needs at least 18mm to be an effective reading lens and give you some decent vision in the progressive area.

If they come out with a 10mm they are just out for the buck of some of these aging baby boomer Ladies that want to wear the small kiddie frames and not show their age.

In above posting the only one that makes sense is Jediron who made the right statement.

As opticians you also should be advisors to your patients and customers and tell them that if they want one of these narrow progressives they will give up a lot of confort for a lot of money.

Maybe soon HOYA will have an 8mm progressive to beat ESSILOR at this crazy nonsense game of being fashionable bot NOT practical.

I do agree with you. I have told my Essilor people that I want to see some proof before I dispense this lens at said height. This lens is supposed to have no intermediate though. That can be the reason. They might of just widend the intermediate and bump up the power.

[RT]

There's some confusion here between corridor length and fitting height. When talking about a low fitting height progressive, there are two separate specifications that are talked about:

Fitting height--the distance from the fitting cross to the center of the near verification circle. This is the minimum height recommended from the bottom of the frame to the fitting cross--if fit lower, you may cut off too much of the area of 100% of full near power.

Corridor length (sometimes called progression length)--the distance over which the power progression occurs. Since the power typically begins to vary several millimeters below the fitting cross, the corridor length is generally shorter than the minimum fitting height. For general purpose progressives with a min fitting height of 18-22 mm, corridor length would typically be around 14-18 mm.

As Sticklert pointed out, Essilor is NOT coming out with a 10 mm min fitting height progressive. They ARE coming out with a 14 mm min fitting height progressive, which has a 10 mm (OK, 9.5 mm) corridor length. Such lens designs already exist in the market, and are being used very successfully.

The HOYA Summit CD, for example, has an 11 mm corridor length and a 14 mm min fitting height. The design is such that 75% of Summit CD's produced in HOYA labs are actually fit at a seg height below 18 mm, as opposed to 40-50% for some competing short corridor designs.

[LO1007]

RT gave some great info on short corridor progressives. Until a short time ago we used Piccolo at a 16mm fitting height and it did do the job. But now that Hoya has the Summit CD, this is the short corridor progressive of choice.

I am currently wearing a pair of them, at a 16mm fitting hgt. They are great for everyday wear and computer use. The intermediate does really work and there is plenty of it to use.

The Summit CD needs to be fit in a frame with a "B" measurement of not less than 24mm.

I have many accounts that are having great success with this new lens. It's available in CR39, 1.60 & 1.70 materials.

I'd definately give it a try!!!
Good Luck

[Gov't Mule]

Fitting Heights

Hoya Summit CD:

We have made at least 30 CDs at 14-16mm with only 2 returns, one for PD and one for LOWERING the seg height from 16 to 14, if you can believe that. The lens works. Use it.

Varilux Ipiso: (sp?)

Minium fittting height of 14mm (interesting) will be available in April.

I am sure if you ask your Varilux lens rep or better yet an Essilor lab rep, they will tell you that you can fit the Panamic has a min. of 2mm. Honestly, they'll say whatever it takes for the sale.

[For-Life]

Re: Fitting Heights

Gov't Mule said:
Hoya Summit CD:

We have made at least 30 CDs at 14-16mm with only 2 returns, one for PD and one for LOWERING the seg height from 16 to 14, if you can believe that. The lens works. Use it.

Varilux Ipiso: (sp?)

Minium fittting height of 14mm (interesting) will be available in April.

I am sure if you ask your Varilux lens rep or better yet an Essilor lab rep, they will tell you that you can fit the Panamic has a min. of 2mm. Honestly, they'll say whatever it takes for the sale.

The Essilor lens witht he 14 fitting height is called the Elispe, as previously mentioned.

The Ipeso is another lens to look at. This lens will be remarkable. It is supposed to have no distortion as it is the first ever completely custom lens. There is a machine that will outline the custom needs for the patient. The patient puts on a pair of goggles and looks at light movement on the machine. They then measure the dispersment from the eye and head movement. From there they can make the lens that will work the same was for the customer. It should be a huge technical improvement, but it does have a huge price ($900 retail Canadian for a pair, that includes their customized material that is best suited for the patient like 1.6 or 1.67 and Alize).

As for my Essilor rep. I take what he says as being fact. My guy will tell you straight out. We have had a relationship with him for many years as he had a private lab before being bought out by Essilor.

[Pete Hanlin]

As described above, Varilux Ellipse has a progression length of <10mm, and a minimum fitting height of 14mm. It is currently slated to be released on 1 April, and you will be hearing about this lens at Vision Expo East.

Regarding launch dates, I fully understand the skepticism some of you have expressed. I can remember reading about products in 20/20 or Vision Monday and then waiting for what was seemingly an eternity for the product to actually arrive on the market.

Having watched the process of new product development, let me tell you, it is an amazing string of events. Each time I think I have a grasp of all the aspects involved, I see new ones I never considered before. Ironically, most of the time it is not actually lack of inventory that causes a delay. Some products are sitting on the distribution center shelf months before launch. Other than making the product, a company has to create all the data and paperwork required to support ordering, distribution, marketing, software programming, and processing...

Anyway, I would wager that Varilux Ellipse does launch by 1 April... Also, although it took a while to get it to market, the design is truly going to be especially well-suited for short corridor frames. As a rule, I do not like short corridor PALs (for the very reason described above- a quality progression does take a certain amount of space to accomplish). However, for the patient who just has to wear that tiny Anne Klein frame with a PAL, Varilux Ellipse will work well.

Rodenstock Life XS, btw, is probably the shortest corridor PAL available today (Varilux Ellipse will be slightly shorter, but the real advantage will be the width of the distance zone in Ellipse compared to XS). In my opinion, only the XS and perhaps the Zeiss lens are currently truly "short" progressions. The other lenses mentioned here (and on the market) accomplish "shortness" via a variety of questionable design methodologies.

Regarding intermediate, any truly short corridor lens is going to have a minimal intermediate zone. These lenses are not going to be especially well-suited for intermediate tasks.

As for my Essilor rep. I take what he says as being fact. My guy will tell you straight out. We have had a relationship with him for many years as he had a private lab before being bought out by Essilor.
I always viewed reps with a skeptical eye, but having met most of ours (here in the states, anyway), they are a great bunch of guys and gals who are pretty dedicated to helping their accounts in any way they can. Here in Florida, we have possibly three of the best lens representatives in the country- Dee Ham, Maureen Maglione, and Mitch Small. If you've ever been called upon by one of these three folks, you should know what I mean!

[mrba]

Piccolo is soft feeling, even though it is a shorter corridor. XS is a fully aspheric desighn, something most progressives are not.

We have had success with both of them.

[Clive Noble]

Ovation

What about the Ovation from Essilor, we've been fitting this at 17mm and many times at 16mm without any problems. in fact this is one of our most popular lenses these days.

[Pete Hanlin]

Although Essilor Ovation was not designed to be a "short-corridor" PAL, it is relatively short. I've heard from numerous eyecare professionals who fit Ovation at 16-17 with good success.

The research conducted when developing Varilux Ellipse turned up a couple interesting findings. First, not surprisingly, patients strongly preferred a short progression when wearing a small "B" frame. Secondly, and perhaps more interesting, patients wearing short "B" frames were most sensitive to peripheral restrictions in the distance portion of the lens.

All truly "short" progressions are going to be relatively (relative to general use PAL designs, that is) narrow in the near zone. However, most of the "short" corridor PALs currently available on the market also use the distance periphery to distribute the unwanted cylinder that occurs with a seamless progression of power.

Varilux Ellipse will have 140 degrees of clear distance. This is about 15% more than the closest competitor design, and really seems to improve patient acceptance of the lens. My theory is that this occurs because- in the end- most of us still use our eyewear for distance viewing more than for close tasks.

Remember when eyewear started getting smaller in the 90s? Even single vision wearing patients would often comment "I can see the edge of the frame- it feels restrictive." Well, now that patients are somewhat used to the smaller frames, I think putting a progression in there- and robbing them of even more distance space- is even more restrictive.

In my opinion, that is why a lens like Ovation (or any other general use PAL that has a progression short enough to give near function in a small frame) works better than the "short" PALs. Nothing against Shamir Piccolo, but the area of unrestricted distance viewing is only 103 degrees. AO Compact has 109 degrees, and Summit CD has 118 degrees. Compared to most general use PALs, these lenses restrict the area of distance viewing. In a small frame, the result is a very limited distance area.

Of course, there are other considerations as well. For example, AO Compact is an extremely hard design that presents the wearer with a lot of motion in the near periphery. This explains why even general use PALs like Varilux Comfort score higher than AO Compact in wearer tests- even in the areas of near vision (where a design like AO Compact should theoretically excel).

Before I am bombarded with all sorts of testimonials regarding how "well" all these short corridor designs work, let's consider something for a moment. Who purchases most short corridor frames? By age 70 or so, most of us have matured enough to accept that sometimes function is more important than fashion. The typical short corridor puchaser is, I would guess, in her 40s or 50s. What type of add powers do these people have? That's right, 2.00 or below. Its not exceptionally difficult to design a progression that works decently in the lower adds. Even blended bifocals work well at 1.50 add. Its when you get into the higher adds that the amount of progression begins to take a toll on the design. So, while a relatively poor design may allow the wearer to "get by" at the lower adds, the hallmark of a really good design will be how it functions across the range.

[Chris Ryser]

Still un-answered ..................................

Pete Hanlin said:

Varilux Ellipse will have 140 degrees of clear distance. This is about 15% more than the closest competitor design, and really seems to improve patient acceptance of the lens.

What about the reading segment ?

Pete Hanlin said:

Its not exceptionally difficult to design a progression that works decently in the lower adds. Even blended bifocals work well at 1.50 add.

And here again, we still talk about frames with a height of approximately 26mm total height. Assuming the pupil fits exactly the centre at 13mm, that will leave you a reading portion of 6mm at what width ??????????

What a horrible thought of having to wear a lens like that and read the news paper or look at a building construction plan!

[Pete Hanlin]

What a horrible thought of having to wear a lens like that and read the news paper or look at a building construction plan!
Let me make it clear- I neither think "short corridor" PALs are a great idea, nor would I make a point of fitting them as an eye care provider.

Unfortunately, the market seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to fit progressive lenses below 18mm in the name of "fashion." Once some lens manufacturers latched on to this trend, they began to create products that were supposedly "designed" to meet this ridiculous demand.

Unfortunately, physics being what they are, you cannot have a generous intermediate while cramming the progression into a tiny area. Therefore, the vast majority of your "short-corridor" offerings are little more than a general type design with a dislocated fitting cross, near verification circle, or both. The ones that are actually short have considerable distortion crammed into the distance periphery- and usually also have poor symmetry between the nasal and temporal periphery of the near zone (causing swim).

Since most "short corridors" are fit to lower add powers, most wearers don't notice they have been fit down into the top of the progression- or that they have compromised the intermediate zone. Also, most wearers of such small frames seem to consider being able to read at all a victory, so they are willing to accept the vision they recieve and are happy to "get away" with wearing their tiny spectacles.

Personally, I think this is one of the reasons we haven't launched a product in this market prior to now. I think it has pained the designers to create such a short progression- knowing that it leads to compromise. Regardless, it appears as if we've found the ideal design for an admitably compromised situation- based on studying wearer reactions to different types of short designs. I'll look forward to everyone's reviews...

[Chris Ryser]

Thanks ..........................

Pete Hanlin said:
Let me make it clear- I neither think "short corridor" PALs are a great idea, nor would I make a point of fitting them as an eye care provider.

Unfortunately, the market seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to fit progressive lenses below 18mm in the name of "fashion."

Thanks Pete,

You gave the perfect answer I expected you to.

I think it is a shame that professionals like opticians and optometrists do not argue with their customers/patients at least for the reason of the sanity of the profession and give in to fashion demands.

Then we read the post's on this board how happy the customers are the customers are and that there are no problems whatsoever.

When we think back into the sixties and seventies when we sold and pushed Executive lenses for people working on desks and needed a good reading area. These lenses did make sense for their own requirements.

Progressive lenses have established themselves as a bread and butter item, but they do have their limits. I think that all you guy's and girls out there in the shops should sell the right lens to the customer and not be guided by whats most expensive but what the right type lens for the purpose of use.

A person who wears a 10mm progressive should at least have a second pair of 18mm ones for the comfort of being able to do some decent reading at home in the evening or wear them at the desk at work.

If you catch on to this idea, you can sell 2 pairs.........................(send me the commision)

[mrba]

As if a normal progressive is ideal to read through!!! Whats wrong with taking a bad solution and making it worse? I think customers know progressives stink in general and don't feel as though they are sacrificing anything!!!

Now I will go back to my bench and make another 400 progressives!

[jediron1]

Pete Hanlin said:

Its not exceptionally difficult to design a progression that works decently in the lower adds. Even blended bifocals work well at 1.50 add.

We all know the optics involved that at lower adds the progressives work very well. But as you know the higher the add
the larger the area of distorted viewing especially nasally and
temporally. Most people notice the temporal region more than the
nasal portion just because of the physical nature of the individual
lens and person wearing them. Most people cannot look cross eyed so they can't pick up the nasal distortion. If your going to fit
lenses lower than 17mm in a small frame then maybe Pete's advise to use a blended bifocal might be a better fit. Just my two
cents!:hammer: