Review: Seiko 1.67 High Index (MR-10 Resin)

[johnnyoptical]

Product: Seiko 1.67 High Index (MR-10 Resin)
Vendor: Seiko Lenses
Vendor Home Page: http://www.Seikoeyewear.com
Category: Lenses
Reviewer: John Stanley

Ratings:
Quality:
Ease of use:
Client acceptance (if applicable):
Customer service of the manufacturer or distributor:
Value:
Overall:

Review:
Seiko’s MR-10 resin, the 1.67 Aspheric High Index lens, is absolutely wonderful. It easily matches or beats any other high index lens I have ever tried and is stronger than polycarbonate, making it the ideal choice for drill mounts. I have used this lens for medium to high myopic prescriptions and have always been pleased with the results. I have no lab at my location, so I am unfamiliar with the processing side of things, but on the dispensing end I have found my thin lens of choice.

Would you purchase this product or other products from this company based on your experience with this product?
An enthusiastic, yes.

[hcjilson]

How would you...

compare this lens with the Trivex product?

hj

[johnnyoptical]

Trivex is not nearly as thin and the MR-10 material is just as strong (tensile strength and impact resistance). The only points for Trivex would be a higher abbe value and lower price, which definately have their place.

[hcjilson]

I think you can get trivex.....

down to a 1.0 center, The best feature by far is the specific gravity of 1.1. They are the most comfortable lenses I've ever worn. +4.25/4.00 on top with a 3 add.
The real test will be a pair I ordered yesterday.
+5.00's with a 7.00 cylOD and 8 OS

I don't envy the lab! but the choice was a 3pc. mounting and poly wouldn't have cut it.I insist that all 3pc's be done in trivex.....It makes the time invested in selling it quite short!:D


I do however question the claim that this Seiko lens is stronger than poly. My lab says not! where did you get that info?

Your review has sparked my interest.
Thanks for doing it.
hj

[johnnyoptical]

MR-10 stronger than Poly

My info comes from Seiko. I was told the MR-10 resin is 20% thinner than poly and over 50% stronger. Trivex gets too thick. The rx you mentioned may be incredibly light, but will be thicker than poly, and poly would be thicker than the MR-10. I seem to be in the minority, but I just don't come across many people that tell me they don't care if the lens can be made thinner, they just want light weight. For drill mounts I still go with poly (for those on a budget) and Seiko's 1.67 for those wanting the thinnest lenses. Contact Seiko for yourself. The marketing for this lens has not reached the same people as the Trivex for some reason.

I hope this helps. If you have any trouble finding the answers you want, let me know. I love digging for information.:)

[Diane]

johnnyoptical,

You've sparked my interest for sure. You're right, there doesn't seem to be much information out there on this product. You mentioned that it is more expensive than Trivex, but thinner, also stronger than Poly. I suppose that I need to contact my lab to research it a little more. Do you happen to know the ABBE value? The combination of aspheric and high index could be a great combination. How does the impact resistance match that of Trivex?

Diane

[johnnyoptical]

Diane,
The abbe value is 32, so nothing wonderful there. When I first contacted my lab they were unaware of the difference between Seiko's 1.67 and anyone elses. I had to contact Seiko directly to get enough technical info. The tensile strength is said to far surpass poly and be ideal for drill mounts. The data on their website is a little lacking but I do have a call in to the Seiko rep for this area. The also make this material in Transitions and in two different progressives (including a back side progressive, I haven't gotten my mind around that one yet). The web site is www.seikoeyewear.com . Hope this helps.

[karen]

johnny, Are these 3 pieces you are doing AR coated? It is my understanding that the AR along with a "cushion coat" or something of that nature makes it work on drill jobs as far as tensile strength. There isn't much I miss about Hoya but the 1.71 is one thing I sure do miss so I have been recommending this to my accounts that switched over with me and so far so good. Would love to know if yo are drilling uncoated...

[hcjilson]

Diane, We all know the dropped ball is ...

a 5/8ths of an inch steel ball bearing dropped 50" onto the surface of a lens.

The drop ball test for Trivex is a steel ball bearing weighing 2.2 Lbs ( Yes folks....if my formerly addled brain has any recollection left....its a KEY!)
dropped 50 inches on to the surface of the lens.

Jury is still out on strength of this product.I've been told by 2 labs its not more impact resistant than poly......but you also have read the answer to that question in this thread. I got to do some more research.

How did you survive during the earthquake?

hj

[johnnyoptical]

Technical specs

I have received some technical specifications regarding the strength of the MR-10 resin. The tensile strength of MR-10 is 15500 psi, Poly is 8500-1000 psi and CR-39 is 4390-5945 psi. This makes MR-10 at least 50% stronger than poly. As far as flexural strength, MR-10 is 24,700 psi and poly is 11,600-13,000 psi. This means the MR-10 is twice as strong as far as bending is concerned. Hopefully this info is helpful. I will try to answer any more questions as they come up and as always, thank you for you support.

[Joann Raytar]

johnnyoptical,

We have been using Seiko 1.67 for awhile now. In you conversations with Seiko, do you know if all Seiko 1.67 is MR-10 Resin or are there two different product lines?

If they are one and the same, I have to agree with you about how well the lens looks and performs.

[bbla]

Lat week I used this lens to grind a +11.25 -1.50 3mm Dec in a 54 eye and the job came out fantastic.
Bill

[johnnyoptical]

Seiko 1.67 and MR-10

The MR-10 resin is the same as Seiko's 1.67. Glad to hear other people are using, many who probably don't even know that both are one in the same. :)

[mrba]

down to a 1.0 center, The best feature by far is the specific gravity of 1.1. They are the most comfortable lenses I've ever worn. +4.25/4.00 on top with a 3 add.
The real test will be a pair I ordered yesterday.
+5.00's with a 7.00 cylOD and 8 OS

I suppose in a plus power index doesn't make the lens appear as thick as a minus. Also note that lenses that are ground to a 1.0 increase distortion big time! I have a Hoya Lab that wont do it to a 1.0, after their initial claims of course.

I do however question the claim that this Seiko lens is stronger than poly. My lab says not! where did you get that info?

Not stronger, but pretty darn close.

[drk]

While we're on the subject, I am under this impression:

Seiko makes MR-6 which is the industry's dominant 1.6 material, and is used for such lenses as Varilux 1.6.

They also make MR-10, which is a 1.67 (as mentioned above) and Essilor uses that as well.

Hoya makes a 1.6 they call Eyas (I believe) which has properties superior to MR-6, and their 1.71 (Teslalid) is very good as well.

The points being that:
1. Not all 1.6's are alike
2. There aren't really that many different types of 1.6, however
3. Seiko must make a lot of money
4. Hoya is a pretty good company
5. Life would be easier if every trade name (Varilux Comfort 1.6) had a generic name attached to it (MR-6), so we could make intelligent decisions.

If anyone knows any fallacy in this, please post!