Non-Tol Issue - Which Progressive for WOW factor

Hi

Ive had two patients, both ex Zeiss Superb wearers non-tol to our labs 'inhouse' varifocal. The rep was very sure that the inhouse lens 'was just as good', if not better than the Zeiss Superb.

Wrong!

Patient 1 rx +1.75/-0.50 +1.50/-0.25 +2.25 ADD
Patient 2 rx -0.75 +0.75 +1.50 ADD

Now I know I could(should?) just stick them back into the Zeiss Superbs and be done with it but Id like to know if there are lenses out there that will really give them the 'WOW' factor for similar pricepoint?

Reading a few threads here it seems like there are two frontrunners with decent reviews

1) Shamir Autograph 3
2) Seiko Superior/Surmount

How do these compare to the Superbs cost-wise and optics-wise?
Or am I comparing apples to pears?
Is there a decent, cheaper alternative to the Superbs?

Thanks

Here is my sore spot. Blaming a design without looking at all contributing factors.

You have given us nothing but the bare minimum and are looking for someone to commiserate with.

Let's look at several things before deciding that a particular design is not right for your patient.

What was the change in RX?
What was the patients' complaints, distance, near, intermediate, all of the above?
Did the frame change?
If so, how much of a change in fit was it?
Was all of the fit checked and rechecked?
Vertex, wrap, panto, SH?

What vendor design(s) is your in-house?
IOT, Zeiss, Hoya, Essilor, Shamir, Seiko, Rodenstock, other?
How many have you dispensed without issues vs those with issues? How many have your opticians switched out?
Here, you say 2. Like my opticians. Sell in-house designs without issue 29 days out of the month, and then complain about the one non-adapt on day 30.

Once you have looked at all of these factors, then reach out to your lab manager for advice.

OK, there will be patients who cannot adjust to something new, be it lens designs, RXs, even frame fit/styles. I get it.

Just don't be so quick to say ********.

Last week, I had a remake come in stating the patient could not wear an IOT design and the OD insisted on going back to the molded GT2. New rx - cyl changed 14 degrees. SH was lowered 3mm. Pd was moved 1mm OU. Yup, non adapt to a freeform, for sure! All of these compounding errors have nothing to do with the fact the patient had difficulties seeing out of their lenses. HA! Neither the optician, the OD, nor the Supervisor even considered these other factors as VA issues. Just that the lens design changed. :stomp:

I have to agree with lensmanmd. There are a lot of factors to consider before jumping on the non-adaption bandwagon.
Perhaps you have​ already gone through the obvious steps but that wasn't apparent in your post.

Apologies If I didnt make it clear that all basic nontol/adaptation checks had been done.

Id assumed that naturally people do that before posting here asking for help?
It is a professional forum after all?

in response to your questions....

What was the change in RX?
-same rx. no change.

What was the patients' complaints, distance, near, intermediate, all of the above?
- Patient 1 c/o of distortion in dist
- Patient 2 c/o of int/near problems

Did the frame change?
- Nope
If so, how much of a change in fit was it?

Was all of the fit checked and rechecked?
- Naturally

Vertex, wrap, panto, SH?
- All same as previous.

What vendor design(s) is your in-house?
IOT, Zeiss, Hoya, Essilor, Shamir, Seiko, Rodenstock, other?
- Other. Lenses are imported from a chinese lab I believe.

How many have you dispensed without issues vs those with issues?
- Plenty with no issues

These 2 are the first two changed from Zeiss Superbs.

Thanks.

Thanks. This does help. It is not always obvious that all of the troubleshooting steps have been performed. I experience this on a daily basis with our dispensers, especially with FF products. I constantly have to ask them questions like the ones I asked on my previous response.

The Zeiss Superb is a tier above the Precision Plus. I have trialed the Precision Plus and the Individual 2, but not the Superb. Price vs performance, I prefer the Precision Plus over the ID2.

Your patient #1 with the distance issue is most likely due to the compensation, or lack thereof.
Your patient #2 with the near zone issue is most likely due to the hard design of the new PAL.
From what you have answered, this seems likely a case of downgrading designs.

Tough to know if this is the actual case not knowing the generic FF that was dispensed. Have you contacted your lab about the specifics of their generic Freeform? Not that this is an accurate way of determining the performance of a FF PAL, but you may want to request a lens map of the in-house FF to compare. Your in-house does seem to be a good design overall, just not for some that are used to higher end designs.

Generally, I can switch back and forth from several compensated FF designs without issue, but I cannot switch to a non-compensated PAL any longer. The compensated FF that I have trialed and that we process are the Precision Plus, IOT Alpha45 and our in house Zeiss DVC. The PPlus has the smoothest and widest intermediate with a soft compensation. The updated Alpha 45 has great distance, the intermediate is a touch harder than the PPlus, but overall is a great lens for sun wear and distance intensive wear. Our Zeiss DVC is also great for distance wear and intermediate, but the near is a little smaller than the Alpha 45 and PPlus. Bonus with the Alpha 45 and DVC is that I can place it on any sun lens, regardless of brand. One other note, the DVC has a more aggressive compensation and some hyperopes have had difficulties with them, but myopes love them. The ID2 was a little disappointing, as I expected a better near performance over the PPlus, especially with the premium pricing.

I have also trialed the new Camber, and found the distance to be excellent, the near and intermediate, however, is so small that I am continually hunting for the 'zone'

Just as a backfill, I am an oblique mixed astimagatic, so PALs can be a challenge, hence my discomfort with non-compensated lenses.

As we do not dispense Shamir, nor Seiko, I cannot answer which of these two would be beneficial, but if you are trying to find a lower cost alternative, I would try the Precision Plus. It's not much of a savings, but should be enough over the Superb. (I have tried both the Seiko and the Shamir years ago and did not like either, but those were much older designs.)

Those RXes are so run of the mill poor fitting/surfacing/edging is what I think. House designs are the wild wild west of optics though, I've tried many and found a few that are as good as most anything out there.

I know nothing of importing surfaced free form from china bu I probably wouldn't ever do it.

Those RXes are so run of the mill poor fitting/surfacing/edging is what I think. House designs are the wild wild west of optics though, I've tried many and found a few that are as good as most anything out there.

I know nothing of importing surfaced free form from china bu I probably wouldn't ever do it.

I guess I'm unclear as to why the switch was made to in-house in the first place? A superb is basically an Individual 2 without the POW measurements. No in-house is going to compare to that. This is the reason people come back after ordering online: They tried the Chinese stuff and it isn't as good.

Tell them it is their beloved Zeiss lens and they'll like it. Placebo is very powerful. "I must have crizal coatings!" etc etc etc etc...

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jedeye;542340?

"I must have crizal coatings!" etc etc etc etc...

;)

---

Not the coating section of the site but I'm always willing to hear what coatings you think compare to crizal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timjoler

Hi

Ive had two patients, both ex Zeiss Superb wearers non-tol to our labs 'inhouse' varifocal. The rep was very sure that the inhouse lens 'was just as good', if not better than the Zeiss Superb.

Wrong!

Patient 1 rx +1.75/-0.50 +1.50/-0.25 +2.25 ADD
Patient 2 rx -0.75 +0.75 +1.50 ADD

Now I know I could(should?) just stick them back into the Zeiss Superbs and be done with it but Id like to know if there are lenses out there that will really give them the 'WOW' factor for similar pricepoint?

Reading a few threads here it seems like there are two frontrunners with decent reviews

1) Shamir Autograph 3
2) Seiko Superior/Surmount

How do these compare to the Superbs cost-wise and optics-wise?
Or am I comparing apples to pears?
Is there a decent, cheaper alternative to the Superbs?

Thanks

---

This is like describing giving a Mercedes driver a Trabant? on trade.

Since there isn't anything produced by a committee, of any "wow" factor.............and especially since there isn't a rx change, I would suggest a remake of the same multifocal or a parallel Zeiss brand.

There are multitude of reasons given for the rejection by the posters above, but......... you did "fail to warn" the wearers about brand differences in performance, prism thinning,etc.

They agreed to the brand shift when they ordered(perhaps cost played a role).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallboy

Not the coating section of the site but I'm always willing to hear what coatings you think compare to crizal!

---

I've never sold crizal as the OD I work for and lab we use don't think it's great for the price. I've had patients bring in their glasses that they say have crizal on it and it's never impressed me. We use icoat for AR when we process a job. They have different levels and my fives years of being an optician in my demographic has shown people just want to pay for middle of the road even though icoats high end seems a lot nicer to me. Excited to hear your response ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jedeye

I've never sold crizal as the OD I work for and lab we use don't think it's great for the price. I've had patients bring in their glasses that they say have crizal on it and it's never impressed me. We use icoat for AR when we process a job. They have different levels and my fives years of being an optician in my demographic has shown people just want to pay for middle of the road even though icoats high end seems a lot nicer to me. Excited to hear your response ;D

---

Yeah Icoat has some decent stuff. I'm a little different in that we STRONGLY reccomend the top levels of AR at my shop. I would rather someone have just scratch coat than a lesser AR these days, there is such a small difference in price yet many months of greasy agony without. (and they NEVER remember wanting to save 40 bucks or so when they come back with AR whose spray on hydro has worn off in 6 months)

Avance is still my favorite most durable AR of all time, I am amazed at how long the hydro/oleo properties last, Zeiss Duravision Platinum and Hoyas stuff are pretty good too.

Just like unbranded progressives though, house ARs can be woeful. I do feel like 2016-2017 was the first year I started to see coatings that somewhat compete with Crizal.

My understanding with regard to Camber is that the Front curve increasing as the eye moves through the corridor is what makes Camber unique, because you can offer true corrected curve throughout the visual field. The actual progressive design is on the BACK, and you have the ability to choose different backside designs for different patient needs. So, in order to evaluate any specific Camber, you need to specify the back progressive design. Is my understanding correct?