Zeiss Individual vs. Hoya ID

[Robert Martellaro]

The inset, perhaps, but it doesn't sound as though the optics of the actual design have been optimized at all.

The ID does seem to employ an atoroidal back surface. This is from Hoya's UK brochure...

Accurate aspheric/atoric correction in all directions

"By analysing the natural behaviour of the eye in relation to the position of the lens surface, this exceptionally accurate calculation method ensures optimal aspherisation in all directions. It also offers perfect eye correction, not only on the two primary axes (vertical and horizontal) but in all directions, along equal axes with a stable balance, a perfect interaction between far and near and an ultimate enlargement of the free field of view."

http://www.hoya.co.uk/dn.php?SID=459...15322&m=0&dm=1

[Darryl Meister]

I actually have that particular brochure. You'll notice that while it states (in a rather roundabout way) that the design is basically optimized for the position of wear, it doesn't state whether this optimization is refined for the specific prescription and fitting parameters of the individual wearer. (Obviously, it isn't optimized for fitting parameters if these aren't requested or supplied.) Several semi-finished lens designs are now optimized for the position of wear for an average wearer with a single (usually spherical) prescription and typical frame fitting parameters. However, the real benefit of free-form technology is the ability to optimize the design in "real-time" for a specific wearer, using his or her exact prescription (including any cylinder) and frame fitting details.

[Bobie]

1. More ADD , more SPH. , more CYL. on semi-finished PALs = more swimming effect , less visual field , less comfort of vision !.

2. PD. smaller or larger than 64 mm on semi-finished PALs = more swimming effect , less visiual field at near and intermediate , less comfort of vision !.

3. The most cheapest free form PALs is much better performance than the most expensive semi-finished PALs and will be much more difference when SPH. over 4.00D or CYL. over 2.00D or ADD over 2.00D or prism over 1 or anisometropia over 1.00D !.

But you can close your eye , shut your ear , shut down your brain and believe in info from PALs Empire like , " their semi-finished PALs is much better than many expensive free from PALs from other company and the free form PALs from PALs Empire is the world best !.

[Robert Martellaro]

Darryl,

So, if we have a client whose moderate to high diopter lenses must sit at an unusual back vertex distance, primarily very close to the eye, with maybe less panto than normal, (likely with those who have very flat and wide bridges) then the lens that is optimized for position of wear will have less off-axis error hence clearer vision at near and at the distance periphery.

However, if we can find frame that fits "by the book", which happens in my office in almost every case, then optimizing for position of wear is moot, as long as the design is optimized for off-axis power error and oblique astigmatism specifically for the individual Rx, I suppose by using different types and levels of asphericity, and by using an atoroidal surface for the high cyl Rxs.

[blackbirdy4444]

I actually have that particular brochure. You'll notice that while it states (in a rather roundabout way) that the design is basically optimized for the position of wear, it doesn't state whether this optimization is refined for the specific prescription and fitting parameters of the individual wearer. (Obviously, it isn't optimized for fitting parameters if these aren't requested or supplied.) Several semi-finished lens designs are now optimized for the position of wear for an average wearer with a single (usually spherical) prescription and typical frame fitting parameters. However, the real benefit of free-form technology is the ability to optimize the design in "real-time" for a specific wearer, using his or her exact prescription (including any cylinder) and frame fitting details.

Actually, as stated before, the ID can be as custom as you would like. The individual requires panto and vertex measurements, but that does not mean the calculations henceforth would make a better lens. The ID offers actually a larger margin of fitting error because of its prescription optimization. Supplying panto, vertex etc.. can be factored into the software, but is not REQUIRED.

I have same frame, same Rx testimonials from Individual wears that state the ID is 'leaps and bounds' better. These are opticians that would only sell Zeiss lenses in general until they wore this lens. One of them is a German trained master optician of 50 years that was personally invited to Germany for the release of the Individual. Now he only wears and sells the ID. Seeing is believing... The ID has been recongized internationally for a reason... its not like HOYA is actually any good at marketing themselves. If anything, that is their weakness.

[m0002a]

Would an amblyopic patient with 20/200 in bad eye be considered to have mono-vision? Would the offset be adjusted at all for such a patient on the Zeiss Individual?

[rdcoach5]

Would an amblyopic patient with 20/200 in bad eye be considered to have mono-vision? Would the offset be adjusted at all for such a patient on the Zeiss Individual?

I have such a patient who does well as long as her monocular P.D.'s are correct and it does make a difference if her lazy eye's lens is off. Maybe Darryl has more info on the Individual, but I doubt that the fact that your patient is amblyopic has as much bearing as correcting the power and prism imbalance, which is one great thing free-forms do. By the way, Darryl, A Zeiss Individual patint was back in for a nosepad adjustment and kept raving about his vision. He's high minus (-7.00) with a +2.50 add
Bob Taylor

[Robert Martellaro]

Even more options ... premium performance
Gradal® Individual lenses are so advanced and flexible that Carl Zeiss can offer even more customization capabilities for your patients:

• Zero mm inset for monocular patients
• specification of individual near working distances

From-

http://www.zeiss.com/41256820002524a...256d7f004d6b0a

Hoya now says their software accepts inset requests, whether you will get it that way might be another story. It's like pulling teeth trying to get good info from these lens manufacturers- why is that?

Regardless, Hoya is e-mailing the German techs to see if the lens can be optimized for position of wear. At these prices the lens should mow your lawn and light your cigar too. Hopefully the answer survives the translation.

[Darryl Meister]

I've been traveling, but it sounds like you guys got this sorted out anyway. :cheers:

[Robert Martellaro]

According to Hoya Lens Deutschland in Moenchengladbach-

"Hoyalux iD has been performed as a quasi-individualised PAL-type in Germany since its introduction, offering order options like examination method (W/F/B) or (alternatively) working distance/near inset position."

"But, different to products of Zeiss, Rodenstock (and others), iD cannot cope with further centration data like face-shape-angle, back vertex distance or that Panto angle. Indeed, it is a subject among our customers too, but we should wait still a bit until Hoyalux iD ***** is coming."

[Darryl Meister]

"But, different to products of Zeiss, Rodenstock (and others), iD cannot cope with further centration data like face-shape-angle, back vertex distance or that Panto angle. Indeed, it is a subject among our customers too, but we should wait still a bit until Hoyalux iD ***** is coming."

Seems to contradict

Actually, as stated before, the ID can be as custom as you would like. The individual requires panto and vertex measurements, but that does not mean the calculations henceforth would make a better lens. The ID offers actually a larger margin of fitting error because of its prescription optimization. Supplying panto, vertex etc.. can be factored into the software, but is not REQUIRED.

I guess we don't have any Hoya folks on OptiBoard who could confirm with certainty one way or the other..?

[rdcoach5]

Another Individual pt. was back in the office yesterday. I asked him if the additional cost was worth it and he replied " absolutely. The clear zone for reading and distance extends all the way across the lens."This is a patient who can afford to buy the very best and he confirmed that , this was, what I had told him it would be- The very best. It' expensive but worth it in my experience, without exception.
Bob Taylor