Essilor Digital SV a review

[Boldt]

I was talked into one of essilors SV digital lenses, and let me tell you it's not good. If you're thinking of using them don't. The SV Spectrum or Auto 2 is a much better lens.
I've done the Zeiss SV Individual, Spectrum, Oakley's, Relax, Unity xtreme, and my old labs sv, and thought that they where all great. Hell I though that all Digital/FF SV lenses where good.
Welp I'm wrong. The rep tried to wow me with how they are duel wave and everything, and told me how good they are. Bleh.

My RX:
-0.25 -0.25 x 110
-0.50 -1.00 x 81
PD 32/34
Lenses:
Non-adjusted RX
OC set to 24
BC: 4.25
Transition, Avance', Trivex
I've always hovered around the -0.25 - -0.50 sph so I split it to -0.37 sph

Loved my others, never had adapting problems edge clarity is amazing, you know all the good stuff.
These the over all vision is what I expect. Fairly sharp, mostly crisp, but it's almost like there is a wave, or prismatic something I can't figure out. Images seem to need a second or two to catch up, I'm getting head aches and eye strain. I replaced them once thinking that it was just that pair. The second pair I cut my self, checked the RX, and made sure only my hands touched them. And the same exact thing. I've checked for waves (get it duel wave and looking for...sorry bad joke) prism and anything I can think of.
I'm stumped and wonder if anyone has had the same thing?
I'd like to blame the Big E, but I have to be fair and know that the lab we use is...well...interesting and may have just screwed up two pair in a way I've never seen and cant find...

Any hoo just a review and random musing if you can think of anything leme know, if not Shamir, Zeiss, or Unity for ff sv. ( I hear Hoya is good, just never used them.)

[sharpstick777]

thanks for the info, I have not tried their SV product, but what model was it exactly? I have the same delayed focus issue with some of their progressives...

[Boldt]

It's a 360.
I wonder if it's a design issue or a by product of them surfacing both sides...

[Robert Martellaro]

It's a 360.
I wonder if it's a design issue or a by product of them surfacing both sides...

Only the back is surfaced I would think.

The "Dual Wave" is probably Essilor's WAVE (MK 2) technology, said to reduce high order aberrations in the lens. HOAs are really more of a concern with progressive design lenses, not single vision designs.

[Boldt]

Got it, but then what could cause the image issues in a SV lens?

[Robert Martellaro]

Got it, but then what could cause the image issues in a SV lens?

Hard to say without more info. Define the parameters of the test, that is, did you use the same frame and fitting parameters? Do you wear eyeglasses full time?

You should include the results of long term wear as well as the initial response.

[Slim]

I just got the same thing... 360 in poly with prevencia... I have always had iScript zeiss ones and I loved those... Had one house one from walman and it was good. the one I got from Expert, the essential SV was a joke... perif was so bad i hardly wore them.

I have no issues with the 360 like you are feeling.

[sharpstick777]

Got it, but then what could cause the image issues in a SV lens?

Given your low power, and without mapping the lens, I would guess off hand the free-form comps are simply turned on too high for your low RX... but its just a guess.

[Boldt]

Weird wonder if it's my lab, they can be...interesting.

Robert:
New frame prodesign 53 eye 37 b 17 dbl
Only thing really different is the material of the frame, aluminum vs zyle. My old ones are about the same measurements and same lens material add on and everything. only the design changed 360 now unity then.

[sharpstick777]

Pete Hanlin is a great troubleshooter though, the other chance is they pulled the wrong blank or BC. The computer should have caught that but I have seen them not catch things they should.

Pete?

[Robert Martellaro]

My RX:
-0.25 -0.25 x 110
-0.50 -1.00 x 81

I've always hovered around the -0.25 - -0.50 sph so I split it to -0.37 sph

I don't understand why you modified the Rx. We must use the same Rx when comparing lens designs.

Robert:
New frame prodesign 53 eye 37 b 17 dbl
Only thing really different is the material of the frame, aluminum vs zyle.

Check for warpage.

[Boldt]

The doctor I work for said I'm hovering around the -.25 and -.50 mark so we tried the split with a set one time and I love it.
The lenses I got are made to the -0.37 spec I should have put that there, sorry bout that.
So the Rx in the lenses would be:
-0.37 -0.25 x 110
-0.37 -1.00 x 81
PD 32/34
As apposed to what the autorefractor has me at.
Had this RX for 3 years with no complaints in anything I've used. I just had a recheck and it's still the same.

[optical24/7]

We must use the same Rx when comparing lens designs.

.

+1 AND the same frame, size, panto, vertex, OC placement and fit. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Boldt]

You have a point there, but taking that all into account should a lens like the 360 with out a compensated RX really make that much of a change? I can put it in one of my duplicate frames no prob. But even taking everything into account with my Rx being as low as it is wouldn't we be talking about a change of .12 or less?
And would that account for the image lag?

[Robert Martellaro]

Over minusing could cause lag of accommodation, although I doubt that's what's happening here. Incorrect centration, prism thinning, warpage, and other manufacturing defects are possible suspects. You might want to get Dallas involved, especially after a negative public review.

[Boldt]

Is that the main essilor lab?

[WFruit]

It shouldn't be on a 4 base, it should be a 5.

I honestly wouldn't expect you to see much of any difference, if any at all, between a conventional single vision and a Free Form one, with as low as your prescription is.

We don't run the Essilor Free Form, but from what you've said, if it's a non-compensated lens, then all the software has done is calculate the back curves more precisely (to .01, instead of .10 or .12). Basically you'd have a back curve of, for example, -4.53 instead of -4.50. Unless there is some compensation somewhere and they didn't tell you about it....

[Boldt]

I can see it in my left eye, my right you're right I can't see an improvement.
Hm, I wouldn't put it passed them to fudge the paper work a bit, but I've checked it with a digital lensometer that can get to .12 and it checks as what I asked for.
Also thank you all for the responses I think I'm going to give it one more shot in an older frame and see. You're right I should do apples to apples.

[WFruit]

Just for fun, check it on a digital lensometer that can go to 0.01 and see what you get.

[Robert Martellaro]

Is that the main essilor lab?

Essilor USA.

http://www.essiloridd.com/ContactInfo.aspx