Is narrow intermidate zone a generic problem of Zeiss PAL please?

[Forrest]

Dear All Buddies,

1. I have lot of patient complaining about the narrow intermediate zone of Zeiss Progressive Classic. Although, Zeiss claims that the "Classic" is a FreeForm lens, it cannot win the original "non-FreeForm" Hoya Summit-Pro. Is there any measure to reduce the non-adaptation rate please?

2. In Hong Kong, we has only original "Individual" available (not Individual2), also, people keep complaining the intermediate zone being too short and narrow. However, for "Plus2" and "Superb", I received no complaint at all. Thus, although the Zeiss claims that all Zeiss Progressive is based on so-call "Zeiss DNA", I think the profile and design of them are different. Can anyone share idea about that please?

4. Is the GT2 or GT2 3D with better intermediate zone please?

3. If I have a group of Px want to switch to Zeiss from Hoya, is there any quideline or hints which Zeiss PAL should I use please? (I want to keep at least similar intermidate zone width)
e.g......

HOYA Summit-Pro ----> Zeiss???
HOYA FD -------------> Zeiss???
HOYA iD --------------> Zeiss???

Sorry about my questions. I know that it is always not a good idea to switch a patient from a used PAL design to another brand, but sometime, if I cannot offer those patient HOYA PAL.

Forrest

[Golfnorth]

Dear All Buddies,

1. I have lot of patient complaining about the narrow intermediate zone of Zeiss Progressive Classic. Although, Zeiss claims that the "Classic" is a FreeForm lens, it cannot win the original "non-FreeForm" Hoya Summit-Pro. Is there any measure to reduce the non-adaptation rate please?

2. In Hong Kong, we has only original "Individual" available (not Individual2), also, people keep complaining the intermediate zone being too short and narrow. However, for "Plus2" and "Superb", I received no complaint at all. Thus, although the Zeiss claims that all Zeiss Progressive is based on so-call "Zeiss DNA", I think the profile and design of them are different. Can anyone share idea about that please?

4. Is the GT2 or GT2 3D with better intermediate zone please?

3. If I have a group of Px want to switch to Zeiss from Hoya, is there any quideline or hints which Zeiss PAL should I use please? (I want to keep at least similar intermidate zone width)
e.g......

HOYA Summit-Pro ----> Zeiss???
HOYA FD -------------> Zeiss???
HOYA iD --------------> Zeiss???

Sorry about my questions. I know that it is always not a good idea to switch a patient from a used PAL design to another brand, but sometime, if I cannot offer those patient HOYA PAL.

Forrest

Robert Martinello is the one who can help you here and welcome to Optiboard.

Regards,
Golfnorth

[Robert Martellaro]

Robert Martinello is the one who can help you here and welcome to Optiboard.

Regards,
Golfnorth

Who dat?

No matter how you spell it, the master is Darryl Meister. He probably even had a hand in designing the GT2 and/or Individual. He'll check in soon I'm sure. Until then, I'll have to make a few educated guesses due to my lack of experience fitting and wearing some of the lenses that Forrest is working with.

Dear All Buddies,

Hello!

1. I have lot of patient complaining about the narrow intermediate zone of Zeiss Progressive Classic. Although, Zeiss claims that the "Classic" is a FreeForm lens, it cannot win the original "non-FreeForm" Hoya Summit-Pro. Is there any measure to reduce the non-adaptation rate please?

I believe it's their entry level PAL, with limited optimizations. The PAL design might be based on the GT2 PAL. The earlier Hoya lenses, ECP and iD were very soft designs with wider corridors and narrower distance zones.

2. In Hong Kong, we has only original "Individual" available (not Individual2), also, people keep complaining the intermediate zone being too short and narrow. However, for "Plus2" and "Superb", I received no complaint at all. Thus, although the Zeiss claims that all Zeiss Progressive is based on so-call "Zeiss DNA", I think the profile and design of them are different. Can anyone share idea about that please?

Plus2 and Superb are names that are not used in the U.S. Maybe they are related to Choice, and Choice plus, which is more optimized.

4. Is the GT2 or GT2 3D with better intermediate zone please?

For most Rxs it should be close.

3. If I have a group of Px want to switch to Zeiss from Hoya, is there any quideline or hints which Zeiss PAL should I use please? (I want to keep at least similar intermidate zone width)
e.g......

HOYA Summit-Pro ----> Zeiss???
HOYA FD -------------> Zeiss???
HOYA iD --------------> Zeiss???

Sorry about my questions. I know that it is always not a good idea to switch a patient from a used PAL design to another brand, but sometime, if I cannot offer those patient HOYA PAL.

Forrest

The Individual has the widest distance zone, the GT2 narrow distance, slightly shorter corridor, I think.

In general, when I talk to my clients about intermediate function, I'm directing the conversation towards task specific lenses.

[m0002a]

In Hong Kong, we has only original "Individual" available (not Individual2)

The Zeiss Individual 2 comes in three different types:

• Balanced - Balanced design
• Intermediate - wider intermediate, narrower reading area
• Near - wider reading area, narrower intermediate

I know you say that you cannot get the Individual 2, but I would double check with your Zeiss representative. Obviously, the ID 2 Intermediate sounds like it would be what you are looking for.

[Forrest]

Hi Golfnorth and Robert,

Thank you for your reply. Then which Zeiss PAL has widest intermediate zone please?

Forrest

[Robert_S]

Prog Plus2 = GT2-3D
Superb = Individual Framefit (original)
Individual = Individual2

Assuming it's the same as in the UK, which it sounds like it is.

I believe you won't get as good intermediate vision from a Zeiss progressive as you will from a Hoya. However, the GT2 was pretty famous for its wide distance and intermediate, but narrow reading.

I hope this is somewhat helpful to you.

[Robert Martellaro]

Prog Plus2 = GT2-3D
Superb = Individual Framefit (original)
Individual = Individual2

Assuming it's the same as in the UK, which it sounds like it is.

I believe you won't get as good intermediate vision from a Zeiss progressive as you will from a Hoya. However, the GT2 was pretty famous for its wide distance and intermediate, but narrow reading.

I hope this is somewhat helpful to you.

Good information. Some posts by Darryl Meister...

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post294780


http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post159672


http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post456317


http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post381308

The original Individual had a pretty long corridor, and will be a problem for your high population, moderate to high myopes, especially for the absolute, or near absolute presbyopes. The new INDIV2 modifies the corridor length by Rx (CORE) with good result (shorter for myopes, longer for hyperopes). I'm surprised that your clients are complaining about intermediate width instead of the too long (for high myopes) corridor with many of the Hoya lenses. Because you are unable to access Zeiss's latest lens, I would put Shamir's Autograph 2 PAL on the table for your myopes.

[Forrest]

Thank you both Robert for the rich information provided.

Now I have more idea about the performance of those Zeiss PAL lens. But I still cannot find information about the FreeForm "Classic" and the traditional GT. Anyway, we are already removed the options of GT and "Classic" from the price list for patient to choose.

Thank you very much.
Forrest

[Robert Martellaro]

Thank you both Robert for the rich information provided.

Now I have more idea about the performance of those Zeiss PAL lens. But I still cannot find information about the FreeForm "Classic" and the traditional GT. Anyway, we are already removed the options of GT and "Classic" from the price list for patient to choose.

Thank you very much.
Forrest

I'm glad we could help.

GT, or Gradal Top, ia an archaic PAL design, with a too long corridor for many folks.

Classic is Zeiss's new entry level PAL. I haven't worn it yet, hence can't comment on functionality (I'm a moderate astigmatic myope 2.25 add).

http://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/en_...e-classic.html

[sharpstick777]

If you want a wide Intermediate, you have to move away from a distance emphasized design, like the Zeiss Individuals. I would recommend the Seiko Surmount WS for the widest intermediate I have ever seen in a full Progressive, its wider than many "office" type lenses.

[drk]

I am beginning to change concepts on PALs, and it has been discussed here, before.

I think the whole concept of the "intermediate zone" needs broad-brushed: there really ain't none.

Yes, the intermediate zone exists, and it seamlessly "connects" the distance zone to the near zone, but it's not particularly "useful" for viewing. It's a unicorn.

(I've heard it called "an umbilicus" and I like that concept. But not the word-picture. Bleah.)

As was mentioned by Sharpie and RM, if you are "looking for a wide intermediate", you're never going to find it in a general purpose PAL. Get a dedicated design, and leave it at that.

Yes, PALs really are the dreaded "no-line BIfocal".

[sharpstick777]

I think the whole concept of the "intermediate zone" needs broad-brushed: there really ain't none.

Yes, the intermediate zone exists, and it seamlessly "connects" the distance zone to the near zone, but it's not particularly "useful" for viewing. It's a unicorn.

As was mentioned by Sharpie and RM, if you are "looking for a wide intermediate", you're never going to find it in a general purpose PAL. Get a dedicated design, and leave it at that.

Yes, PALs really are the dreaded "no-line BIfocal".

To clarify and expand on what my recommendation is, the Surmount basically turns the corridor upside down, putting the wide end toward the pupil and not the narrow, in my low RX the Intermediate zone is the ENTIRE width of my 54 eye lenses. The reading and distance do narrow a bit, but its still wider than all traditional grinders in the distance, it just doesn't match the width of the Shamir or Zeiss Distance Emphasized designs.

The Surmount is a full, regular progressive with an Intermediate Zone emphasis, but its not a specialty lens in any sense like an Office lens is. It is the only one in its type or class right now. Anyone could make a lens like this though, Hoya is using some Seiko Tech in a new lens they release in New Zealand only.

[Happylady]

I am beginning to change concepts on PALs, and it has been discussed here, before.

I think the whole concept of the "intermediate zone" needs broad-brushed: there really ain't none.

Yes, the intermediate zone exists, and it seamlessly "connects" the distance zone to the near zone, but it's not particularly "useful" for viewing. It's a unicorn.

As was mentioned by Sharpie and RM, if you are "looking for a wide intermediate", you're never going to find it in a general purpose PAL. Get a dedicated design, and leave it at that.

Yes, PALs really are the dreaded "no-line BIfocal".

I don't agree. I'm a lower power myope with some astigmatism and a +2.50 add and I use the intermediate area of my progressives all the time. I'm using it now. I agree that it isn't huge but it's useful and it's there.

Do you wear progressives?

[uncut]

I am beginning to change concepts on PALs, and it has been discussed here, before.

I think the whole concept of the "intermediate zone" needs broad-brushed: there really ain't none.

Yes, the intermediate zone exists, and it seamlessly "connects" the distance zone to the near zone, but it's not particularly "useful" for viewing. It's a unicorn.

(I've heard it called "an umbilicus" and I like that concept. But not the word-picture. Bleah.)

As was mentioned by Sharpie and RM, if you are "looking for a wide intermediate", you're never going to find it in a general purpose PAL. Get a dedicated design, and leave it at that.

Yes, PALs really are the dreaded "no-line BIfocal".

Well stated, and I agree, drk.

[drk]

Yeah, I do. I'm 50.

I just think that the intermediate, while certainly "there", can't be used in a substantial way, like computing.

Sure, you can tilt your head for a little while, but more for just "spotting".

Don't get me wrong, it's "in there", but we systematically move +2.00-ish adds to computer glasses.

In doing so:
1. we don't fight over looking for that extra 1/2 mm of zone width between progressive "A" and "B", which probably isn't going to matter, anyway
2. we don't give the impression to the patients that they're supposed to be able to use these for the computer.

I really want to try the Seiko Surmount, though. They sound awesome. Depending on the near zone, I wonder if they'd "de-facto classify" as computer lenses, in effect?

[Happylady]

Yes, computer screens are a problem because they are usually too high. I can use a computer screen just fine with my progressives if it is lower. Ai think computer lenses are great for extended computer use but I've never used one nor needed one.

[Darryl Meister]

The width of the intermediate zone is primarily constrained by 1) the corridor length and 2) the add power. If the wearer has had an increase in add power, you can expect the intermediate zone to be more narrow.

The progression length of certain progressive lenses may be slightly longer because the lens designer allows add power blur into the distance zone. The progression of most ZEISS progressive lenses starts 1 mm below the fitting cross, which keep the distance zone very clear.

Also, some ZEISS free-form progressive lenses have a variable corridor length based on the fitting height. So, if the wearer is moving into a smaller frame, this could also result in a shorter corridor length that is more narrow.

That said, I am not aware of any specific complaints regarding the width of the intermediate zone with ZEISS progressive lenses. I would discuss this issue with your local ZEISS laboratory. They may have some good advice for your particular practice.

All ZEISS free-form progressive lenses are optically optimized for the prescription, which will ensure that the intermediate zone remains as wide as the intended target design. Using a ZEISS free-form lens customized for the position of wear will further improve performance.

You may also want to double-check the centration accuracy and accuracy of the monocular PDs. Errors in lens centration, particularly horizontal errors, can significantly impact the binocular field of view through the intermediate zone.

Best regards,
Darryl

[Fred Dagg]

To clarify and expand on what my recommendation is, the Surmount basically turns the corridor upside down, putting the wide end toward the pupil and not the narrow, in my low RX the Intermediate zone is the ENTIRE width of my 54 eye lenses. The reading and distance do narrow a bit, but its still wider than all traditional grinders in the distance, it just doesn't match the width of the Shamir or Zeiss Distance Emphasized designs.

The Surmount is a full, regular progressive with an Intermediate Zone emphasis, but its not a specialty lens in any sense like an Office lens is. It is the only one in its type or class right now. Anyone could make a lens like this though, Hoya is using some Seiko Tech in a new lens they release in New Zealand only.

This interested me enough that I decided to register instead of lurking. G'Day all.

Are you able to be any more specific about this? I've used a lot of Hoya product. They've just released a back-surface freeform design, the Dynamic (Hoya's first full BS design, at least in Australasia). The only other one I can think of that is newish is the iD Lifestyle V+. Would it be either of these? With respect, I doubt that a lens would be released in NZ only. We only have 4 million people - it's just not viable - and large companies generally treat us as a semi-autonomous adjunct to Australia. Hoya is no exception to this.

As far as I know, Seiko progs are not available in NZ, which is why I'm interested after the big raps you guys give the Surmount on here. Thanks for any info.

[Fred Dagg]

Dear All Buddies,

1. I have lot of patient complaining about the narrow intermediate zone of Zeiss Progressive Classic. Although, Zeiss claims that the "Classic" is a FreeForm lens, it cannot win the original "non-FreeForm" Hoya Summit-Pro. Is there any measure to reduce the non-adaptation rate please?

2. In Hong Kong, we has only original "Individual" available (not Individual2), also, people keep complaining the intermediate zone being too short and narrow. However, for "Plus2" and "Superb", I received no complaint at all. Thus, although the Zeiss claims that all Zeiss Progressive is based on so-call "Zeiss DNA", I think the profile and design of them are different. Can anyone share idea about that please?

4. Is the GT2 or GT2 3D with better intermediate zone please?

3. If I have a group of Px want to switch to Zeiss from Hoya, is there any quideline or hints which Zeiss PAL should I use please? (I want to keep at least similar intermidate zone width)
e.g......

HOYA Summit-Pro ----> Zeiss???
HOYA FD -------------> Zeiss???
HOYA iD --------------> Zeiss???

Sorry about my questions. I know that it is always not a good idea to switch a patient from a used PAL design to another brand, but sometime, if I cannot offer those patient HOYA PAL.

Forrest

Just coming back to this original post, in my experience Hoya and Zeiss lenses are quite different. Hoya lenses are soft, and most people adapt to them easily and get pretty reasonable intermediate vision, as far as progressives go. The few patients I've had that have been unhappy with Hoya lenses (I use mainly the iD LS) have complained of peripheral distance blur, which given the soft nature of the design makes sense. The overwhelming majority of patients get on with this lens well.

Zeiss designs are much harder than Hoya. I have much less experience with Zeiss lenses, but the feedback I've had from patients is that the distance clarity and width of distance vision is great. People who disliked the Zeiss, and again it's not been big numbers, have complained about the intermediate and near. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

I've only used the Zeiss Superb, which I understand is the same as the Individual 2, but with standard POW parameters. The Classic and the Choice are what they call their lower spec lenses in my neck of the woods. The rep, who is a mate of mine, told me the Classic was pretty hopeless and to give it a miss. They are all full backside progs as well, unlike the Hoya stable. All our NZ Zeiss product is coming out of China now, so we're probably getting the same stuff as you, I'd imagine.

Horses for courses maybe? Keep your office workers in Hoya, and shift your outdoorsy types to the Zeiss, see how it goes?

[Forrest]

Thanks Fred,

Your experience is very similar to mind. Hong Kong and NZ also use same source of Zeiss.

You are right the Classic is hopeless and caused lot of frustration and embarrassment of my staff. We finally removed it from our lens choice list.

Hoya does seems a safe option for PAL dispensing. The hardness of Hoya is just in between the Zeiss and Essilor. All my clients changed from Hoya (no matter top grade or cheapest lenses) complianed Zeiss Classic for intermediate.

Now, because of business relationship with Zeiss, we have to use Plus2 and Superb to overcome the problem. Just seems disappointed that, we have to use Zeiss mid-top level products to satisfy low end HOYA PAL users. The point is patient paid a lot but cannot get the "wow" effect.

[Celso Cunha]

Dear Forrest,


I study PAL in deflectometers few years ago.
The Zeiss GT lenses are lenses classically long corridor, in low and medium add (1.00 and 2.00 ABO published 2013 - http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...stract&tlng=pt ). With that has low levels of induced astigmatism (also published 2013 - http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...pt=sci_arttext ).
I believe the free form designs Individual will not go away from that, but softwers can change some things in their manufacture according to the data placed in the generating.
Note the attachment of a spherical map GT2 3D progression of 0.25 add this to 2.5 mm below the fitting cross.
The lenses HOYA Summit ECP also has this feature larger middle corridor.
Hope this helps.
Celso Cunha
HOYA Optotal
Medical consultant.

[Den]

Excuse me for little offtopic, but what does the PAL means?
And can anyone tell me what's the name of the Seiko's Surmount & Surmount WS in other regions, not US?
I don't have such names in my catalogue of lenses by Seiko.
P.S. sorry for my English.:)

[Forrest]

PAL = progressive addition lenses

[Den]

PAL = progressive addition lenses

thanks!

[ThatOneGuy]

Sounds like a PD/seg issue above all else. Wide intermediate is not what zeiss is strongest at, but the only times I've ever had an issue is when my PD wasn't as accurate as I thought.