You read my mind!!
I'm having similar problems trying to decide which brand of progressive to put my patients in. I'm more familiar with the Essilor products, having had great success with the Physio 360 and even the new Comfort and Physio short. I have been trying the Zeiss Individual and comparing it with the Autograph II fixed. I've had to send back a few Individuals because the reading got cut off, and one of my Autograph II patients was nauseated when wearing them.
I guess I'm looking for your feedback for a top of the line "go to" general progressive. Anyone have any thoughts regarding the Essilor 360 products versus the Shamir or Zeiss premium progressives? Cost not being a factor?
Well, cost not being a factor, I would go with the Seiko Free Form. We sell A LOT of them, and I don't think we've had a remake yet. Despite the fact that we sell Shamir and not Zeiss, I would say go with the Zeiss between the two. I've heard fewer complaints about their Free Form. I honestly think Shamir has "over-thought" theirs. However, with the Spectrum release in the US, I'm interested to see how that does.
There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.
Its hard to say that Lens A is better than lens B without discussing the patients needs. Some Digital free-form lenses emphasis different areas and will be better for some patients lifestyles. There is no single lens that will be the "best" lens for every patient, even in digital/free-form. I think this why some people are missing the "Wow" factor. Each digital lens I have tried has its plus' and minus in certain areas or respects, the key is discovering those strengths and weakness and then matching those with your patients needs. I have posted many reviews in other posts, as have others, that should give you a head start. The best way is try them for yourself.
It should be noted, that except for the Ipseo and Ideal (discontinued in many places) that all of Essilor lenses, even digital, still use a cast add power. The Physio, Physio 360 and Physio Enhanced all begin with the same lens blank. They just receive digital processing for the distance RX (and "improvements" to the reading area). The problem with this 50% digital approach is that the most important curve on a progressive is the sagital radius between the distance and reading. When you dont' proccess that digitally, you really limit what you can do design wise and improvement wise. Many people are disappointed in not getting a "wow" factor with these lenses, but its no wonder why. I suggest you try and stay with 100% digital designs that include the add power. You get much better performance.
Essilor has taken the 50% route to keep their profits higher, as they don't have to pay Seiko a licensing fee and they get to use existing blanks improving inventory turn.
We have had very postive feedback with even low powered hyperopes, its truly a great lens. I am a low powered myope and have a pair on order, I will let you know how they do. They ARE thinnner, just for fun we ran a pair of +6.25 in Physion 360's and Surmount, in the same material 1.67, and the thickness was 27% less in the Surmount.
in the Surmount, the equivelent of 2 material jumps.
That means no need to sacrifice material clarity for thickness anymore. Trivex, 1.60 are going to be the new go to materials and when your trying to really impress 1.67 and 1.74. I can't wait for them to start using that 1.74 transitions blank for PALs that's going to be a game changer. Seiko has really stepped up their game.
I like shamir for the lower adds but once we get into the +2.00 and above Zeiss Individual just out performs.Originally Posted by WFruit
THAT IS THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE DAY!!! The compensation on the Shamir products are wacky at best; they are not consistent nor will they tell you what parameters will have the most pronounced effect.
I know that the US technical reps are very frustrated with the non-chalant attiitude the Shamir has taken to address the thickness, prism and goofy compensation issues. If they just put in a little BI prism, the patient and the dispenser would have greater success with less problems.
Craig
I am glad to see that I am not the only one having bad Shamir vibes. I have really eased up on using them. I have found that I don't really enjoy over paying for their over thinking.
My "Free-Form" dollars are better spent with other companies.
I have a new comfort enhanced it feels the same as the "old comfort"
However I also have what at the time of the order was billed as a "comfort 360" really like this progressive
low distortion wide mid can't be the same as the enhanced as the wholesaler insists.
I would like a strait answer too, why is it so difficult?
Optics are far better in trivex than poly.
There is rarely a simple straight answer!
Some eyes respond more readily to one design over another. I don't know about you but more than once I've changed someone to a newer design only to have the patient insist the old one was better with all the parameters the same. Makes me want to say to them "Who are you going to believe? Your eyes or what the lens designers say is better?"
Also- All molds wear out so it could be that the molds used to create the convex surface which has the add powers in these Comforts could have been at the early or late part of their production life.
Just saw that on the Essilor site:
The Varilux Comfort 360 New Edition, also known as “Enhanced” in some countries, is a sophisticated version of the Varilux Comfort New Edition. Using the latest technologies ensures all wearers a maximum level of performance for a unique and comfortable vision, whatever the distance, in particular by a wider field of vision, even in complex prescriptions.
http://www.varilux.com/en/products/V...teristics.aspx
I have worn and tried many different lenses. In this order are my favorites, some DST/others traditional. I am one of those lucky few than can jump around. That being said I do have my top
Digital Lens
#1 Zeiss Individiual 2
#2 Shamir auto II fixed 18
Traditional Technogy
#3 Varilux Physo 360
#4 The Ovation
I consider this varilux not truly digital because this lens is only DST on back surface. Consider this as well, because now DST lenses are easy to do now tha the labs have the equipment, many labs will use the same software on traditional lenses because it is easy and less work. Many of us are actually receiving back Digital surfacing and that could be why we don't always pick up on it.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks