iZon Lenses

[Darryl Meister]

Well I really don't know what to tell you then....you have to be open-minded to new technology... Sounds like it's just not for you. Too bad. You are over-thinking the issue. All I know is that it works....somehow. It makes perfect sense to me.

But if you don't really know how it works, how can it make "perfect sense" to you? Perhaps it is my natural skeptisim. Perhaps it is the fact that I spend much of my day defending legitimate technologies, so when a company makes pseudo-scientific claims and neglects to provide a sufficient scientific basis for those claims, I find it curious. In any event, I don't believe that buying into a new, unproven technology, especially when the claims involved seem (ostensibly at least) to contradict known principles, necessarily makes you "open-minded."

Nevertheless, if you and your patients are satisfied with the technology, at whatever the cost, not much else matters.

if I were Zeiss or Essilor, I'd be worried too... The fact is that this technology is here to stay and those not on board will be left in the dark ages prescribing their dinosaur lenses.

I'm fairly confident that Ophthonix has discussed this technology with several major lens manufacturers. And, to the best of my knowledge, after reviewing the technology, none of them have invested in it to date.

I suppose that the fact you work for Zeiss has nothing to do with your skepticism........

No. But the fact that I work for Zeiss does have a fair bit to do with my knowledge of wavefront aberrations and their correction.

[eyepod]

But if you don't really know how it works, how can it make "perfect sense" to you? Perhaps it is my natural skeptisim. Perhaps it is the fact that I spend much of my day defending legitimate technologies, so when a company makes pseudo-scientific claims and neglects to provide a sufficient scientific basis for those claims, I find it curious. In any event, I don't believe that buying into a new, unproven technology, especially when the claims involved seem (ostensibly at least) to contradict known principles, necessarily makes you "open-minded."

Nevertheless, if you and your patients are satisfied with the technology, at whatever the cost, not much else matters.


I'm fairly confident that Ophthonix has discussed this technology with several major lens manufacturers. And, to the best of my knowledge, after reviewing the technology, none of them have invested in it to date.


No. But the fact that I work for Zeiss does have a fair bit to do with my knowledge of wavefront aberrations and their correction.

I think that you are speaking from a biased perspective, and that honestly, you don't want to learn how it works. All I know is that when the lenses are programmed, a series of mathematical formulas are used to adjust the wavefront correction in the periph. The wavefront in the periphery is not identical to the correction in the center of the lens. It is modified and adjusted to account for the shift in gaze. Just because you can't explain it does not mean it is not possible. The company is not likely to give out propietary information just to prove to a few people that it works. And frankly, this is not new technology. It is proven technology that is being applied in a different situation. I don't doubt your knowledge of optics...but maybe you don't know everything. No one is forcing you to buy into it, but you don't have enough information to base your opinions on. There are always non-believers when any new technology is introduced...the telephone, electricity, televisions, and airplanes, but now we can't live without them. Thank goodness there are people in this world that stick by something even when the odds are stacked against them.

[DocInChina]

I think that you are speaking from a biased perspective, and that honestly, you don't want to learn how it works.

Darryl is one of the most open minded people in the field you will meet. Despite his corporate affiliation he does not aggressively promote his company so your remarks are unfounded.

We are all professionals here and we are asking for specific technical information about how something works. We are not asking for their proprietary information which is patent protected anyway.

When selling technology to technical people, the seller is supposed to show up with the necessary information and not advertising pieces.

Doc

[eyepod]

Darryl is one of the most open minded people in the field you will meet. Despite his corporate affiliation he does not aggressively promote his company so your remarks are unfounded.

We are all professionals here and we are asking for specific technical information about how something works. We are not asking for their proprietary information which is patent protected anyway.

When selling technology to technical people, the seller is supposed to show up with the necessary information and not advertising pieces.

Doc

My opinions are simply based on our conversation about the lenses, not on his general demeanor. I can tell that he is extremely intelligent, but he does not have all of the facts. Any anyway, how do you know that the company doesn't show up with the necessary technical information? When I attended a demonstration, the rep had all of the technical information that was needed. I don't like to see people form opinions without having the benefit of examining both sides. I appreciate the fact that you feel you need to defend Darryl, but I highly doubt that he needs defending as he seems more than capable of speaking for himself.

If you want to find out how someting works, why not try calling the company that can provide answers rather than pulling inaccurate information from a discussion board forum? I do not claim to be an expert on this topic but I know it works because of my many patients, family members and fellow opticians who are wearing the lenses, including myself. I will never go back to a conventional lens. I base this on my PERSONAL experience and that is something I can base a legitimate opinion on. I have worn glasses since I was 18 months old, and I had bifocals at that age due to accomodative esotropia and I have NO depth perception. For the first time in my life, my eyes are working together as a team.

[Darryl Meister]

I appreciate the fact that you feel you need to defend Darryl.

I honestly think he was just pointing out the obvious, since perhaps you are a newer member with less exposure to these posts.

are using the exact same technology that was used to fix the Hubble telescope after they sent it up and it didn't work.

Actually, they are not even remotely the same technology. First and foremost, several optical elements in the telescope were eventually replaced in order to correct some unforeseen spherical aberration in the primary mirror. Until that repair, the substandard telescope images were somewhat "corrected" using image processing techniques. Secondly, telescopes are generally fixed, axisymmetrical optical systems, unlike the eye-lens combination.

I think that you are speaking from a biased perspective, and that honestly, you don't want to learn how it works.

Then I would say that you haven't been reading this thread very carefully. I am very interested in how it works. If anything, since you admitted to having only a superficial knowledge of the technology and seem perfectly content to leave it at that, I would argue that I am more interested in learning about the technology than you are.

All I know is that when the lenses are programmed, a series of mathematical formulas are used to adjust the wavefront correction in the periph. The wavefront in the periphery is not identical to the correction in the center of the lens. It is modified and adjusted to account for the shift in gaze.

You are misunderstanding what they are claiming to do here. The wavefront aberration of the eye does not change when you look through the periphery of the lens. They are referring to the so-called "wavefront aberrations" produced by the spectacle lens (actually, the traditional second-order oblique astigmatism and power error aberrations corrected by any well-designed spectacle lens).

And, just to be clear, I am not making any claims as to what Ophthonix is or is not doing. On the contrary, I'm quite interested in learning exactly what it is they at least think they're doing. However, I do know that there are several physical and optical limitations on what they can do when it comes to correcting the higher-order wavefront aberrations of a rotating eye with a fixed spectacle lens.

Just because you can't explain it does not mean it is not possible.

This issue here is that Ophthonix hasn't explained it either. I'm not trying to sell it to anyone, so the onus is on them.

The company is not likely to give out propietary information just to prove to a few people that it works.

Not as long as they have customers willing to invest thousands of dollars in their products and equipment without knowing for certain one way or the other, anyway.

And frankly, this is not new technology. It is proven technology that is being applied in a different situation.

It is a proven technology being applied in an unproven manner.

but maybe you don't know everything.

No, but I know a bit about complex surfaces, including wavefront aberration profiles.

No one is forcing you to buy into it, but you don't have enough information to base your opinions on.

You apparently don't have enough information either, which you have indicated more than once, yet you have already formed an opinion on it as well. I asked questions about the technology, and you responded with, "Because they said so."

There are always non-believers when any new technology is introduced...the telephone, electricity, televisions, and airplanes, but now we can't live without them. Thank goodness there are people in this world that stick by something even when the odds are stacked against them.

You are comparing the discovery of electricity and the invention of the telephone to spectacle lenses that may (or may not) improve visual acuity by one line under low-light conditions? You know, many people in this world also stuck with "miracle elixirs" when they were around too, and they were purported to cure everything from poor eyesight to gout. ;)

In any event, if you are content to just "take their word for it," that is certainly your prerogative.

For the first time in my life, my eyes are working together as a team.

Because of the higher-order wavefront correction?

I will say that I wholeheartedly believe that aberrometry, when used in conjunction with a free-form fabrication process, can deliver prescription lenses superior to traditional lenses... Not necessarily by eliminating the higher-order aberrations of the eye, but by determining and then fabricating a more accurate and precise second-order (sphere and cylinder) prescription. Determining the endpoint of refraction by taking into account the effects of higher-order aberrations on power and blur, as well as the neural processing of the visual system, can deliver more accurate and repeatable prescriptions.

Keep in mind that prescriptions are only written and fabricated in 0.25 D increments right now, which is nearly equal to the average level (RMS wavefront error) of higher-order wavefront aberrations in the population for a 6 mm pupil. Further, since free-form delivery systems do not rely on tooling increments and such, they are naturally suited to this application (though you could, in theory, use a modern generator to cut a tool for each job to an arbitrary level of precision).

[Darryl Meister]

Eyepod, I want to reiterate, again, that if you and your patients are happy with this technology, that is what really matters in your practice. While I may or may not agree that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I certainly respect your right to an opinion. So please don't take my skepticism -- or my string of what I would like to consider "thought-provoking questions -- regarding this technology as a negative reflection of my regard for you, personally. On the contrary, I am impressed that you have taken the time to familiarize yourself as much as you have with it.

[LENNY]

I don't doubt your knowledge of optics...but maybe you don't know everything.

Forget it Darryl knows everything when it comes to optics! If he does not know something... I doubt it exist!

[The Mighty Mutt]

It is indeed some impressive technology. However, when you get into lenses with such high precision and high resolution, your tolerances drop dramatically. Since the iZon lens is made according to the imperfections in your eye, then you would notice a problem if the lens was mounted even 1 degree off axis. The rest of your lab equip would have to be dead-on-bawlz accurate. I think this is why, according to what I've read, some people notice a huge improvement with iZon while some people can't adapt to it.

~The Mighty Mutt

[eyepod]

It is indeed some impressive technology. However, when you get into lenses with such high precision and high resolution, your tolerances drop dramatically. Since the iZon lens is made according to the imperfections in your eye, then you would notice a problem if the lens was mounted even 1 degree off axis. The rest of your lab equip would have to be dead-on-bawlz accurate. I think this is why, according to what I've read, some people notice a huge improvement with iZon while some people can't adapt to it.

~The Mighty Mutt

Point taken.

[eyepod]

Eyepod, I want to reiterate, again, that if you and your patients are happy with this technology, that is what really matters in your practice. While I may or may not agree that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I certainly respect your right to an opinion. So please don't take my skepticism -- or my string of what I would like to consider "thought-provoking questions -- regarding this technology as a negative reflection of my regard for you, personally. On the contrary, I am impressed that you have taken the time to familiarize yourself as much as you have with it.

Hi Darryl,
Please know that I am not offended in any way and hope you aren't either. I have truly enjoyed going back and forth with you about this. It has motivated me to learn more about exactly how they do this. I really knew better than to throw in the Hubble information since I am fairly certain that Zeiss (a great company) played a huge part in the actual repair. I knew you would zing me on that one. LOL!!! I LOVE a great debate! I am one of those people who wants everyone to see things my way and it is actually refreshing to speak with someone who can give back to me as much as I dish out. I look forward to picking your brain in the future as more information about this technology becomes available. :cheers:

[drk]

I have yet to see any studies citing a general improvement in visual acuity after wavefront-guided refractive surgery compared to the subject's best spectacle correction prior to the surgery. In fact, several studies have indicated that, while wavefront-guided ablation represents an improvement over traditional refractive surgery, which typically introduced significant levels of higher order aberrations, patients are unlikely to enjoy significantly improved visual performance with this new technique compared to their spectacle correction.

Your perception is correct, as usual.

Refractive surgery induces, primarily, spherical aberration, above baseline levels. Wavefront guided refractive surgery ablation patterns simply try to minimize the induction of such things as SA.

It's analogous to aspheric optics vs. best-form spherical lenses (as you have taught us): flattening a lens disturbs optics which is counteracted to a degree by using aspheric curves.

[Darryl Meister]

It has motivated me to learn more about exactly how they do this.

Please keep us posted within this thread if you learn any additional details. The information I have seen from Ophthonix so far has been very vague...

I LOVE a great debate!

Well, you came to the right place then. ;)

[Barry Santini]

Please keep us posted within this thread if you learn any additional details. The information I have seen from Ophthonix so far has been very vague...;)

My conversation with the head IZON software designer at VE east in 2005 or 2006 yielded the following when I queried about a *dynamic* eye and HOA correction:

The (then) current algorithm optimizes central acuity & HOA, and "blends" in the correction to the periphery (for SV).

The optimized weighting of correction parameters is an ongoing refinement of the algorithm.

I cannot see how this would work any other way.

Barry

[blackbirdy4444]

I suppose that the fact you work for Zeiss has nothing to do with your skepticism........if I were Zeiss or Essilor, I'd be worried too. The fact is that this technology is here to stay and those not on board will be left in the dark ages prescribing their dinosaur lenses.

I am a HOYA representative. I wear, along with many other things, a SV IZon. I am also Post Lasik that is going on 6 years. We can go point by point and the fact is we would never get anywhere in this conversation. However, lets look at the facts.
IZon is a great concept, but has inherent issues. They have no background in lens technology or lens processing. What AR are you going to put on these lenses that you can trust? Just one area that concerns me.
If the lens is so exact, what if it is simply overtightened in a metal frame... or is poorly adjusted?
Lastly, and this is the clincher, both on this thread and IN MY TERRITORY, doctors have invested in this product and been unhappy. There is ONE person defending the product in this thread.. Hmmm...
Last week I recevied a call from what I consider my BEST customer... Name not to be revealed..LOL... They LOVE HOYA because of our proven technological lens superiority. However, they decided to start using the IZon about 6 months ago. Considering my opticianry background, and regardless of the fact that it meant some of MY sales going to a competitor, I supported it fully. Why? Well, for the obvious reason that my loyalty is to the Patient and their satisfaction. If the IZon would benefit them, then they deserve it.

With that said, the phone call to me revealed that this doctors officed had decided to call send the Progressive IZon lenses back to Opthonix for a full refund and replace those pt lenses with HOYALUX ID lenses. Why? Because pt's were complaining profusely about he quality of the IZon lens... and never ONCE had the Doctor had anything less than a HUGE WOW from a pt that he put in an ID.

The proof is in the pudding... I am sure I could sell some IZon lenses successfully, but it is not proving to be the quality the company professes. Thats my 2 cents, for what its worth.

Oh, by the way, I like my SV lenses... It seems to be the progressives that Opthonix is having the most trouble with. They also have trouble delivering Rx order that looks good enough to dispense.

[eromitlab]

The OD I work for was/is interested in the lenses, we even had a rep from Opthonix come in with the device and measure some of our patients.

I'm not all that impressed with it, the device seems buggy and inconsistent. The lens technology seems to be based on a lot of buzzwords and hype, and when the rep talks about the internal part of the lenses as the "izonic goo that makes the lenses do what they do" or when I asked about the AR, she said it was better than Alize (but when I happened to look at a Carat availability chart, iZon is on it) it makes me somewhat skeptical. The reps did admit that the PAL was not that great and that the channel is pretty narrow... that's not gonna fly with us as we have fantastic responses with Definity and GT2 now, something narrower isn't going to make anybody happy no matter how much optimization for higher-order aberrations these lenses have.

personally, we have a great set of products that we sell already in our office and I don't see why we need something else just because it's the new ultra-ginchy-cool technology that nobody else has around us.

just my $0.02.

[mike.elmes]

The OD I work for was/is interested in the lenses, we even had a rep from Opthonix come in with the device and measure some of our patients.

I'm not all that impressed with it, the device seems buggy and inconsistent. The lens technology seems to be based on a lot of buzzwords and hype, and when the rep talks about the internal part of the lenses as the "izonic goo that makes the lenses do what they do" or when I asked about the AR, she said it was better than Alize (but when I happened to look at a Carat availability chart, iZon is on it) it makes me somewhat skeptical. The reps did admit that the PAL was not that great and that the channel is pretty narrow... that's not gonna fly with us as we have fantastic responses with Definity and GT2 now, something narrower isn't going to make anybody happy no matter how much optimization for higher-order aberrations these lenses have.

personally, we have a great set of products that we sell already in our office and I don't see why we need something else just because it's the new ultra-ginchy-cool technology that nobody else has around us.

just my $0.02.

A client came in wearing the Izon Advanced purchased here in Canada saying he has reduced and somewhat terrible peripheral vision as compared to his previous Varilux design.
The FYI group has gone with this design and is charging TOP dollar for them. Rx is minimally changed. I am suspecting a shorter/longer corridor length issue. I am not sure yet what varilux design he was wearing but when I find out in should be a simple fix. They have rechecked and changed rx and a second set of Izon lenses were made but that hasn't fixed his problem. This is such an OLD thread that I have to wonder what happened to this design in the U.S.

[NAICITPO]

I suppose that the fact you work for Zeiss has nothing to do with your skepticism........if I were Zeiss or Essilor, I'd be worried too. The fact is that this technology is here to stay and those not on board will be left in the dark ages prescribing their dinosaur lenses.

17 years later and Zeiss and Essilor are shaking in their boots! They are so scared of this technology... Let's be real for a minute--if the technology was good Essilor would just buy it.