IZON Wavefront Prog. Lenses:Post your experience

[HarryChiling]

Your study is seriously flawed. You are companing a fixed molded progressive (Physio), with a back surfaced PAL (IZON). If you had compared your new IZON with a Seiko, an ICE-TECH, or other individualized quality backside design, you would have a valid comparison. I think you would find if you had the IZON, a Seiko and an ICE-TECH to compare to your previous Physios, and did not know which lens was which, you would have experienced the same impression. The IZON is just much more expensive than the others.

You stole the words outta my mouth. The flaw isn't with the technology but with the cost of employing this technology when there is no additional benefit to it then current FF lenses. Either the cost needs to come down to be in line with FF or the technology needs to be applied to a more unique offering.

What's got most people here upset from what I gather is that the marketing department tried to sell it like snake oil rather than believe in the technology behind their own product and work with their clients. It will be difficult to get earn that trust back with many, poor decision IMO.

[Craig]

I had to post this. I got my anual eye exam 3 weeeks ago and after testing me with the Ophthonix equipment plus the "normal" tests, my doctor recomended the iZon lenses. They were not covered by my insurance, -the Varilux Physio were covered-, so I had to pay out of pocket for them.

Since I didn't know much about the iZon, I came to this board to read about them. I was surprised, and worried, from so much negativity from Craig. I sincerely thought that I had just flushed my hard earned money down the iZon toilet...

2 weeks later my glasses arrived, and... they are clearly (no pun intended) above and beyond anything I had before. I have been using glasses for the last 35 years of my life, incuding the Physio PAL's for the last 5.

I don't know if Craig and some others have a personal vendetta with Ophthonix, but from MY experience, these lenses are far superior to anything else I had before. Just as some others have said, colors are more vivid, objects are sharper, and the depth perception is greatly improved. I can say that my purchase was money VERY WELL SPENT.

I truly enjoy these lenses and it is not a placebo. I'm an engineer that works in R&D, so I tend to be very methodical and analytical of the facts. Comparing the iZon to the Physio is a huge improvement.

Now, here's the issue: when I got them on for the first time, the frame -and therefore the lenses- weren't properly aligned, so they didn't work as expected. Once the optician adjusted them to be perfectly aligned to my eyes, it was phenomenal. Yes, I said WOW...

So, if you have any doubts, do yourself a favor and actually try them on and don't let yourself be mislead by the negative comments from someone who apparently didn't know how to test or fit his patients properly...

Finally, do I know exactly why or how they work? No. I just know they do.

I am glad you are happy with the product, but sad people are still offering this product as compared to the other great products in the marketplace. My concern with Opthonix was and is that they told of offering programmable goo in the lenses to correct for custom high-order abberations and that is not the case and never was possible in production.
Please visit the website now ans see their is no longer any mention of this.
Did you know they offer 2 types of product? Which one did you receive?

I just read they got another investment of $25mil!!

Best of Luck to the investors; How could you spend over 100 mill and need more?

[john-atlanta]

Best of Luck to the investors; How could you spend over 100 mill and need more?

Ask Bernie Madoff, you can never have enough of other people's money!:finger:

I agree, when I saw this post I was glad this person is happy, that is what we strive for as practitioners, but the comparison to a molded progressive to any FF is quite dubious. Other questions would be what kind of material was the physio, did it have AR, etc.

One reason I believe that iZon chose to use 1.60 only was because it is a great combination of ABBE value and thickness. Also, the presence of a modern ARC coating vs an older 5 layer or no coating at all makes a huge difference!

In the end, any number of lenses could have given this result, my favorite being the Auto II variable. I also have the new Zeiss individual which is very, very good, and hope to try the Hoya ID soon.

[xiaowei]

Yep, related to this thread I can report that just yesterday I went to a Barbecue party where obviously, some guy near to me was raving over his new (seeming not yet progressive) Zeiss i.Scription glasses. I do not yet know this guy good enough, but it seems he has some technical background, not so much in optics, so he recalled what he was told or remembered from his optician:

That the human eye has different properties in different viewing directions

and

that these differences are measured and somehow *imprinted with a laser* on the glasses, what was not possible before, both from the ability to measure and to manufacture it.

That´s definitely not how i.Scriptions works, if ever (also if you read the few original *scientific* papers on the subject by Zeiss), but he swore his new glasses were the best he ever got!

So - believing is seeing!!!:bbg:

[Witness]

Well, I just wasted about 3 hours of my life reading every SINGLE post in this Izon thread. I'm on the 'younger' side for an optician (29), got into the industry in '01, licensed in '04 *(ABO/NCLE/State bla bla bla....). Cut my teeth on the old AO lenses, jumped ship once I realized how *BAD* they were. Run a small 3 lane 1 doc optometric dispensary (mid level - Etnia, Gucci, Bananna, Cavalli, Jhane Barnes, modo etc...)

Nowadays I tend to use Varilux products just because it's easy, but have had GREAT success with Zeiss, Hoya and Varilux products.


Here's my take on it:

Izon? After the phone call today? = B.S. Until proven otherwise. My Izon remake percentage is at FORTY PERCENT. That's.... amazing. ONE I'll honestly eat as my error in seg ht, but was only off 1mm. My GT2 remakes? 4.5%. My Physio remake percentage about 8%. (more sunglasses = more remakes in that lens) GT2/Brevity? is less that. I honeslty have only fit about a dozen 360's so I'll leave those numbers aside for now (but none of the 12 has come back yet!)

The auto refractor? Average at best. Out Nidek does a MUCH better job, at a MUCH higher speed. Just for kicks, we have begun using BOTH on patients and comparing the results post-refraction. Nidek > Izon

So we finally decided to take as much of the subjective and he said, she said out of it. We are fitting Dr H with the SAME frame, SAME measurements in the 3 diffrent premium PAL lenses we use (Izon, 360, Ipsio) and make a call once and for all from a PROFESIONALS viewpoint, not a client/patient. We decided for arguments purpose we would use the Izon refraction for all three pair and to a full workup with glasses on to see if we do in fact see improved vision.

I'll be posting the results here in a week or two.

~Ryan

Oh, and abouty Izon and as far as getting credits back from them? Not impossible... just... Tough.. Like Johnny Cocoran and O.J. kinda tough.

[john-atlanta]

So we finally decided to take as much of the subjective and he said, she said out of it. We are fitting Dr H with the SAME frame, SAME measurements in the 3 diffrent premium PAL lenses we use (Izon, 360, Ipsio) and make a call once and for all from a PROFESIONALS viewpoint, not a client/patient. We decided for arguments purpose we would use the Izon refraction for all three pair and to a full workup with glasses on to see if we do in fact see improved vision.

Why these lenses?

For an apples to apples comparison, you want to use three full back surface digital lenses in 1.60 with ARC.

I would have instead suggested the Zeiss Individual, Shamir Autograph II variable, and the iZon. The Ipseo is a dated design. You might throw the Hoya ID in there, even though it is not an all back surface design. I know Barry thinks it arguably is the best lens out there. Anyway, cannot wait to hear the outcome!

:cheers:

[Barry Santini]

I know Barry thinks it arguably is the best lens out there. Anyway, cannot wait to hear the outcome!
:cheers:

These are dynamic times, and I currently much prefer the new Zeiss Individual (just ordered two pairs of the new SV for a client yesterday!)

Can't wait to see what Rodenstock has in store.

Barry

[Witness]

Why these lenses?

For an apples to apples comparison, you want to use three full back surface digital lenses in 1.60 with ARC.

I would have instead suggested the Zeiss Individual, Shamir Autograph II variable, and the iZon. The Ipseo is a dated design. You might throw the Hoya ID in there, even though it is not an all back surface design. I know Barry thinks it arguably is the best lens out there. Anyway, cannot wait to hear the outcome!

Well, we considered quite a few.... Then looking at it, decided that while an all out test would be fun, asking a lab for a free $250 lens when we barely do any business with them would be a bit crude, and we're a small practice so eating the $1000 was listed by my boss as a 'bad thing'. So that led to limiting ourselves to lenses that I could get a steal on through my Essilor rep......
(:cheers:Unless these lovely Zeiss/Hoya posters want to comp us a pair to throw their horse into the race......? :cheers:)
The Shamir rep hasn't called me back at all, and that was when I was having an issue with one of my clients who bought 3 pair of autograph II's in the last 6 months. They're kinda on my poop list even if the phone rings in an hour. The Hoya ID is the one I'm REALLY intrested in... (I haven't had the opprotunity to fit one yet) d;o( & we KNOW the Individual would preform well also...

We made the decision early on to go with the 1.6 material just to keep another variable out of the mix.

In short, we're limited from a full out Consumer Reports style test because we're still just small fish, but the 360 vs Izon thing HAS to be settled already, because that has too much sway on our recomendations. If I've been lying to my clients, I need to know so I can make ammends.

[john-atlanta]

These are dynamic times, and I currently much prefer the new Zeiss Individual (just ordered two pairs of the new SV for a client yesterday!)

Can't wait to see what Rodenstock has in store.

Barry

Barry, what has swayed you? I like my personal Zeiss Individual alot, but give my Auto II the edge, especially in intermediate width. Have not tried the ID yet. Another problem for me with the Individual is turnaround time vs the Auto II. What kind of turnaround time have you been seeing?

John

[Witness]

Update: Shamir is onboard. Just got a message from our rep saying that two coupons for autograph II are on the way, one for fixed (which is what I'm used to) other for Variable corridor length.



.....any Zeiss'ies - or Hoya-ites.

[Nuggetwagon]

While the intentions of this technology is admirable (applying wavefront technology to the accurancy of 1/100th d and eliminating coma, trefoil, and all other sorts of pesky aberations) it is the rare customer who has enough of these aberations and would appreciate the difference. As for the progressive any optician knows that a progressive lens, by it's very nature is going to generate coma. Why charge someone when anyother freeform design available through Shamir, Zeiss, Essilor, Hoya, and a range of others will effectively reduce unwanted distortions and improve patients visual experience with as-worn technologies?

My problem is how effectively these corrections can be placed in front of the patient to be appreciated unless there are very low power corrections, with very large fields of vision providing these geometries over very large effective areas.

In the Lasik industry, it is quite easy to apply these curves to the treated material, because the treatment area is usually under 9 mm and directly under the surface of the corneal flap. The correction doesn't move relative to the eye nor does the eye move relative to the correction.

When you apply those measurements to vertex distances of 14mm rather than -.1 mm you create a very long distance for error to be encountered.

Thus I am skeptical of this technology.:hammer:

Jimmy Gilliland
ABOC/
VISX STARS4/Intralase Cert.

[Craig]

You are a smart man; if you go back over the years and read the threads, no one has every provided and math to how this can work. There have been hundreds of negative thoughts as to how this hocus pocus could be done in an optical lens.

They do not even put the wavefront correction in the lens as they used to claim, it is only a best sphere-cyl combo!

There is no correction beyond any other free form lens.


Craig

I still have a box on my desk so I can remember what a fool
I was for working with them a few years ago!
They are so yellow and look like a stripe was edge painted on them.

[OCP]

You are a smart man; if you go back over the years and read the threads, no one has every provided and math to how this can work. There have been hundreds of negative thoughts as to how this hocus pocus could be done in an optical lens.

They do not even put the wavefront correction in the lens as they used to claim, it is only a best sphere-cyl combo!

There is no correction beyond any other free form lens.


Craig

I still have a box on my desk so I can remember what a fool
I was for working with them a few years ago!
They are so yellow and look like a stripe was edge painted on them.

Well spoke.
Combo jumbo just as all the other hokus pocus measures, as pupil size, vertex, panto, life style etc, etc.

[Nuggetwagon]

In theory there are very significant improvements that could be made for the typical wearer which would deal with higher order aberations. The math is there for the reading in the various Lasik techno sites. It is effective. To a degree.
Yet Lasik has it's downfalls. The healing of the cornea (post prk) and the adhession of the Lasik or Intralase flap often create higher order aberations even post operative, which gets you back to square one if your are dumb enough to pay for it because of the unpredictable natural healing response of the tissues involved.
Any lens technology which claims to deal with higher order aberations is pure hyperbole, because there is no true fixed relationship between a (floating) contact lens or a crudely suspended spectacle lens in relation to the rotation of the eyeball.
As-worn and free-form technologies must be embraced as an opportunity to help patients who fall outside the norms of RX, vertex, and base curve economics and certain convergence defficiencies. It is at the very beginning of dealing with these issues and with marvelous effect.

What I would like is an opportunity for the a "free-form" lens to deal with the patient who has one eye which converges three mm near OS and one mm near OD without the ever present danger of lugging out the prism set in order for the patient to get image fusion at the near point. Now that would be a real revelation in "as worn" design. That is something that can be measured regularly and repeatedly and not something we should not have to wait for.

What disappoints me about this currdent technology is that I should be able to tell someone to make me a simple non convergent corridor in one eye and an aberantly convergent corridor in the other, This would solve many problems for a huge population. And the math is there. It's just too expensive because everyone is fighting over patent rights.

[Fezz]

Is anybody still selling these?

I can't believe that they are still in business!

[Jana Lewis]

Is anybody still selling these?

I can't believe that they are still in business!

Saw them at VEW as a matter of fact!