zeiss individiual single vision lens

[opticianbart]

So I was reading a little about this lens and it seemed interesting, so I gave our Zeiss rep a ring and he's going to come in and give me some more info on it and is offering to let me try the lenses with a lab voucher. Has anyone else tried them yet? I'll post as to what I think after I've tried them, but I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts yet. (and I'm also attempting to decide if I should put these lenses in my prefered frame or not.)

[Barry Santini]

And I'm just about to begin delivery. I'll let you know.

My only question so far (Darryl?):

When measuring pupil height for SV NEAR VISION, the question arises as to how does one know the specific or general area that the client's visual axis will intersect the lens when performing "conventional reading"?

It would appear to me that with SV NV (so much more so than DV POW computations), the nature of the client's postural habit when reading is not well disposed to conventional assumptions. Attempting analysis of the same, within the time available in the dispensing environment, *would not* always yield representative information for parameter determination or compensation.

So... how does Individual SV handle the potential envelope of VA intersections with the lens plane when making NV?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Barry

[AWTECH]

And I'm just about to begin delivery. I'll let you know.

My only question so far (Darryl?):

When measuring pupil height for SV NEAR VISION, the question arises as to how does one know the specific or general area that the client's visual axis will intersect the lens when performing "conventional reading"?

It would appear to me that with SV NV (so much more so than DV POW computations), the nature of the client's postural habit when reading is not well disposed to conventional assumptions. Attempting analysis of the same, within the time available in the dispensing environment, *would not* always yield representative information for parameter determination or compensation.

So... how does Individual SV handle the potential envelope of VA intersections with the lens plane when making NV?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Barry

A single vision lens, either freeform, individual or not will have a defined optical center which should be placed so that the patient is looking thru this point. The fitting is up to skills of the optician and the information accurately provided by the patient. I don't know of any reason there would be any special needs. (Remember most of the opticians still fit a PAL with an accurate fitting height but order a single vision with out a fitting or OC height and jus let the lab take 1/2 of the B measurement). Just thinking about a correct fitting location is miles ahead of the industry regarding single vision. I guess the 1/2 the B for single vision is still being taught although frames today will make this correct less than 50% of the time in my experience.

[Barry Santini]

Allen:

Your observations about FF OCs is at odds with Shaimir's Autograph fitting protocol.

It's also at odds with the protocal I currently have for Zeiss Individual SV.

My question was about the appropriate point to use for supplying pupil heights for Individual SV's POW compensations when the SV lens is used for reading, particularly in a frame with a medium-to-larger "B" dimension.

Barry

[AWTECH]

Allen:

Your observations about FF OCs is at odds with Shaimir's Autograph fitting protocol.

It's also at odds with the protocal I currently have for Zeiss Individual SV.

My question was about the appropriate point to use for supplying pupil heights for Individual SV's POW compensations when the SV lens is used for reading, particularly in a frame with a medium-to-larger "B" dimension.

Barry

Please clearify, maybe I did not make a clear point. The patient is looking thru the optical center. Are you saying Shamir suggests fitting so that the patient is not looking thru the optical center?

Do you or has anyone given you a reason why you would not want to look thru the optical center?

[chip anderson]

One could get too eat up with pupillary centers. While we set the distance PD where the patient would be looking with his head and eyes facing straight forward. We set the near centers where the patient will be converging with reading material 14-18" away (usually) and the reading material centered and down from distance gaze.
These are not the only places the patient will be looking through the lenses. They will be looking right, left, up Down and an various diagonals unless the lens is so strong or some of the actual fields of the lenses are so defined that the lens cannot be seen out of in other areas.
One must accept a certian amount of distortion in areas away from center.
And while we try to compensate for these things and we realize that the more strength a lens has the more the errors will be appearent, one cannot be all things for all situations.
Just because a lens looks good in our instruments, looks good in our hand, has worlds of theory and math behind it, there will be some limitations.

Chip

[Barry Santini]

Please clearify, maybe I did not make a clear point. The patient is looking thru the optical center. Are you saying Shamir suggests fitting so that the patient is not looking thru the optical center?

Do you or has anyone given you a reason why you would not want to look thru the optical center?

Yes, as has been discussed here before, Shamir's Auto II SV mandates that the aspheric design "pole" be in front of the client's pupil, *not* the actual optical center. When dealing with conventional spherical lenses:

A. Zero Panto = OC in front of pupil
B. To maintain best form CC fitting, you should drop the "OC" 0.5mm for every 1 degree of pantoscopic tilt.

With free form lenses, depnding on the individual design, each may have reference marks that should be followed for pupillary centerings, much like progressive lenses do.

Shamir Auto II is on - line; Zeiss Indivudual has these marking 4mm below the pupil center.

FWIW

Barry

[Barry Santini]

One could get too eat up with pupillary centers. While we set the distance PD where the patient would be looking with his head and eyes facing straight forward. We set the near centers where the patient will be converging with reading material 14-18" away (usually) and the reading material centered and down from distance gaze.
These are not the only places the patient will be looking through the lenses. They will be looking right, left, up Down and an various diagonals unless the lens is so strong or some of the actual fields of the lenses are so defined that the lens cannot be seen out of in other areas.
One must accept a certian amount of distortion in areas away from center.
And while we try to compensate for these things and we realize that the more strength a lens has the more the errors will be appearent, one cannot be all things for all situations.
Just because a lens looks good in our instruments, looks good in our hand, has worlds of theory and math behind it, there will be some limitations.

Chip

The envelope of limitations you've described is very valid. I'm waiting for the answer on SV NV is order to "reduce" the limitations as much a possible, consistent with the manufacturer's intent

Barry

[AWTECH]

Yes, as has been discussed here before, Shamir's Auto II SV mandates that the aspheric design "pole" be in front of the client's pupil, *not* the actual optical center. When dealing with conventional spherical lenses:

A. Zero Panto = OC in front of pupil
B. To maintain best form CC fitting, you should drop the "OC" 0.5mm for every 1 degree of pantoscopic tilt.

With free form lenses, depnding on the individual design, each may have reference marks that should be followed for pupillary centerings, much like progressive lenses do.

Shamir Auto II is on - line; Zeiss Indivudual has these marking 4mm below the pupil center.

FWIW

Barry

Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to seperate optician fitting and lens design. I can not go into a lot of detail about our lens design in this limited space, but the optical center of lens when viewed by the patient looking directly thru this center point is going to provide the best placement. Now the panto and 0.5mm per degree etc. are fitting issues not lens manufacturing issues.

I don't think you can fit for areas away from the optical center unless like you say you use engraving marks similar to a PAL. This takes away the optician questions and many of the potential variables.

I am curious, do you lower the fitting height of a PAL by 0.5mm for each degree of panto? or have you look to each lens manufacturer for this information?

[Barry Santini]

We have heard from Shamir *not* to Adjust the height for up to 11 degrees of panto

Barry

[Robert Martellaro]

When measuring pupil height for SV NEAR VISION, the question arises as to how does one know the specific or general area that the client's visual axis will intersect the lens when performing "conventional reading"?

The optical axis of the lens should align with the center of rotation of the eye. This is true for both reading and distance glasses. So if the panto tilt is 10 degrees, the OC should be 5mm below the pupil, for SV distance, readers, or mutifocals.

One exception is with anisometropic Rxs. In that case I would aim to minimize VI by measuring the reading depth and placing the OCs in that position.

David Wilson suggested that to maintain the center of rotation rule we might also use the distance PD for near only glasses, assuming that our fusional reserves will handle the induced prism. I use the distance PD for minus readers to maintain some of the habitual base in prism that the wearer gets when reading with their distance glasses.

How Zeiss and other manufacturerers address these issues is unknown to me- many do ask for the work distance, but I don't believe reading depth is sampled. SVRO wearers will have a shallower reading depth than PAL wearers. My guess is that there is probably little to gain from using these advanced design lenses for SV readers, where the angle of gaze rarely exceeds more than ten degrees in any direction.

[opticianbart]

And I'm just about to begin delivery. I'll let you know.

Barry,

have you heard anything from your patients? good or bad about this lens?

[Barry Santini]

The Zeiss Individual SV lens is, IMHO, at the present time, the BEST SV lens available.

ALL my clients that are in them LOVE them beyond words. Considering theire quality and Premium AR they're a bargain!

Barry

[chip anderson]

Is this lens designed to eliminate the curved appearance and other distortions that higher myopes experience after removing contacts and putting spectacles on?

Chip

[opticianbart]

The Zeiss Individual SV lens is, IMHO, at the present time, the BEST SV lens available.

ALL my clients that are in them LOVE them beyond words. Considering theire quality and Premium AR they're a bargain!

Barry

Wow, that was fast, do you live in the forums like I do? Thanks for the info, I'm actually quite excited - I just opened our box from our lab and got a voucher to try it out and let them know what I think. Now if only I can figure out all these crazy measurements....:hammer:

Is this lens designed to eliminate the curved appearance and other distortions that higher myopes experience after removing contacts and putting spectacles on?

Chip

Well, to hear Zeiss tell it with these lenses you should be able to see the future. j/k Actually I'm wishing I had a scanner, so I could show you a series of pics that Zeiss sent me with "simulated distortion" for a "standard" lens as opposed to new lens. They seem to be compairing it to the difference between a High def tv to a standard tv. We shall see. :)

[Barry Santini]

Is this lens designed to eliminate the curved appearance and other distortions that higher myopes experience after removing contacts and putting spectacles on?

Chip

Not completely Chip, but with up to 15 degree of face form allowanceand an RX range up to -10 diopters, I think the wrap around, the closer vertex (with the resultant lower minus power) will reduce the Myopic ring efect significantly.

Barry

[Robert Martellaro]

They seem to be compairing it to the difference between a High def tv to a standard tv.

It's an improper analogy IMO. 95% of the time there won't be any discernible improvement on the distance gaze, with any improvement limited to near vision (for PALs), and then mostly with higher Adds combined with stronger and more complex distance powers. In most cases it's closer to the difference between a scaled and processed 480P (DVD) and Hi-Def on a smaller size screen. Most folks just won't see the difference.

However, I suspect that some folks will respond favorably to a SV lens that has improvements in off-axis performance, with any perceived improvement in this area strictly related pupil size and Rx. It should be the only lens design (and others like it) on the table for -6.00 +3.50 X xxx Rxs, but should not be considered for -.1.00 +.50 X xxx Rxs, for the same reasons we won't use a 1.74 index lens on a -.50 script.

[chip anderson]

Now Robert:

You dem people wid the -0.50 sph. Rx's, jus' naturally gonna benefit from deh High Technology in dem 1.74 materials. Dey also jus' woan be able to see widout super zumo AR.

Chip


In truth these are the people that will be calling hourly after the glasses are ordered with "Is it ready yet." calls.

[opticianbart]

In truth these are the people that will be calling hourly after the glasses are ordered with "Is it ready yet." calls.

I HATE those calls, almost as much as the
Patient "Hi, you called me"
Me "ok, and your name is?"
Patient " john doe"
Me " yeah... we just left a message telling you your glasses were ready, did you listen to it?"

[Barry Santini]

It's an improper analogy IMO. 95% of the time there won't be any discernible improvement on the distance gaze, with any improvement limited to near vision (for PALs), and then mostly with higher Adds combined with stronger and more complex distance powers. In most cases it's closer to the difference between a scaled and processed 480P (DVD) and Hi-Def on a smaller size screen. Most folks just won't see the difference.

However, I suspect that some folks will respond favorably to a SV lens that has improvements in off-axis performance, with any perceived improvement in this area strictly related pupil size and Rx. It should be the only lens design (and others like it) on the table for -6.00 +3.50 X xxx Rxs, but should not be considered for -.1.00 +.50 X xxx Rxs, for the same reasons we won't use a 1.74 index lens on a -.50 script.

Robert,

I have to disagree with you regarding the distance gaze statement. With so much disregard for proper curves(w/repsect to index in particiular) for *axial* vision, I'd have to say improvements *are* possible with these lenses beyond the marginal discussed.

On another point, yet *another* lens designer who consults to E has told me that the DS 360's are in fact atoric. I'm not sure what to make of the conflicting information.

We're on a quest, as you say, for the truth.

Barry

[Moneyeca]

Bart-

I received my SV Individual lenses this week.

My RX is: -6.25-0.25x115 / -6.50-0.25x040.

I did a 1.67 Hi index, and I LOVE my lenses so far. The biggest difference I see between these lenses and an older pair of non-customized is peripheral distortion. My new lenses have A LOT less distortion.

My only complaint is when I go from wearing glasses to putting in my contacts, I definitely had a somewhat "swimming" effect. But I have this with all my glasses, so this is nothing new.

A coworker also tried this SV Individual, and she does not notice a big difference between them and her older pair, but her RX is -3.50 OU.

So, I would say patients with high RX, and cyl power, will definitely see a difference with this lens. Also, don't forget you can get your initials on the lenses for no extra charge :-)

[Barry Santini]

Bart-


A coworker also tried this SV Individual, and she does not notice a big difference between them and her older pair, but her RX is -3.50 OU. :-)

If your co-worker was to have a traditional stk poly (aspheric or not) w/ AR made in a frame with an 8 degree face form angle/8 degree panto angle, and this was compared with an Individual, same poly and AR but with POW and optimized base curve choice, she would DEFINiTELY see the difference.

It all depends.

Barry

[Moneyeca]

True. If she had taken advantage of the customized options, she may have.

[HarryChiling]

It's an improper analogy IMO. 95% of the time there won't be any discernible improvement on the distance gaze, with any improvement limited to near vision (for PALs), and then mostly with higher Adds combined with stronger and more complex distance powers. In most cases it's closer to the difference between a scaled and processed 480P (DVD) and Hi-Def on a smaller size screen. Most folks just won't see the difference.

However, I suspect that some folks will respond favorably to a SV lens that has improvements in off-axis performance, with any perceived improvement in this area strictly related pupil size and Rx. It should be the only lens design (and others like it) on the table for -6.00 +3.50 X xxx Rxs, but should not be considered for -.1.00 +.50 X xxx Rxs, for the same reasons we won't use a 1.74 index lens on a -.50 script.

That was a great statement in professionalism. To match the design to the patient is truly custom.

[optical24/7]

On another point, yet *another* lens designer who consults to E has told me that the DS 360's are in fact atoric. I'm not sure what to make of the conflicting information...



Barry

I just talked to my Avisia Lab guy in Dallas. He confirmed that the DS 360 sv is atoric and digitally surfaced.

fwiw