Word.
If this new Shamir/essilor thing is going to be a boon, it's going to be on patients with high adds.
Word.
If this new Shamir/essilor thing is going to be a boon, it's going to be on patients with high adds.
Anyone have a comparison of a Varilux X vs a Camber lens?
Not really a direct comparison, but I fit a few willing test patients with the X a couple month ago, did not go over well. Much like when the S series came out, the complaints from my testers consisted of vision that was OK all around but not as clear as it should be anywhere in the lens. Width of the near/intermediate didn't seem to be a problem but they all said it seemed higher than they were used to. Distance didn't have a lot of distortion side to side but also wasn't as crisp as they thought it should be. Sounds like a very soft design.
I fit tons of patients in Camber based lenses with no issues, regardless of previous lens design. Bear in mind Camber is not a lens design, just a lens blank which multiple designs can be made on.
My experience with the X (and Auto III that uses this same concept) is limited.
It makes sense that some might not like it. It seems to trade clarity for depth of focus, not unlike an aspheric SCL multifocal.
I do think head tilt reduction and any improvement possible for desktop viewing with a general purpose PAL is a worthy goal, however. I hope it works.
Thanks for the information! I have one of those educated patients who knows everything about all progressives. Just wanted a few opinions.
Thanks for the welcome, although I've had a login before, but years ago!
Anyway, I've read that thread before. I'm a latent hyperope, myself, so I understand the mechanics.
I meant, specifically, have people had problems with the X? I done numerous remakes on hypers, but the myopes love it. I didn't use the S at my previous practice, but it seems the experience is similar. Lately, unless their asking for the ULP, I keep them in the W3+Fit, which I've never had problems with.
I'm +.50 OU, +1.50 add, although I upped it to +1.75, since I've had problems with progressives in the past. Distance, great! Mid range, not bad for driving, everyday use. Mid range for computer, not so much. Reading, terrible. 21 seg ht, I don't read +2.00 until 6mm below the bottom edge. I've changed corridor lengths (don't recommend!) and my reading power moved up 2-3 mm. Still unusable, IMHO, for work.
Don't know. I've stuck with RORX for years for this reason.
I will say, the X is the best I've seen for peripheral clarity at distance.
Your thoughts, please.
Can anyone say these lenses are really superior to free-forms?
The idea is interesting, but we don't do business with Essilor.
Are they really the "best", or has anyone found something else that's clearly as good, or better?
What is your definition of free-form?
Yes, quite seriously. Oh wait, damn, I bet I missed the memo where the optical community came to a consensus decision on terms to describe lenses. Could you forward me that memo please? I'd also like a cover sheet on your TPS reports from now on, as well. As far as I knew we were just kind of throwing out whatever terms we wanted willy nilly, free form, digital, HD, etc. Don't even get me started on "NO-Glare" lenses.
By my definitions I would say the Varilux X is a free-form design. I think, but am not positive, the S and X series have to be made on special blanks(please correct me if I'm wrong). So maybe they aren't a FBS design, but I would still call them a free-form lens.
D.W. asked if what I would call a free-form lens is superior to a free-from lens. So yes, seriously. Thanks for contributing such a helpful post there, really contributed to the topic.
The industry has done a poor job of "labeling" lens designs and processes. So, because I'm always right, I'm going to now give the final word on progressive lens definitions, right here!
Tradition designs; Molded PAL design on front, round diamond wheeled distance Rx generated on the back.
Free Form; The entire PAL design is fabricated (almost always) on the back surface of a spherical SV blank with CNC equipment.
Digital hybrid; A molded PAL design on the front, ( or require a particular blank with certain front surface pre-molding, aka Camber), back side surfaced using CNC equipment. Some "DH" lenses also have part of the add put on the back surface ( among these are the X and S series, Accolade freedom and certain Hoya designs. ( I'm not as familiar with Zeiss though, I've heard they have some designs done in Germany that are FF on both front and back.)
Digital lens; This is not a design definition, but a processing definition using the CNC process.
Note; If a lens is available in Transitions brand it is not Digitally processed on the front, (but the molds used to cast the front surface design most probably were). If you were to surface the front of any Transition lens, it would remove the Transitions layer. Don't let a rep confuse you if they tell you other wise. They know not what they speak (or are shady at best claiming such.)...
When I see a free-form lens, I think...free-form generator.
Nice wordplay.
Lights dim ever so slightly in cities near server farms for just the smallest fraction of a second. My Magic 8-Ball says "Outlook not so good"
Best regards,
Robert Martellaro
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Interesting. I’ve had no issues with this lens yet. Personally I don’t notice my vision is less clear at all. I’ve sat and compared various progressives side by side and it’s as sharp as any. I just can’t see a difference.
I do notice the intermediate seems higher which makes it my favorite lens for my desktop work computer. Even though the intermediate clarity is better at a higher point in the lens, it doesn’t seem to effect using the distance or get in the way when I use the distance area.
I’m about a -1.50 myope with a diopter of astigmatism and a 2.50 add.
Checking back in, I've mostly had a good experience with these, a few (2) people went back to the Physio W3, both hyperopes with cyl, but mostly people have liked it. One person who didn't like it turned out they needed surgery on their brain, so it wasn't the lens after all. Now they like it a lot.
Yes there is a significant difference. It is truly flat in the reading and really noticeable for Plus Rx's. Truly easy to get use to and I have had -0- non adapts or problems in 3 yrs using it. PJ
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks