One guy's take on the Sheedy report results...

[drk]

Firstly, I'm not going to question the methodology here, but I have in previous posts. I'm going to assume it's better than no methodology at all.

Disclaimers: I didn't include Definity, since it’s not a conventionally-made progressive, but was among the top in many categories in his report. (Other freeform-type designs didn’t make the study.) SolaOne wasn’t in the report, either. It must have been too early to include Essilor's niche Liberty lens, or it's short-corridor Ellipse, as well. No Brevity, either.

This is not meant to be fair and objective; I picked and chose designs I’ve been familiar with. I ignored some good AO stuff, since I don’t use it, but it’s good in many ways. Same with Pentax Mini, etc. This is not meant to be comprehensive.

Material availability is not much considered here, but would be an important thing to match with the lenses!

Now, my profile of the designs:

Panamic: The clear leader for people with swim sensation problems, at any add power. It’s the active person’s lens; is a "motion" lens. It is like SV, so it should help with emerging presbyopes. Pretty average to below average in near area and intermediate area. Distance is average as well. Not very wide in any particular area, but soft as can be. Considering the whole picture, an above average lens. Good for tennis, basketball, stuff like that, where you’d want a single vision, ideally, but for when you need to put some add in there. Would be a good golf lens, assuming reading greens.

Genesis: Average intermediate, average rate of change, slightly above average near area, somewhat above average softness, superb distance area. Is considered the most balanced design out there. A great default lens. Super material availability.

Piccolo: Below average intermediate, as to be expected. Superb near vision area. Distance is average. Softness is average. Rate of change is quick, as expected. Is at the top of the list at what it claims to do…gets reading area in a little space. Beware for heavy computer users, as will need a second pair!

Gradal Top: Absolutely superb distance and intermediate area, at the top of the list...but...poor near area. Hard design with a lot of astigmatism. Very slow change in progression. Doesn’t make much sense to me for an emerging presbyope, since low add people don’t require a lot of intermediate help. It’s not good for emergers either, because of the harder design. Good for people that are older and would appreciate good distance and computer and want a bigger frame. Not at all good for shorter frames.

Comfort: Below average intermediate. Slightly above average near. Slightly harder than average. Distance below average. Rate of change average. A fairly balanced design, overall, but doesn’t perform that well on this study, being substantially below average overall. Makes you kind of question the study, because this has been a very successful lens (?!)

Percepta: Superb distance area, around average near area, substantially harder design than average. Intermediate is among the worst. Rate of change is about average. This is a distance lens with decent reading available. Think of it as a flat top, but harder. Hard to find a niche for it.

Solamax: Is the evil-twin opposite of the Percepta, actually. Substantially above average intermediate and near area. Rate of change is somewhat above average. Poor distance area. Numero uno in the intermediate plus near rankings. Is somewhere halfway between a conventional progressive and a computer design.

Image: Softness is average. Distance area is great! Near is significantly below average. Intermediate average. Rate of change average. So, all in all an average design, with great distance and poor near as a trade-off. Makes perfect sense for sunglasses, especially in low adds, although it may be nice to have something softer (like Panamic) with higher adds, since activity without swim is nice. Price is quite nice, and has good availability in polycarbonate polarized! A superb driving lens choice.

For my summary:

Genesis was the overall winner for a "go to/all around" lens. Gradal Top and Image (suprisingly) did right next to the Genesis on his overall rankings.

For distance vision with balance, go with Genesis. For distance vision with computer (if that's a niche), go Top.

Solamax is good for a quasi-"near variable focus" lens.

Piccolo was the pick for low fitting heights.

Panamic is unique in it’s softness and lack of distortion. Good for wimpy and active patients.

For general sunwear, Image seems hard to beat, but for "active" sunwear the edge goes back to Panamic.

For the price-conscious, Image seems to be the choice.

I think the surprisingly big winners were Shamir and Younger. Zeiss seemed to fair better than I might have expected. I guess there is some disappointment was Essilor with kind-of mixed results, maybe below common perception as the industry leader. AO-Sola was well represented in softness and near vision designs, kind of hanging in there.

[Spexvet]

I've always recommended PALs in terms of "there are three areas of vision, Mrs. Jones, please rank them in order of importance to you".

Distance - Gradal Top
Intermediate - XL
Near - Flat top
All the same - Panamic
first timers - Panamic

And it all goes to h*ll when the fitting height is below 18. Or if they want a feature that isn't available in a preferred design (XL poly transitions).

drk,
What's your take on the XL? Sounds like Solamax may be even better?

edit: never mind, saw your XL evaluation in the other thread.

So, it seems like I've been pretty much on target.

Does anybody have a recommendation for a very good distance and very good near, with little concern for intermediate, but softer than a Liberty?

[Andrew Weiss]

I keep reading about the Genesis lens, but none of the labs we work with carry it. I'd love to try them. We're in Massachusetts; anyone know of a lab in the northeastern US that surfaces them (east of Chicago and north of Virginia)?

Thanks.

[Judy Canty]

You can get them through Hoya Labs.

[cinders831]

I keep reading about the Genesis lens, but none of the labs we work with carry it. I'd love to try them. We're in Massachusetts; anyone know of a lab in the northeastern US that surfaces them (east of Chicago and north of Virginia)?

Thanks.

I use Toledo Optical. I am in love with there service and in love with the lens. GO SHAMIR!

[Chris Ryser]

for my taste all this is splitting a hair.......................into five parts.

In principle these lenses are all the same type............like an
ST 22.......ST25............St28..........St35
:D :D :D

[Pete Hanlin]

Put me somewhere between rabid fans of a particular design and those who think "all PALs are the same."

Truth be told, give me almost any PAL design- including VIP, Adaptar, or Varilux Infinity (if they were still available)- and I'm going to acheive 97%+ "adaptation rates" for my patients (because I know how to fit a PAL).

On the other hand, some PALs tend to work better for patients than others- (which can be proven through objective wearer studies, the trick being what is objective). As I've heard said- everyone has opinions- so fit what you think works best, and if you fit it well it will probably "work." Its not surprising that any particular design would be capable of creating wonderful vision for a particular patient, because research has shown we all have various visual habits that lend themselves to a particular type of design.

All that said, trying to assess how a PAL will perform by isolating zone width or progression length is sophomoric. Twenty years ago, these were more or less the sole evaluations used in assessing PAL designs. Today, ALL major manufacturers of PALs are aware that there are complex design features that impact patient acceptance to a much higher degree than simply zone width and progression length (having the ability to manipulate those factors is the product of R&D and wearer studies DURING the design process- which takes time and costs a lot of money). In fact, zone width is counter-indicated for certain patients with certain visual habits.

Personally, I think there are a dozen or so designs out there that are truly a "step above" the plethora of PALs out there (and I think Essilor- by whom I am employed- makes about half of them). When I notice that these 12 or so designs (both the Essilor and non-Essilor) fare less favorably than other designs in the study mentioned, it draws my professional skepticism of the evaluation methodology employed.

So, I'm not saying its a bad study- but it does fly in the face of what I know to be true indicators of PAL performance (and I'm simply a novice in my understanding of the complex factors that go into PAL design- there's some brilliant people out there in various companies who could explain it far better than most of us could easily understand).

What I wish we could focus on is the fact that we still only sell PALs (of any manufacture) to half of the presbyopic population, when PALs clearly outperform segmented lenses with few exceptions. It would also be nice if the profession would recognize that the performance of PALs (of all manufacturer) is severely diminished by poor fitting techniques- which are woefully prevalent in the US market.

[Spexvet]

What I wish we could focus on is the fact that we still only sell PALs (of any manufacture) to half of the presbyopic population, when PALs clearly outperform segmented lenses with few exceptions.

Then you'll have to design a lens that resolves patient issues: larger reading and intermediate, and no, and I mean no, distortion. Until then, there will be patients who prefer the lines. (imagine lines in this smilie's lenses)

[Pete Hanlin]

Then you'll have to design a lens that resolves patient issues: larger reading and intermediate, and no, and I mean no, distortion. Until then, there will be patients who prefer the lines. (imagine lines in this smilie's lenses).

Um, there is distortion in all lenses (except perhaps plano lenses with a common center of curvature). Single vision lenses produce marginal astigmatism, power error, and all the other common aberrations. You tend to notice them less because they are usually matched well due to similar power (matching distortion in the periphery- don't suppose that could be as or more important than the zone width... just a thought).

If wider reading areas are so important, why are you punishing your patients by putting them in a flat-top? Obviously, you should be fitting Executives! I mean, zone width is where its at, right (plus, the exec puts the OC on the seg line)?

Patient issues... I guess intermediate vision isn't an issue. I suppose image jump isn't an issue. I suppose the fact that the sides of the segs provide visual distractions in the near periphery isn't an issue (yes, its one that the patient adapts to- just like the patient learns to adapt to bell shaped distortion or any other optical challenge).

I'm happy to "live and let live" on political, religious, etc. issues. I'm willing to listen to people tell me why one design or the other PAL design is the "best." After all, these are matters of opinion. However, anyone arguing in 2005 that flat-tops provide better vision to anything more than 1% or 2% of the population is simply in mauvais (wrong).

To sum, a lens with no distortion? Unless you plan to implant it at the lens stop of the eye, it isn't going to happen- regardless of whether the lens is a SV, FT, or PAL. Transitioning from distance to near power involves a change in curvature. You can choose to do that by jumping all at one (or in the case of TF, two) time, or you can progressively handle the change in a way that provides an infinite number of intermediate focal lengths. Wearers in study after study after study after study prefer the progressive transition over abrupt jumps in power.

[Chris Ryser]

Then you'll have to design a lens that resolves patient issues: larger reading and intermediate, and no, and I mean no, distortion. Until then, there will be patients who prefer the lines. (imagine lines in this smilie's lenses)

Spexvet you could not have said it any better. When looking at most optiboard postings relative to progressives, everybody seems to sell mostly this type of lens.

While the Essilor spokesman admits that only 50% of the multifocals sold are progressives i am wondering how come there are very few postings if any dealing with this fact. The other 50% of bifocal wearers is never even mentioned on our post's.

As an optical guy who was involved with progressie lenses since they came on the market in the mid 50's I still prefer my ST35's for desk work and use my progressives at cocktail parties when the distortive parts dont bother any more after the 3rd Scotch. :cheers:

[Jason Carruthers]

for my taste all this is splitting a hair.......................into five parts.

I'm with you. The only thing the customer cares about is
"1. Can I see?
2. How much does it cost?"

The thought of memorizing all the progressive brands is about as appealing to me as collecting stamps.

[Dot the Eye]

Andrew,

Encore Optics in South Windsor, CT is a distributer of Shamir lenses. Email me if you need more information.

Dottie

[Pete Hanlin]

I'm with you. The only thing the customer cares about is
"1. Can I see?
2. How much does it cost?"

The thought of memorizing all the progressive brands is about as appealing to me as collecting stamps.

Wow, the Essilor spokesperson is speechless...

[Laurie]

Hi Dr. K,

You nailed the analysis...I have studied Dr. Sheedy's report and draw the same conclusions. You're a sharpy, and I don't mean "pen".

; )

Shamir products came out as the clear leader, and, for the price, the Younger Image is also a good value.

This is an exciting time for Shamir Insight. They are getting alot of great press, and I must say, it could not happen to a nicer bunch of people.

I believe that Dr. Sheedy is working on an additional study, which will include PALs processed via freeform, as well as data collected from subjective clinical trials. I am looking forward to it, and am thankful to Dr. Sheedy for taking the time to compare apples to apples in such a concise way.

Laurie

[Spexvet]

Pete,
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed, or what??????

Then you'll have to design a lens that resolves patient issues: larger reading and intermediate, and no, and I mean no, distortion. Until then, there will be patients who prefer the lines. (imagine lines in this smilie's lenses).

Um,

Patronizing tone noted.

there is distortion in all lenses (except perhaps plano lenses with a common center of curvature)...

I think we all know what I'm talking about. Do I need to say "no more distortion than naturally occurs in a single vision lens."

I'm happy to "live and let live" on political, religious, etc. issues. I'm willing to listen to people tell me why one design or the other PAL design is the "best." After all, these are matters of opinion. However, anyone arguing in 2005 that flat-tops provide better vision to anything more than 1% or 2% of the population is simply in mauvais (wrong).

If that were the case, only 1% 0r 2% of multifocal lens sales would be lined bifocals.

All lens designs have pros and cons. They are all "clubs in our bag" to use when necessary.

[Lee Prewitt]

drk,

I too have to agree with the comparisions. Shamir Genesis and Picollo are the best. I have used them both for many years now and I have made no bones in extolling their virtues here. My question is about sunglasses. Why stray from the family when Genesis is available in polarized? With Picollo coming real soon? No need in my humble opinion to look elsewhere. Huge availability in all materials, different designs (Genesis, Picollo, Office), virtually no non-adapts (99.9% is still better than 97% Pete, but I agree with you too). And great people to deal with.

[drk]

Shamir's polarized seem pricey.

[Lee Prewitt]

No different than any other premium lens. Why change designs on the patient for sunglasses? Tell them you want to keep the lenses the same. There will be no transition from one pair to the other.

[drk]

Ultimately very good advice!

[jogi]

Wich premium A.R. coating do you use with Shamir lenses?
I understand no Hoya Super High Vision or Crizal Alize is applied on them ( those are my favirites).

[cinders831]

I cant speak for everyone but I use Shamir almost exclusively and I use Toledo Optical, They have invested a ton and have an absolutely wonderful AR. Trust me I am very picky, Oh its VSP approved and the same level approval through VSP and Colt labs as Alize. Great Lab Great AR. Good Luck!

[Laurie]

Hello,

Hoya Hi Vision is available on the Shamir Genesis and the Piccolo PALs.

: )

Laurie

[jogi]

Hello,

Hoya Hi Vision is available on the Shamir Genesis and the Piccolo PALs.

: )

Laurie

I've asked my lab, and that's right for CR39.
But,what about poly, trivex, 1.67, Transitions?
It seems to be consensus that Shamir are great lenses; but what about the A.R.?
I think a premium PAL should be a combination of design, material and A.R.

[Chris Ryser]

I understand no Hoya Super High Vision or Crizal Alize is applied on them ( those are my favirites).

There are plenty other independents that make high end super duper coatings, like Cinders mentioned for example Toledo Optical. In every corner of the country you have labs that kept up in technological improvements so that you do not have to be one track minded towards one or two highly advertisng corporations.

[Lee Prewitt]

Chris,

I agree with you on this. I have used Shamir for 3-4 years now and have used both Vivix and now my labs Endura EZ. All materials and not one issue on quality of AR.