Seiko 1.67 / Hoya 1.71 question

[New2opti]

Hi everyone, I know there has been some discussion about this but I couldn't exactly find what I was looking for. I heard a lot about the Super Seiko high index lens. Also heard that Hoya has come up with the 1.71 index lens. I know that the Hoya might be a tad bit thinner but from a clear better view what lens is better to have? From what I have researched is that the Seiko's 1.67 comes close if not equal to the Hoya's 1.71. If any of you had a choice between the 2 which would you get and why?

Thanks you

[hcjilson]

Both excellent products, go for the one that fits your budget.

[Aarlan]

Hi everyone, I know there has been some discussion about this but I couldn't exactly find what I was looking for. I heard a lot about the Super Seiko high index lens. Also heard that Hoya has come up with the 1.71 index lens. I know that the Hoya might be a tad bit thinner but from a clear better view what lens is better to have? From what I have researched is that the Seiko's 1.67 comes close if not equal to the Hoya's 1.71. If any of you had a choice between the 2 which would you get and why?

Thanks you

I would go by who has the better A/R, since both products should be sold w/ A/R. Compare the replacement on the A/R from your lab, and make sure the lab you have edging it has a good reputation for quality work. After those two are taken into account then compare prices.
I think the thicknesses will be fairly comparable (0.04 diff in index) as to be indistinguishable.
AA

[optigrrl]

essilor also offers the 1.74 now

[Cherry Optical]

Hi everyone, I know there has been some discussion about this but I couldn't exactly find what I was looking for. I heard a lot about the Super Seiko high index lens. Also heard that Hoya has come up with the 1.71 index lens. I know that the Hoya might be a tad bit thinner but from a clear better view what lens is better to have? From what I have researched is that the Seiko's 1.67 comes close if not equal to the Hoya's 1.71. If any of you had a choice between the 2 which would you get and why?
e
Thanks you

I would have to say that one major advantage about the Hoya 1.70 product would be the availability of Super HiVision! Hoya Super HiVision is most definately one of the very best AR coatings available.

Adam

[optigrrl]

I agree, Super! High! Vision! :D is my A/R of choice.

[New2opti]

With the Hoya 1.70 does it come standard with the Hoya Super HiVision A/R coating or that an option you have to ask for?

[karen]

Adam, you carry Hoya and Varilux?????

1.70 is NOT available without AR. With an index of refraction that high I don't think you should skip AR anyway. I think you can put Carat Advantage on the Seiko which is a very fine choice as AR's go. Depending on the RX, there may be almost no difference in the thickness and you should consider the 1.74 (comes with Alize, can't get without AR either) as well if that is the primary issue.

If you had a lab run a work ticket on the 1.70 compared to the 1.67 you would likely find that the difference thickness wise is negligible....

[Cherry Optical]

Adam, you carry Hoya and Varilux?????

1.70 is NOT available without AR. With an index of refraction that high I don't think you should skip AR anyway. I think you can put Carat Advantage on the Seiko which is a very fine choice as AR's go. Depending on the RX, there may be almost no difference in the thickness and you should consider the 1.74 (comes with Alize, can't get without AR either) as well if that is the primary issue.

If you had a lab run a work ticket on the 1.70 compared to the 1.67 you would likely find that the difference thickness wise is negligible....

Yes, we carry both HOYA and Varilux products. Nice deal, huh!?!

I do not agree 100% with the 1.70 v 1.67 issue. We have remade people that were in 1.67 (From Essilor Processing Center Dallas) into 1.70 and they preferred the thinness of the 1.70 over the 1.67. I believe this goes back to that CT issue on 1.67, and usually after I post this comment I get bombarded by people telling me I am wrong... yawn... Sometimes I wish I was wrong, considering I am the one that has to absorb the cost of the 'not as thin as we thought they would be' lenses.

1.74 is also a great product to consider. In the US market that is as thin as you can go w/out signing your eyes away. The only negative I see right now about the 1.74 would be the turn-around time and the fact that it is not 'Made in the USA' :finger:

1.74 SV & Panamic from Essilor is only available with Crizal Alize'
1.70 SV, Summit ECP, Summit CD, Hoya GPWide from HOYA is avaialble with Super HiVision or Hivision
1.67 SV, PALs, D28s, etc is available from a host of manufacturers with just as many AR coating options.

SV 1.67 Alize, available in stock lens, SV 1.70 HOYA HiVisiion available in stock lens, SV 1.67 Crizal, available in stock lens, SV 1.70 Super HiVision NOT available in stock lens, SV 1.67 (AR & no AR) available from a bevy of manufacturers.

I hope this helps.

Adam

[AWTECH]

Essilor and Hoya have gained this reputation regarding AR by having a processing standard that includes the proper hardcoating. They combined this with new super hydrophobics and have built a good following to the opticans.

We recently did a survey and I thought the results would show low consumer knowledge of AR but I had no idea how low. The patients will purchase the high quality AR you recommend, whether it is from a large manufacturer or smaller one. Yes, smaller companies can produce a quality AR, it is the process design and the control of that process.

We have found with ICE-TECH Rx products that the acceptance of our AR is excellent and although it is a premium AR at a premium AR price the big companies products have developed a market for premium quality AR. We do not offer AR only so we control the process from start to finish. From lens manufacture to super hydrophobic and all that happens in between. It is this control of the processing that allows for the production of a great AR.

[mirage2k2]

with exception to the AR, wouldn't the hoya 1.7 provide better optics than the average 1.67 due to its higher abbe value - 36.

[hcjilson]

I daresay the naked eye would be hard put to tell the difference between the two.

[AWTECH]

mirage2k2:

with exception to the AR, wouldn't the hoya 1.7 provide better optics than the average 1.67 due to its higher abbe value - 36.

Better Optics? Only if someone has a chromatic problem (they see different colors at the edges of the lens). There are many other much more important factors that provide good vision through a lens than abbe value. I contend this is one of the most subjective areas opticians point to without considering the facts. If the patient has swin feeling, it is not due to a low abbe value.

I ask you what percentage of patients have you seen that have complained of seeing different color lines at the edge of the lens on the side? 1% or 2%? Now what percent complain of swim or say everything is not clear? I'll bet it is more than your answer to the above.

Abbe value has become an important number to opticians yet non that I have talked to at retail can tell me how they would absolutely prove this point. No machine no device of any kind. Not even a test procedure.

On the above example I would bet that you could have both 1.67 MR-10 and 1.7 Hoya products produced in single vision using the same front base curve and you would be hard pressed to find 1 out of 100 that would notice any colored rings around the edge of the lens. Remember you would have to use single vision since each manufacturer has different progressive designs and you would need to compare apples to apples.

[mirage2k2]

this is an interesting response!

If abbe value is so insignificant then why does Hoya (and some others) have a 1.6 lense with abbe 42? What is the point of this lense? If the improvement in optics (over a 1.7) is neglible, who in their right mind would buy/provide it since it will just produce a thicker lense?

[mirage2k2]

I think patients with prism in their rx will notice a difference in abbe value more because the prism can bring the color seperation closer to the oc.

In the average high rx containing no prescribed prism the color seperation is only a problem off-axis (induced prism). They might never notice it unless you told them to go looking for it.:finger:

[Cherry Optical]

Abbe value has become an important number to opticians yet non that I have talked to at retail can tell me how they would absolutely prove this point. No machine no device of any kind. Not even a test procedure.

The test procedure that I have heard used is a patient WOW factor. TRIVEX would be the material that comes to mind that clinics we do work with are getting the occasional WOW factor with.

This debate is totally beating a dead horse. The people that say Abbe isn't a big deal are the people that continue to dispense lenses with lower abbe values. This does not mean their patients are suffering by any not getting high abbe value, it just means their patients may not be sharing some WOW factor with them.

Say what you want... argue it however you want... But if you wanted to put a 'test' procedure together I would be more than willing to assist you in doing so.

Adam

[New2opti]

Hi everyone, thanks so much for the all the responses. I have benefited very much from all of you. But, what is an ABBE? I have also come to the conclusion that I want to buy the Hoya 1.70 lens since it also comes with a good A/R coating. But should I be concerned with an ABBE number? Please forgive me for asking such basic questions, I am just not as educated as most of you are in the Optics field. I am just trying to get the best lens possible.

[mirage2k2]

... But should I be concerned with an ABBE number?

For a small % of patients abbe value might be an issue, but unless you have a high rx with bags of prism (to help weak eye muscles) you dont need to worry about it.:D :D :D

The abbe value of a lense material indicates the degree of chromatic aberration in the lense - typically color seperation which occurs in the periphery of the lense. The lower the abbe value the higher the chromatic aberration.

[AWTECH]

Cherry Optical said:

The test procedure that I have heard used is a patient WOW factor.

This is exactly my point to the post. If you assume that Trivex is WOW because of its abbe value, what is this based on? Could it not be the optically clear material and clean molds that were used when compared to a lens produced with CR-39 where older molds were used.

My guess and it is just a guess at this point regarding Trivex is that since PPG is marketing this product they have a very controlled process that they require this material to be manufactured under. I do doubt that ABBE Value is the reason you get a WOW with Trivex. You may be surprised at the WOW you get by giving the same lens discussion before the patient trys the lens and substitue a good quality polycarbonate lens, (with a much lower ABBE Value). As I have stated before with most hard coatings in the US having an index of 1.50 they match much better with Trivex than polycarbonate. If you do the above test with subsituting Trivex with Poly and have the poly hard coated with 1.60 index hard coat the patient may also say WOW.

[QDO1]

Cherry Optical said:



This is exactly my point to the post. If you assume that Trivex is WOW because of its abbe value, what is this based on? Could it not be the optically clear material and clean molds that were used when compared to a lens produced with CR-39 where older molds were used.

My guess and it is just a guess at this point regarding Trivex is that since PPG is marketing this product they have a very controlled process that they require this material to be manufactured under. I do doubt that ABBE Value is the reason you get a WOW with Trivex. You may be surprised at the WOW you get by giving the same lens discussion before the patient trys the lens and substitue a good quality polycarbonate lens, (with a much lower ABBE Value). As I have stated before with most hard coatings in the US having an index of 1.50 they match much better with Trivex than polycarbonate. If you do the above test with subsituting Trivex with Poly and have the poly hard coated with 1.60 index hard coat the patient may also say WOW.

i see your point, but the US is poly obsessed, so it would follow that most customers going "WOW" were previous poly wearers

[AWTECH]

QDO1 you are right about the US and Poly. I used to think like many that poly was an inferior product. Actually it is not inferior if properly injected, then properly processed and hard coated etc.

The fact with poly is the speed of manufacture is inversley related to the quality. Faster injection yield more internal stress.

[mirage2k2]

As I have stated before with most hard coatings in the US having an index of 1.50 they match much better with Trivex than polycarbonate.

just wondering, what is the significance of matching the index of the hard coating with the index of the lense surely the coating is very thin and would not alter the rx of the lense

I think the ABBE value only makes a difference for people that have ABBE problems. I'm hung up on ABBE because I notice quite severe color seperation in high index lenses - with 4 base out prism in one lense the seperation is right on the oc and by the time you get to the edge it is very bad and blurry. So, although you are convinced low abbe is not a problem ... it is for some people.

People with abbe problems might go WOW when switching from poly to trivex :bbg:

[Cherry Optical]

For a small % of patients abbe value might be an issue, but unless you have a high rx with bags of prism (to help weak eye muscles) you dont need to worry about it.:D :D :D

The abbe value of a lense material indicates the degree of chromatic aberration in the lense - typically color seperation which occurs in the periphery of the lense. The lower the abbe value the higher the chromatic aberration.

I am going to come right out and say that this statement is 100% inaccurate. My personal feeling about ABBE value is that most lenses with high ABBE value also have excellent optical qualities. Prism or no prism, high Rx or low Rx, if you started fitting more high ABBE lenses and kicked Polycarbonate to the trash I can assure you that within the next six months you would recieve more compliments about your lenses then you have in the previous six. Again, I am more than willing, with the support of HOYA Vision Care, to put together a test procedure that you can use.

My major proff would be this:

Convert your next 10 glass wearers to polycarbonate.... tell me what they have to say about it..... There is a HUGE ABBE value & optical quality difference between those two materials.

Resistance to change... that is what most of this is about. The ol'adage of "I've been selling 'such-n-such' a lens for umteen million years and have NO problems" is just so old hat and played out. Try something new every now and then you and might find out that there are better options out there.

Adam

[AWTECH]

Different indexes in different thickness refract light differently. Do you know how AR works. AR is a stack of different thickness materials alternating between about 1.5 index and 2.0 index. You can make mirrors or AR with the same materials in different, talk about colors, have you seen a blue mirror lens vs. a green AR. Well these can be made using the same materials, say a stack of 6 total in the same order just different thicknesses of each material.

I hope you can understand how a different index of hard coating could impact a lens especially with AR. AR is would be designed to control the light passing throught the stack not through the stack and a 2.4 micron hard coating of 1.5 index and then a 1.67 index lens material.

[Cherry Optical]

This is exactly my point to the post. If you assume that Trivex is WOW because of its abbe value, what is this based on? Could it not be the optically clear material and clean molds that were used when compared to a lens produced with CR-39 where older molds were used.

I agree with you on this statement. The only thing I would add is that it is extremly hard to find a low abbe product with high optical quality. Again, I will go back to the convert clear glass wearers to clear poly (brand of your choice) and tell me what you see. I guess I am not saying the the sole reason people are getting a WOW factor out of TRIVEX is the ABBE value. I will repeat that high ABBE lenses seem to have higher optical quality (glass/plastic/trivex).

I do not know anything when it comes to the 'molding' side of lenses, so I can really give you no insight as to the quality of the Essilor Poly molds compared to the HOYA Phoenix: Trivex molds.

I guess the last thing I will have to say on the subject this morning is, "Have you done your own tests?" If not, it is going to be hard for me to want to change my opinion, considering we have many clinics that have done their own tests, come to their own conclusions, and found that a material with a higher ABBE value out performs a lens with a lower one.

For the thrid time, I will be more than happy to put together a test procedure that won't cost you a dime, infact it would probably save you a few, to find otu for yourself if your patients (because that is who we are really talking about here) will notice a difference.

Adam