From your experience, which is the better lens, in terms of better adaptation and less distortion? Please disregard the claims made by the manufacturers, only from your real life experiences of fitting these lenses. Your input is greatly appreciated.
We have had fewer issues with the Image lens, though we use a lot of both. We've found that despite what Vision Ease says, the lens needs to be fitted with at least a 19~20 height in order to give patients the reading area they need. The Image works at 18. Neither is a real "high-end" progressive (the Image is our lowest cost "base" progressive in our retail stores), but neither claims to be. On the "worst to best" scale both rate a solid Good, with the Image being slightly better due to better adaptation rate and a wider availability of materials.
There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.
The Image is our "generic" progressive lens. It's dependable. It doesn't claim to be more than it is and what it is...is a good standard progressive lens available in just about any material you need.
Image
I have the Image in my sunglasses. It's known for it's very good distance area, the reading area is okay but not huge. I have no problems with it.
I have an Image Drivewear 8 base and it does OK. I also have a polarized Outlook in another pair of suns. I sell a lot of the Outlook Polarized and have never had a problem. Have done a few Images because of materials, and it does well. Both are great all around progressives. I know the Image is priced REALLY WELL....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks