Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Limited field of view with digital progressive lenses

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27

    Limited field of view with digital progressive lenses

    A long time customer has been unable to wear the new glasses that I have made for him in 2016. His present glasses from 2012 are now scratched and need replacement.
    The only glasses he can wear were purchased in 2012 and are the original Rodenstock Life XS 1.6 index with a SRCII coating purchased from the discount division (Rx Club) of Essilor Canada, I am assuming that they are pre-digital production since we used the same lens in 2005 also. Rodenstock does not have a presence in Canada anymore.
    In 2016 we attempted to fill an new prescription to no avail, the end result was to duplicate the prescription, base curve, frame wrap, frame panto with the same RX in a Varilux Comfort 3.0 Short in 1.59 Index.
    When discussed last week he said that the field of view with 2016 glasses was very limiting, even in the distance, there was only one small sweet spot for any focal length.
    The advice given from Essilor in 2016 was to use a Varilux X series which was declined due to the cost differential.
    RX OD +6.00 -4.00 X 095 Add 2.00 OS +5.75 -2.25 X 076 Add +2.00
    Any advice would be appreciated!

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter lensmanmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    831
    Please elaborate on field of view issues. 2012 to 2016 means that the add power increased by at least .5D. This alone will change the design.
    Is the near/mid OK? I would venture to guess that this is what your customer is really complaining about.
    with a +6 RX, have you considered the IOT Alpha45 w/Camber? Much more cost effective than the VX.
    I bend light. That is what I do.

  3. #3
    My Brain Hurts jpways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NW PA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    599
    Also, was it a cost consideration to switch the patient from 1.60 to Polycarbonate?

  4. #4
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    7,666
    1. trivex
    2. digital
    3. vertex
    4. eyesize
    5. suck it up, buttercup

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutz View Post
    A long time customer has been unable to wear the new glasses that I have made for him in 2016. His present glasses from 2012 are now scratched and need replacement.
    The only glasses he can wear were purchased in 2012 and are the original Rodenstock Life XS 1.6 index with a SRCII coating purchased from the discount division (Rx Club) of Essilor Canada, I am assuming that they are pre-digital production since we used the same lens in 2005 also. Rodenstock does not have a presence in Canada anymore.
    In 2016 we attempted to fill an new prescription to no avail, the end result was to duplicate the prescription, base curve, frame wrap, frame panto with the same RX in a Varilux Comfort 3.0 Short in 1.59 Index.
    When discussed last week he said that the field of view with 2016 glasses was very limiting, even in the distance, there was only one small sweet spot for any focal length.
    The advice given from Essilor in 2016 was to use a Varilux X series which was declined due to the cost differential.
    RX OD +6.00 -4.00 X 095 Add 2.00 OS +5.75 -2.25 X 076 Add +2.00
    Any advice would be appreciated!
    Give me the complete Rx including frame dimensions, PD ,seg hgt. regular or short, AR: yes, no, photo: yes, no and I ll comp you a pair of our Addvantage plus...excellent distance field.

  6. #6
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27
    The original prescription change OD +6.50 -3.75 X 090 OS +6.50 -2.50 X 081 Add +2.25 was not tolerated so the final redo to eliminate variables was to duplicate the prescription he has been wearing since 2012 including the reading add (+2.00).

  7. #7
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27
    Yes, one I regret now because it introduced another variable.

  8. #8
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27
    Yes, poly was used to reduce the price, regret that now because it introduced another variable.

  9. #9
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by lensmanmd View Post
    Please elaborate on field of view issues. 2012 to 2016 means that the add power increased by at least .5D. This alone will change the design.
    Is the near/mid OK? I would venture to guess that this is what your customer is really complaining about.
    with a +6 RX, have you considered the IOT Alpha45 w/Camber? Much more cost effective than the VX.
    The final redo was to the original prescription with the same add, the only changes were the lens design and the material.

  10. #10
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    738
    You aren't a magician, and if he isn't prepared to pay he can't be prepared to be demanding.

    Someone with such high sphere and cyl power simply requires a high quality pair of lenses.

    If peripheral vision is his prioroty, try a driving varifocal, which tend to have complete clarity across the distance zone, at the expense of a smaller near vision zone.

  11. #11
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gilman View Post
    Give me the complete Rx including frame dimensions, PD ,seg hgt. regular or short, AR: yes, no, photo: yes, no and I ll comp you a pair of our Addvantage plus...excellent distance field.
    That would be wonderful, I'm in Western Canada (Surrey BC) would that work for you? If so I will confirm the frame being used.
    I have another customer with the same problem of very limited field of view so if your lens works on my current problem I will need to set up an account.

  12. #12
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert_S View Post
    You aren't a magician, and if he isn't prepared to pay he can't be prepared to be demanding.

    Someone with such high sphere and cyl power simply requires a high quality pair of lenses.

    If peripheral vision is his prioroty, try a driving varifocal, which tend to have complete clarity across the distance zone, at the expense of a smaller near vision zone.
    I agree about lens quality unfortunately the driving lenses would not work due to near the vision requirements of a dental equipment technician.

  13. #13
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutz View Post
    That would be wonderful, I'm in Western Canada (Surrey BC) would that work for you? If so I will confirm the frame being used.
    I have another customer with the same problem of very limited field of view so if your lens works on my current problem I will need to set up an account.
    Can do. Send all to don@superoptical.com with Company name and address. I'd really be interested if they work.

  14. #14
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,822
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    1. trivex
    2. digital
    3. vertex
    4. eyesize
    5. suck it up, buttercup
    Here's the science behind each of the above.

    1. The increase in chromatic aberration isn't helping.
    2. Total power on the vertical meridian is 8 D, resulting in a flat back curve and a steeper front curve, thicker, with increased magnification. Consider a PAL with a some or all of the add on the front (Definity), complex geometry (Camber), or old school semifinished (New Comfort).
    3. Decreased aberration, increased apparent fields of usable vision.
    4. Smaller results in less magnification.
    5. Neural adaptation.


    Note that this wearer has been using a short corridor PAL, resulting in significantly reduced eye declination during near vision, that they may be associating with better fields of vision.

    Hope this helps,

    Robert Martellaro
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

  15. #15
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Surrey, B.C.
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Here's the science behind each of the above.

    1. The increase in chromatic aberration isn't helping.
    2. Total power on the vertical meridian is 8 D, resulting in a flat back curve and a steeper front curve, thicker, with increased magnification. Consider a PAL with a some or all of the add on the front (Definity), complex geometry (Camber), or old school semifinished (New Comfort).
    3. Decreased aberration, increased apparent fields of usable vision.
    4. Smaller results in less magnification.
    5. Neural adaptation.


    Note that this wearer has been using a short corridor PAL, resulting in significantly reduced eye declination during near vision, that they may be associating with better fields of vision.

    Hope this helps,

    Robert Martellaro
    Thank you for all the details; the Definity is one of my favorite lenses; haven't heard the term Camber before and am not familiar with what supplier in Canada would offer that, the lens that he cannot wear is the only Comfort available here; we will try the offer from Don above first and report back from there.

  16. #16
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutz View Post
    Thank you for all the details; the Definity is one of my favorite lenses; haven't heard the term Camber before and am not familiar with what supplier in Canada would offer that,
    Engineered by Younger, but licensed to independent labs as well.

    http://camberlens.com/merging_comple....aspx?langId=1

    the lens that he cannot wear is the only Comfort available here; we will try the offer from Don above first and report back from there.
    That should've been wearable except for the highly dispersive lens material; many will respond with the symptoms that your client provided. Chromatic aberration is equal to the prism induced off-axis and/or prescribed prism, divided by Abbe value of the lens. More prism with lower Abbe materials results in more color or blur.

    Your chances of success will increase with the use of high Abbe materials, possibly avoiding full backside PALs, and selecting moderate to long corridor PAL designs (due to object displacement from the base up prism and magnification experienced by hyperopes), although the latter will, because of their wearing history, need a thorough explanation of advantages (many) and disadvantages (decreased declination angle at near) before writing the PAL design in concrete.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

  17. #17
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    7,666
    You had me at "science".


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Apparent versus Real Field of View
    By smanners in forum Ophthalmic Optics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-14-2013, 10:48 PM
  2. Lenscrafters' Advanced View Progressive Lenses
    By Sneha Lin in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-08-2012, 12:30 AM
  3. Digital Progressive lenses
    By i care guy in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 05:37 AM
  4. field of view?
    By lee staniforth in forum Ophthalmic Optics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 10:35 AM
  5. Field of view of the eye
    By Barry Santini in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 03:24 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
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment