Somo Ar Lenses

[Boldt]

So I find my self coming for more help on a subject. The office I run the lab in has been using stock Somo lenses in place of crizal lenses. any ar gets the same lens. The Somo aspheric Ar poly lenses. The Doc I work for says they are on par with Avance', on the sheet the rep gave me it says they are Anti-static, oleophobic, and ultra hydrophobic. They are missing the back side UV protection (I'm still on the fence on this one given that excluding Cr-39 and glass most lenses absorb UV) that the crizal line as well as the lab's line offers.
So my question is how can I test the Hydro and Oleophobic properties of the lens to see? And do any of you have any recommendations about this? Thoughts on the somo lines as more than standard ars.
Thanks in advance!

[Tallboy]

Not on par with Avance, truthfully few ARs are though. They are pretty darn good though, I put them on par with Alize or Carat Advantage, maybe teflon. I use them without guilt.

As far as testing them? Wear them. Thats what I did.

[DanLiv]

I love SOMO AR... for the value. It's the best AR for the price and I like it a lot better than similar low end ARs (why does Kodak suck so bad!?), good low reflectance and surprising scratch resistance. However there is no way they compare to any Crizal, not even Easy, for cleanability (and with the price difference there's no way anyone should believe otherwise). The hydro is fine though not equivalent. Just spray both lenses with lens cleaner and shake it off and see how much sticks. The oleo is not close. Just smudge them both up with fingerprints and clean and see how easy Crizal is. You can even feel the effect of the compact surface and low contact angle when cleaning by the drag of the cloth, much less on Crizal. And forget what they say, there is no appreciable anti-static on SOMO. In fact, I find zero appreciable anti-static on pretty much anything but Avance and Sapphire. Even Alize is noticeably poorer than Avance.

Apart from the AR, Essilor base lenses are better made, especially in poly and aspherics. I have non-adapted some patients complaining of peripheral distortion and "fish-bowl" effects in SOMO over to Crizal fsv lenses and solved the problems. Crizal fsv lenses are as good, and in many cases better, than surface Crizal lenses I get from labs. Base curves are more varied and appropriate to Rx and center thicknesses are excellent, especially on the aspherics which hit 1.1 and 1.2mm.

I find plenty of use for SOMO lenses and wear them in many of my glasses, but would never put them on par with Crizal lenses. I retail my Avance SV lenses for just shy of double my SOMOs. I recommend SOMOs for second pairs/backups, and especially for CL wearers that want decent but moderately priced. I would never recommend them for full time glasses wearers, just too much of the classic AR cleanability problem.

[Tallboy]

Somo stock are also awesome because they vary thickness to allow for grooving in low power, without having to surface the lenses. Which is a HUGE value for me.

We price out our AR as Mid, High - I just can't try to explain all the different ones, I keep it simple for my patients. The highest end Somo and Carat etc. are put on par with Alize, with Avance, Purecoat on the high level, and Optifog/sapphire on a "specialty" level

Dan I think that Crizal poly center thicknesses are TOO thin, why do they need to be so thin? Seems silly to me. Just go 1.67 if the patient wants that thin, it just leads to me having to surface low powers for grooving

[Jarhead Daddy]

"They are missing the back side UV protection (I'm still on the fence on this one given that excluding Cr-39 and glass most lenses absorb UV) that the crizal line as well as the lab's line offers."

My understanding of the backside UV is that it prevents UV from reflecting off the back side and into the patient's eyes. Thus Poly and Trivex UV absorption does not do the same job as backside UV protection.

That being said, I am still skeptical of the real-world value of backside UV protection. Seriously, what real-world effect does a little reflected UV have on your eyes?

[Hayde]

"They are missing the back side UV protection (I'm still on the fence on this one given that excluding Cr-39 and glass most lenses absorb UV) that the crizal line as well as the lab's line offers."

My understanding of the backside UV is that it prevents UV from reflecting off the back side and into the patient's eyes. Thus Poly and Trivex UV absorption does not do the same job as backside UV protection.

That being said, I am still skeptical of the real-world value of backside UV protection. Seriously, what real-world effect does a little reflected UV have on your eyes?

If the Essilor lit is to be taken at face value, approximately 20% of the UV exposure to the eye arrives behind the lens rather than through it. This can vary widely depending on frame wrap, but still a significant chunk. The real advantage to a backside UV treatment is to offset what AR coating typically does--make UV reflectivity behind the lens worse instead of better! Crizal got ahead of the ball with the UV line in '12 to offset that long overlooked unintended consequence.

[Jarhead Daddy]

Hayde, thanks for the additional info. I still wonder though if ALL exposure to UV is bad. For instance, UV exposure helps us manufacture vitamin D. Isn't the 80-90% UV exposure reduction from incident rays enough?

[DanLiv]

Somo stock are also awesome because they vary thickness to allow for grooving in low power, without having to surface the lenses. Which is a HUGE value for me.
Dan I think that Crizal poly center thicknesses are TOO thin, why do they need to be so thin? Seems silly to me. Just go 1.67 if the patient wants that thin, it just leads to me having to surface low powers for grooving

Because poly 1.0 is thinner than 1.67 1.5 until about -6.00, and considering 1.67 is 1.5x-2.0x the price you'd be doing a double disservice to someone at -4.00 concerned about thinness and cost. It's only the aspherics that are 1.1, the spherical lenses are still 1.4-1.5CT. They certainly are thin, and it's awesome. If you are hand-grooving yes that sucks when your ET is less than 2mm. Luckily my edger grooves and I have forced it to groove a 1.2mm EDGE, successfully. It complained, but I didn't take it's guff.

[Paul Smith LDO]

I love these lenses, for an entry level aspheric design, I haven't found a better lens. Their Ultra Clear AR is a tremendous value with no cleaning issues what so ever.

[Hayde]

Hayde, thanks for the additional info. I still wonder though if ALL exposure to UV is bad. For instance, UV exposure helps us manufacture vitamin D. Isn't the 80-90% UV exposure reduction from incident rays enough?

You betcha, JH!

I'm always more comfortable when a doc chimes on this subject, but I'd think what's a healthy percentage depends on duration and intensity of exposure in the denomonator. 80% coverage for a sun-loving beach baby is probably far too little protection. Probably kids, too. I think of UV exposure as the lit fuse to ever-increasing odds of eye or skin disease. 80% of UV exposure in our life is before age 18, they say (though I'd be interested to see how that holds in studies of ever-secluded childhoods stuck inside glued to a computer monitor.)

I've forgotten the percentage of skin cancer that develops around the eye--but it's so high it'll blow your hair back. (Feel free to chime in, whoever has it on the top of their head.) I say let whatever 'good' UV exposure go somewhere else besides the eyes.

Edit:
"The eyelid region is one of the most common sites for nonmelanoma skin cancers. In fact, skin cancers of the eyelid, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, account for five to 10 percent of all skin cancers. Ninety five percent of these tumors are basal cell carcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas.^1,2" http://www.skincancer.org/prevention...to-skin-cancer

[Boldt]

Hayde: That post kinda throws me in the pro uv on ar camp. I still want to look more, but those are shocking stats.

Thank you guys for the information on these lenses. I'll give them a mid ranged price in AR from what I'm learning about them.
Again thank you all for the help, so much to learn still.

[Joe Zewe]

So I find my self coming for more help on a subject. The office I run the lab in has been using stock Somo lenses in place of crizal lenses. any ar gets the same lens. The Somo aspheric Ar poly lenses. The Doc I work for says they are on par with Avance', on the sheet the rep gave me it says they are Anti-static, oleophobic, and ultra hydrophobic. They are missing the back side UV protection (I'm still on the fence on this one given that excluding Cr-39 and glass most lenses absorb UV) that the crizal line as well as the lab's line offers.
So my question is how can I test the Hydro and Oleophobic properties of the lens to see? And do any of you have any recommendations about this? Thoughts on the somo lines as more than standard ars.
Thanks in advance!

You can ask your supplier if they have independent lab test reports from a lab such as COLTS laboratory. There are standard tests that allow for comparison between lenses.

We use NSL Analytical out of Cleveland to test lenses. They put them through a battery of tests for things such as abrasion, cleanability, light transmission rates, etc. The tests results have been very insightful and helped us select the stock lenses and computer lenses we carry.

[Hayde]

I keep looking for the stat on periocular skin cancer that zinged me, but so far it's eluding me. But I did find this--which pulls the rug out from under me!

"Contrary to popular belief, 80 percent of a person’s lifetime sun exposure is not acquired before age 18; only about 23 percent of lifetime exposure occurs by age 18.²³

UV Exposure in the United States

Ages	Average Accumulated Exposure*
1-18	22.73 percent
19-40	46.53 percent
41-59	73.7 percent
60-78	100 percent

*Based on a 78 year lifespan


^{23 (Godar DE, Urbach F, Gasparro FP, Van der Leun JC. UV doses of young adults. Photochem Photobiol 2003; 77(4):453-457)}"
http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cance...n-cancer-facts

(Lies, d*** lies, and....)

[Tallboy]

^^^ I've always thought that its not the amount of exposure that is claimed to be the most when before 18 (although it makes sense that young people in general spend more time outside) but its more that the DAMAGE of the UV rays is greatest before our skin and the rest of out bodies have reached maturity.