Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: When to discuss high index/poly/poly aspheric lenses

  1. #1
    OptiBoardaholic Ladyoptician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Where nothin' could be finer
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    240

    When to discuss high index/poly/poly aspheric lenses

    Having a discussion with fellow opticians about when to sell high index/poly/poly aspheric lenses. Go.

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    713
    High cylinder.

  3. #3
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Blue Jumper For high powered lenses, to provide thinner lenses

    For high powered lenses, to provide thinner lenses and to make glasses lighter, ...........and to make more $

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Texas
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    552
    I'll mention aspheric Poly or Trivex for powers >2.50D...with greater emphasis as the power rises.
    If a patient =/>3.50 D is relatively delicate on their specs and would have their soul crushed in thick lenses--they get the sober 'shatter resistant' speech before I present the Hi-Indexes. In this range I start to consider poly over trivex if the typical 7% disparity in lens thickness is really an issue for the patient/frame combo.

    At +/- 5.75 D (or even 4.something...it happens...) I start getting worried about poly's abbe--quiz the patient about past experiences re: chromatic aberration and specifically guage their need for lens periphery. Do they turn their head like most? Or do they really need to angle their eyes keeping their neck rigid? Poly gets a bad rap and a lot of us in the retail side unfairly exaggerate the issue to patients. But around these powers it's time to start considering (and observing) if the patient is still well served visually by poly. (If they have any greater than average risk of facial impacts in the specs, I'll still err on the side of shatter resistance.)

    Spherical H-I doesn't even come up in conversation unless it's the extremely rare line bifocal patient.

    The right frame selection can usually work the ranges back in the patient's favor, lowering costs and keeping them in stronger materials--with good enough aesthetics from just a roll and polish.

  5. #5
    Ghost in the OptiMachine Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,172
    Plastic when we can get away with it (given rx under 2.50 and decent frame fit [no groove]).

    Poly for specific availability in the 2.50-> 4 range with little to no cyl.

    Trivex for higher cyl in similar power range.

    1.60 for higher cyls in the 4-> 7 range.

    1.67 for lower cyls in similar range.

    1.70 (when available) for high power and high cyl.

    1.74 for powers over 7D.


    Obviously all of these are flexible to frame choice and cost. If a patient come in asking for the thinnest index and has an RX of -3.00, I will offer 1.6 but explain that depending on the frame, it may be overkill. Same thing if a patient who has -10.00 wants the cheapest lens, I will explain that poly is as low as we will comfortably go.

    Aspheric.... I will look at options for +3.00 and over, but I have to admit I don't really understand why high minus RXs come this way. I've noticed that most stock orders for hi index are asp in general. I'd be interested on what you guys have to say about that...
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,103
    I'm almost exactly like Quince, though I use less and less 1.70 because I don't have good luck with high end AR coatings on it, either via lack of availability or that they don't seem work out as well 1.70.

    For 1.74 I exclusively use Zeiss Individual 1.74 with Duravision coating, if the patient doesn't want that its not a 1.74 I sell anymore. It is just a vastly superior product to any other 1.74 I've used. I rarely use Zeiss but they are the best thing going for 1.74. For most other stuff I use stock aspheric or an IOT digital SV for cyls over 1.50 or so (I trust my gut on this one).

    If possible I go CR39 on high cyl or Trivex, but when Cyl is the issue frame shape and fit are what mostly determine what material I'll use. If the powerful meridian is at 90 degrees and there is little to no sphere and the shape is rectangular or oval, I will use CR39 all day since the thick part of the lens will end up at the bottom of my grinding chamber.
    Last edited by Tallboy; 10-12-2016 at 02:39 PM.

  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    713
    Any reason to go with Trivex over 1.6 if the cylinder is over 4? For 1.74 I like Seiko "double-aspheric" MV (Really standard aspheric on the front, free-form atoric on the back), especially for high CYL. Seems to really kill the marginal astigmatism for the "eye movers". But, I am thinking of switching to Zeiss Individual, because Seiko recently sold their optical business to someone else, right? Was it Hoya? I don't remember 100% (...getting old...).
    Last edited by Lelarep; 10-13-2016 at 03:06 PM.

  8. #8
    Ghost in the OptiMachine Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelarep View Post
    Any reason to go with Trivex over 1.6 if the cylinder is over 4? For 1.74 I like Seiko "double-aspheric" MV (Really standard aspheric on the front, free-form atoric on the back), especially for high CYL. Seems to really kill the marginal astigmatism for the "eye movers". But, I am thinking of switching to Zeiss Individual, because Seiko recently sold their optical business to someone else, right? Was it Hoya? I don't remember 100% (...getting old...).
    Seiko is now owned by Hoya... a shame, but as long as they don't discontinue the product I won't complain. Yet.

    I don't think Trivex over 1.6 for high cyl is much of an issue. There is a minimal difference in Abbe value (3 or 4?), so I think at that point it comes down to thickness from total power.
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,103
    Unfortunately I haven't had much experience with Seiko in the last 5 years so I only know their older stuff (though I do use their stock lenses - I just think their ARs weren't that good back then.)

    As far as whether I use Trivex or 1.60 I honestly use the two materials interchangeably and go for the one that cosmetically will come out the best. Other than impact resistance in all real world applications I find them to fill a similar niche, for my shop anyway.

  10. #10
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    713
    Seiko's AR for anything less than their 1.74 does kinda suck, but I find the 1.74 stuff, which comes from them with the lens, to be quite nice. Their 1.74 AR is called "SuperClean SuperHydro". I don't think it is available for any of their other indexes. People were not happy with the "Super Surpass" AR on 1.67. Consistent complaints about weird backside reflections on the far periphery of the lens that was rather distracting which they had never had before with any other AR.

  11. #11
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    248
    I've had success with Seiko's Surpass AR for the last seven years or so. Just as good as Alize or equivalent from our observation. Van has had some independent studies on AR's in the past, not sure if they're still relevant.

    cs

  12. #12
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,019
    We just touched on this. Hierarchy of shatter resistance versus ABBE VALUES has to be the first conversation that takes place with your patient. Why aren't you mentioning glass, Trivex, or HI VEX as options. Polycarbonate is the bottom feeder of lenses. I sell aspheric lenses and FF only, about 99% of the time. FPD and IPD are crucial when discussing material options. I tend to let my customers decide on how much they want to spend on lens materials so "A" along with horizontal decentration plays a big roll.
    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain

  13. #13
    Ghost in the OptiMachine Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Smith LDO View Post
    I sell aspheric lenses and FF only, about 99% of the time.
    Can you explain why? I understand FF on RXs over 3 diopters in general, but on all? Also I'm more specifically interested in your reasoning for aspheric use. For us, it's more of an availability issue. I'd like to understand what difference it makes for a minus Rx.

    Thanks!
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  14. #14
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,019
    Best results. FF, over 3 DSPH doesn't make sense to me. Why limit yourself and your customers. Most of my Spectacle patients wear C/L's. What are most C/L wearers issues with Spec's; loss of peripheral, diagonal and inferior distortion of vision, creation of more head movement. Elimination of problematic eyewear by optimization of the Rx is what I am here to do.
    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Ghost in the OptiMachine Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,172
    [QUOTE=Paul Smith LDO;529781Elimination of problematic eyewear by optimization of the Rx is what I am here to do.[/QUOTE]

    Beautifully said. I agree and wish to achieve the same. Reps have always told me that under 3 diopters is overkill and the patient doesn't notice a difference. My Rx is too low to test this theory myself... Blast my 20/20 eyesight!

    What about aspheric? What benefit does it have for minus wearers?
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  16. #16
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,019
    When I embarked on this path 20 years ago I was more concerned in delivering a custom ophthalmic system. I have always taken IPD's, vertex, C. P. and Panto (Martin's formula) etc, combined with Rx evaluation, appropriate lens material choice along with a meticulous frame fitting methodology designed to optimize, aspheric designs fit into my philosophy. If one is simply using a PD for creation of SV lenses our intent differs greatly and the merits of an aspheric lens design become moot.
    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Ghost in the OptiMachine Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,172
    I appreciate the honest reply. I may not be a rookie anymore (about 5 years in the field) but I find most people who have been doing this work for a decade or so have a way of doing things and I like to understand why as to build my own methodology.
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  18. #18
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,019
    I still consider myself a rookie. I taught for a blink in time. When asked by students, when do we stop learning. My response was, after completing the curriculum and successfully passing our State Board; to expect a vertical learning curve for the next 6 to 8 years. After that that you should always be learning. When the learning curve becomes horizontal, that's called, flat lining and a question for theologians.
    I don't pretend to be better than any one person here, if I appear guarded it is not because I do not wish to share. I have established a way of doing things tailored for me, and one that I am constantly reviewing. Mine is a system developed over the years when trouble shooting non adapt's, it is rooted in the basic disciplines of Opticianry with strict adherence to it's philosophy and is designed to eliminate simple problems. It is an, "Old School" approach that seems to work well with today's technology.
    If I feel that a -2.50 or a -3.00 customer will see better through a lower index I will have that discussion; FFSV Glass, FFSV CR-39, or Aspheric CR-39. I'm not looking to put them into Hi-Index for the sake of more money. A proper frame and fit will address the aesthetics of edge thickness. I'm looking for the best results for my customers. What I consider to be standard measurements others may find them trivial or unnecessary.
    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Ghost in the OptiMachine Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,172
    There is something to be said about uniform ordering. Obviously, all patients have their unique needs, but we do find trends that work especially well for us. My team is in a habit of adjusting PAL orders to short corridor lengths because we find our patients like it better. It's all about finding 20/Happy!

    One of the reasons I decided to stay in this field, after the initial dabbling, is the idea of never knowing it all. I'm technical and creative, so the ever changing and advancing designs of both frames and lenses is perfect for me.


    ...Sorry sorry- back on topic!

    Tribrid material seems like a dream come true. Anybody have experience with that?
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  20. #20
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Middle America
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    124
    Since we're talking higher index materials and everyone enjoys sharing their opinion on product, what's the take on Optima lenses? They were the standard-bearer for 1.60 and 1.67 back in the day, now concentrating more on 1.67 and 1.74 finished AR and semi-finished. And their Resolution polycarbonate was quite unique in that it's manufactured stress and birefringence free. After some tough years due to (mis)management, it looks like they are trying to make a comeback.

  21. #21
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,019
    I haven't sold them in years but had difficultly getting them in regularly some time back. I really liked the 1.60 and 1.67 both aspheric designs. The Resolution was an atoric poly that provided some great solutions to my thrifty patients with cyl. but since FF I haven't had to use them in years.
    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kankakee IL
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    421
    Good stuff guys.

    I use that opti campus lens calc for some of the higher scripts.

    In general, I find that until you get up to -8.00 or higher, most of the time you are only gaining a mil or less in thinning. but at the expense of worse outer edge vision.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. New AR Stripper for Poly, High Index and Glass...............................
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 01:54 PM
  2. 8x35 poly (or high index)?
    By mpowers in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 02:52 PM
  3. Poly Aspheric Plus Lenses
    By pezfaerie in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 01:00 PM
  4. Poly/High Index Transitions
    By Joann Raytar in forum Smart Lens Technology by Transitions Optical
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 09:13 AM
  5. High Index versus Poly
    By whitneyd74 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 11:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •