Degressions and Near Variable Focus Lenses

[drk]

I noted that Shamir has now added a -2.25 degression to their line of Office lenses, to go with the -1.75, -1.25, and -0.75 options.

I'd like to throw this out for Optiboarders: With so many degressions available, can you not "back out" most adds and create the distance Rx at the top of the lens?

Example: plano/ +2.25 add OU. Order: Shamir Office +2.25 with -2.25 degression.

What would this lens feel like to the patient? I'm guessing a wide near zone with very constricted peripheral vision?

Why am I asking? Why not!

[Lee Prewitt]

drk,

Actually not to your question. The patient gets a very wide near, wide intermediate and at the top, nearly full vision. My doc prescribes this way very often. We have had huge success in this arena. This is an ideal scenario for that patient with no distance need. They really rebel at having their distance screwed up. You still need to emphasis that this lens is not a true distance lens. The true distance portion is just too small

[drk]

drk,

Actually not to your question. The patient gets a very wide near, wide intermediate and at the top, nearly full vision. My doc prescribes this way very often. We have had huge success in this arena. This is an ideal scenario for that patient with no distance need. They really rebel at having their distance screwed up. You still need to emphasis that this lens is not a true distance lens. The true distance portion is just too small

Lee, thanks.
To clarify, you mean that your Dr. uses the degression powers to create distance Rx?

[Lee Prewitt]

I think he tries to get as close as he can. In your scenario, we definitely would use the 2.25. Until then it was 1.75 since that was best available. But no question, you will have a wider intermediate with less peripheral distortion and good solid near. The distance is just icing on the cake. Remember the reason for using the lens in the first place.

[Pete Hanlin]

Just to second Lee's point, Nikon On-Line (in 1.67) is available with 1.00, 1.50, and 2.00 digressions. However, using the 2.00 digression on a patient with a +2.00 ADD isn't going to give them really satisfactory distance vision (IMO, because the progression is just too long for that kind of use).

If you have a patient with an ADD of +2.50, however, the 2.00 digression gives them a really really nice view of their intermediate activities (computer screen, etc.).

[Lee Prewitt]

Good point Pete! Even we attempt to give close to full distance, the zone on the lens is so small that it is not practical for everyday use. We had a client that had a fantastic picture window she looked out of. She could at least see the birds in the trees and the deer in the meadow but she could not drive with them. This lens has such a powerful application that it is awesome. We are even beginning to prescibe it for our SV reader patients. Just gives them a broader lattitude of range to their activities. Prescibe on!!

[For-Life]

Good Pete, but I feel stuck when I need to use the 2.00 from the Online because they force me to use the 1.67. So I end up using the Rodenstock Office with a 1.75 and now maybe the Shamir 2.25

[Lee Prewitt]

Speaking of Nikon On-line has anyone used it? I have the literature here but it looks wierd. The picture represents the visual field as a triangle with the base at near. Not the usual inverted representation with the base at intermediate.

[For-Life]

Speaking of Nikon On-line has anyone used it? I have the literature here but it looks wierd. The picture represents the visual field as a triangle with the base at near. Not the usual inverted representation with the base at intermediate.

I have used it a lot. Great lens, lots of referrals from it. However, I say that these task specific lenses are the referral lens, since I get more referrals from then than any other product I sell.

[Lee Prewitt]

I have used it a lot. Great lens, lots of referrals from it. However, I say that these task specific lenses are the referral lens, since I get more referrals from then than any other product I sell.

I would agree, especially since they are not available from most chains. Too complicated for them to use?? Don't know but I have a problem giving one of these Rx out since I know that it will come back.

[chip anderson]

Don't laugh too loud but what the hell are digressions?

[Lee Prewitt]

Don't laugh too loud but what the hell are digressions?

I know it is an odd concept but instead of the lense getting progressively stronger..the concept starts at the full add and digress towards the intermediate. For example: Rx is Pl/+1.00 add. Use an Office 75 lens which means the near power is +1.00 the intermediate is .62 and the distance would be about .25. See how thepower "digresses" from the add? Or a reverse progressive?

[drk]

I think it's spelled "degressions". (Language police)

Here's what I'm not getting:

If you go with a large degression on a higher add, that obviously reduces the intermediate area to be used on the computer, no?

If a +2.00 add degresses to a +1.00 add, then there is the whole top lens to use on the computer.

If a +2.00 add degresses to a zero add, then there is less of the top of the lens to be used for the computer.

Conclusion: high degressions on computer lenses is tantamount to prescribing a general use progressive, ALMOST.

Darn, I wish I was 50 yrs old, so I could experiment.

[Lee Prewitt]

drk,

Thanks for the correction! Now to answer your question, I think that although there would naturally be a small narrowing due to the higher add power (higher add powers in progressives narrow the channel) I believe it is rather minimal. The unwanted astigmatism in Shamir's Office 225 I think is only 1D at the most. All their other Office lenses are like under 0.50D. So I think that it is still a better lens for near application than a general progressive would be. Also, the plot picture of an Office lens is a little different than a progressive. That hour glass shape is not a petite looking model but rather more like me thick through the middle (and some say the head :D ). Your Shamir rep can walk you through the real mechanics of the lenses but I am totally sold on them.

[drk]

Lee,
Thanks for the explanation. I'm trying them ASAP.

[Robert Martellaro]

Here's some more info from Dr. Sheedy.

http://www.visioncareproducts.com/34/len_comp.html

[drk]

HEY!

Check out the exact likeness of the Essilor Interview lens and the Shamir Office! IT'S THE SAME LENS!

That really adds fuel to the fire, IMHO, that the Comfort and the Genesis are the same lens as well.

Is it true, that Essilor had Shamir design their lenses?:drop:

[Texas Ranger]

I have fit lots of the On-line and wear it myself in the office; i'm a minus 5 with a 2.25 add, so I use the 1.50 degression, works perfectly. Essilor had the best "office design lens" a while back called a "readable" whereby you computed the intermediate rx from the rx, then it added .75 to the bottom and degressed .75 toward the top. hated it when they replaced it with the Interview design, just not the same. But the online is an awesomne product, but the 1.50 works usually best with pc users. btw, have some car sales guys who we fit in Vx comforts with an intermedite rx top and the full add at the bottom, in TNG AR, they love it, because they go from their dest in the the showroom out to the cars, they're not driving them, etc. excellent feedback...

[Lee Prewitt]

Texas Ranger,

With your Nikon's, is the top a wide intermediate? Nikon's literature depicts it as very wide near and narrowing towards the top of the lens. Like a triangle with the base at near. Can you comment?

[slaboff]

HEY!

Check out the exact likeness of the Essilor Interview lens and the Shamir Office! IT'S THE SAME LENS!

That really adds fuel to the fire, IMHO, that the Comfort and the Genesis are the same lens as well.

Is it true, that Essilor had Shamir design their lenses?:drop:

Shamir did design lenses for essilor in the past, but i do not believe that is the case... I personally think that you get a much wider reading area with the genesis which makes me think that they are not the same lens design

[Texas Ranger]

Lee, In my personal On-line lenses, they just feel like SV lenses, I see everything fine in about a 5 foot area, with a little blur at distance. have no problem walking around the office, or at the pc, just wouldn't want to drive the car in them, even though I have done that...

[Andrew Weiss]

I wear on Online when I'm doing primarily computer work, and for reading at home. I use a slightly lower degression value than my add would warrant, which gives me a reading/intermediate lens with clear vision out to about 4 feet. I can walk around the office with it, but it's too blurry in the distance to be useable generally. I opted for this setup to give me the largest reading/intermediate area, and while I takes a few minutes to adjust to from my regular progressives, it's really worth it.

There does not seem to be much room at the top of the lens for "distance", so I wonder, drk, whether the Online would work for what you want it to do. Please experiment with the Shamir Office and let us know what happens!