Limited field of view with digital progressive lenses

A long time customer has been unable to wear the new glasses that I have made for him in 2016. His present glasses from 2012 are now scratched and need replacement.
The only glasses he can wear were purchased in 2012 and are the original Rodenstock Life XS 1.6 index with a SRCII coating purchased from the discount division (Rx Club) of Essilor Canada, I am assuming that they are pre-digital production since we used the same lens in 2005 also. Rodenstock does not have a presence in Canada anymore.
In 2016 we attempted to fill an new prescription to no avail, the end result was to duplicate the prescription, base curve, frame wrap, frame panto with the same RX in a Varilux Comfort 3.0 Short in 1.59 Index.
When discussed last week he said that the field of view with 2016 glasses was very limiting, even in the distance, there was only one small sweet spot for any focal length.
The advice given from Essilor in 2016 was to use a Varilux X series which was declined due to the cost differential.
RX OD +6.00 -4.00 X 095 Add 2.00 OS +5.75 -2.25 X 076 Add +2.00
Any advice would be appreciated!

Please elaborate on field of view issues. 2012 to 2016 means that the add power increased by at least .5D. This alone will change the design.
Is the near/mid OK? I would venture to guess that this is what your customer is really complaining about.
with a +6 RX, have you considered the IOT Alpha45 w/Camber? Much more cost effective than the VX.

Also, was it a cost consideration to switch the patient from 1.60 to Polycarbonate?

1. trivex
2. digital
3. vertex
4. eyesize
5. suck it up, buttercup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lutz

A long time customer has been unable to wear the new glasses that I have made for him in 2016. His present glasses from 2012 are now scratched and need replacement.
The only glasses he can wear were purchased in 2012 and are the original Rodenstock Life XS 1.6 index with a SRCII coating purchased from the discount division (Rx Club) of Essilor Canada, I am assuming that they are pre-digital production since we used the same lens in 2005 also. Rodenstock does not have a presence in Canada anymore.
In 2016 we attempted to fill an new prescription to no avail, the end result was to duplicate the prescription, base curve, frame wrap, frame panto with the same RX in a Varilux Comfort 3.0 Short in 1.59 Index.
When discussed last week he said that the field of view with 2016 glasses was very limiting, even in the distance, there was only one small sweet spot for any focal length.
The advice given from Essilor in 2016 was to use a Varilux X series which was declined due to the cost differential.
RX OD +6.00 -4.00 X 095 Add 2.00 OS +5.75 -2.25 X 076 Add +2.00
Any advice would be appreciated!

---

Give me the complete Rx including frame dimensions, PD ,seg hgt. regular or short, AR: yes, no, photo: yes, no and I ll comp you a pair of our Addvantage plus...excellent distance field.

The original prescription change OD +6.50 -3.75 X 090 OS +6.50 -2.50 X 081 Add +2.25 was not tolerated so the final redo to eliminate variables was to duplicate the prescription he has been wearing since 2012 including the reading add (+2.00).

Yes, one I regret now because it introduced another variable.

Yes, poly was used to reduce the price, regret that now because it introduced another variable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lensmanmd

Please elaborate on field of view issues. 2012 to 2016 means that the add power increased by at least .5D. This alone will change the design.
Is the near/mid OK? I would venture to guess that this is what your customer is really complaining about.
with a +6 RX, have you considered the IOT Alpha45 w/Camber? Much more cost effective than the VX.

---

The final redo was to the original prescription with the same add, the only changes were the lens design and the material.

You aren't a magician, and if he isn't prepared to pay he can't be prepared to be demanding.

Someone with such high sphere and cyl power simply requires a high quality pair of lenses.

If peripheral vision is his prioroty, try a driving varifocal, which tend to have complete clarity across the distance zone, at the expense of a smaller near vision zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Gilman

Give me the complete Rx including frame dimensions, PD ,seg hgt. regular or short, AR: yes, no, photo: yes, no and I ll comp you a pair of our Addvantage plus...excellent distance field.

---

That would be wonderful, I'm in Western Canada (Surrey BC) would that work for you? If so I will confirm the frame being used.
I have another customer with the same problem of very limited field of view so if your lens works on my current problem I will need to set up an account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert_S

You aren't a magician, and if he isn't prepared to pay he can't be prepared to be demanding.

Someone with such high sphere and cyl power simply requires a high quality pair of lenses.

If peripheral vision is his prioroty, try a driving varifocal, which tend to have complete clarity across the distance zone, at the expense of a smaller near vision zone.

---

I agree about lens quality unfortunately the driving lenses would not work due to near the vision requirements of a dental equipment technician.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lutz

That would be wonderful, I'm in Western Canada (Surrey BC) would that work for you? If so I will confirm the frame being used.
I have another customer with the same problem of very limited field of view so if your lens works on my current problem I will need to set up an account.

---

Can do. Send all to don@superoptical.com with Company name and address. I'd really be interested if they work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drk

1. trivex
2. digital
3. vertex
4. eyesize
5. suck it up, buttercup

---

Here's the science behind each of the above.

1. The increase in chromatic aberration isn't helping.
2. Total power on the vertical meridian is 8 D, resulting in a flat back curve and a steeper front curve, thicker, with increased magnification. Consider a PAL with a some or all of the add on the front (Definity), complex geometry (Camber), or old school semifinished (New Comfort).
3. Decreased aberration, increased apparent fields of usable vision.
4. Smaller results in less magnification.
5. Neural adaptation.

Note that this wearer has been using a short corridor PAL, resulting in significantly reduced eye declination during near vision, that they may be associating with better fields of vision.

Hope this helps,

Robert Martellaro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro

Here's the science behind each of the above.

1. The increase in chromatic aberration isn't helping.
2. Total power on the vertical meridian is 8 D, resulting in a flat back curve and a steeper front curve, thicker, with increased magnification. Consider a PAL with a some or all of the add on the front (Definity), complex geometry (Camber), or old school semifinished (New Comfort).
3. Decreased aberration, increased apparent fields of usable vision.
4. Smaller results in less magnification.
5. Neural adaptation.

Note that this wearer has been using a short corridor PAL, resulting in significantly reduced eye declination during near vision, that they may be associating with better fields of vision.

Hope this helps,

Robert Martellaro

---

Thank you for all the details; the Definity is one of my favorite lenses; haven't heard the term Camber before and am not familiar with what supplier in Canada would offer that, the lens that he cannot wear is the only Comfort available here; we will try the offer from Don above first and report back from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lutz

Thank you for all the details; the Definity is one of my favorite lenses; haven't heard the term Camber before and am not familiar with what supplier in Canada would offer that,

---

Engineered by Younger, but licensed to independent labs as well.

http://camberlens.com/merging_comple....aspx?langId=1

Quote:

---

the lens that he cannot wear is the only Comfort available here; we will try the offer from Don above first and report back from there.

---

That should've been wearable except for the highly dispersive lens material; many will respond with the symptoms that your client provided. Chromatic aberration is equal to the prism induced off-axis and/or prescribed prism, divided by Abbe value of the lens. More prism with lower Abbe materials results in more color or blur.

Your chances of success will increase with the use of high Abbe materials, possibly avoiding full backside PALs, and selecting moderate to long corridor PAL designs (due to object displacement from the base up prism and magnification experienced by hyperopes), although the latter will, because of their wearing history, need a thorough explanation of advantages (many) and disadvantages (decreased declination angle at near) before writing the PAL design in concrete.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

You had me at "science".

:wub::wub::wub:

Update, the customer in question finally came back to report on excellent distance vision with the Advantage Plus lenses supplied by Don, unfortunately he was unable to access any clear near vision and only received eyestrain for his efforts. The lenses were made of CR39 this time and I believe conventionally surfaced. Since the distance vision is now clear (Varilux Comfort 360 allowed only a very limited distance field of view) could this be a clue to what the problem actually is? Will a conventional bifocal lens be our only option since I don't know of any other companies that still use conventional surfacing on progressives in Canada?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lutz

Update, the customer in question finally came back to report on excellent distance vision with the Advantage Plus lenses supplied by Don, unfortunately he was unable to access any clear near vision and only received eyestrain for his efforts. The lenses were made of CR39 this time and I believe conventionally surfaced. Since the distance vision is now clear (Varilux Comfort 360 allowed only a very limited distance field of view) could this be a clue to what the problem actually is? Will a conventional bifocal lens be our only option since I don't know of any other companies that still use conventional surfacing on progressives in Canada?

---

Sorry to hear about the reading. One small correction. The lenses are our Vision air 1.56 material. I'm sure you already checked this but Double check the monocular PD.

Higher rx's like this produced nothing but grief when I tried to switch from any Rodenstock.

Despite promises from Big E I found only the Zeiss Individual worked.

I did find a similar rx switched to an Auto 3 got a wow at dispensing. (Be sure it has a descent amount of panto!)