Review: Seiko 1.67 High Index (MR-10 Resin)

[johnnyoptical]

Product: Seiko 1.67 High Index (MR-10 Resin)
Vendor: Seiko Lenses
Vendor Home Page: http://www.Seikoeyewear.com
Category: Lenses
Reviewer: John Stanley

Ratings:
Quality:
Ease of use:
Client acceptance (if applicable):
Customer service of the manufacturer or distributor:
Value:
Overall:

Review:
Seiko’s MR-10 resin, the 1.67 Aspheric High Index lens, is absolutely wonderful. It easily matches or beats any other high index lens I have ever tried and is stronger than polycarbonate, making it the ideal choice for drill mounts. I have used this lens for medium to high myopic prescriptions and have always been pleased with the results. I have no lab at my location, so I am unfamiliar with the processing side of things, but on the dispensing end I have found my thin lens of choice.

Would you purchase this product or other products from this company based on your experience with this product?
An enthusiastic, yes.

[hcjilson]

compare this lens with the Trivex product?

hj

[johnnyoptical]

Trivex is not nearly as thin and the MR-10 material is just as strong (tensile strength and impact resistance). The only points for Trivex would be a higher abbe value and lower price, which definately have their place.

[hcjilson]

down to a 1.0 center, The best feature by far is the specific gravity of 1.1. They are the most comfortable lenses I've ever worn. +4.25/4.00 on top with a 3 add.
The real test will be a pair I ordered yesterday.
+5.00's with a 7.00 cylOD and 8 OS

I don't envy the lab! but the choice was a 3pc. mounting and poly wouldn't have cut it.I insist that all 3pc's be done in trivex.....It makes the time invested in selling it quite short!:D


I do however question the claim that this Seiko lens is stronger than poly. My lab says not! where did you get that info?

Your review has sparked my interest.
Thanks for doing it.
hj

[johnnyoptical]

My info comes from Seiko. I was told the MR-10 resin is 20% thinner than poly and over 50% stronger. Trivex gets too thick. The rx you mentioned may be incredibly light, but will be thicker than poly, and poly would be thicker than the MR-10. I seem to be in the minority, but I just don't come across many people that tell me they don't care if the lens can be made thinner, they just want light weight. For drill mounts I still go with poly (for those on a budget) and Seiko's 1.67 for those wanting the thinnest lenses. Contact Seiko for yourself. The marketing for this lens has not reached the same people as the Trivex for some reason.

I hope this helps. If you have any trouble finding the answers you want, let me know. I love digging for information.:)

[Diane]

johnnyoptical,

You've sparked my interest for sure. You're right, there doesn't seem to be much information out there on this product. You mentioned that it is more expensive than Trivex, but thinner, also stronger than Poly. I suppose that I need to contact my lab to research it a little more. Do you happen to know the ABBE value? The combination of aspheric and high index could be a great combination. How does the impact resistance match that of Trivex?

Diane

[johnnyoptical]

Diane,
The abbe value is 32, so nothing wonderful there. When I first contacted my lab they were unaware of the difference between Seiko's 1.67 and anyone elses. I had to contact Seiko directly to get enough technical info. The tensile strength is said to far surpass poly and be ideal for drill mounts. The data on their website is a little lacking but I do have a call in to the Seiko rep for this area. The also make this material in Transitions and in two different progressives (including a back side progressive, I haven't gotten my mind around that one yet). The web site is www.seikoeyewear.com . Hope this helps.

[karen]

johnny, Are these 3 pieces you are doing AR coated? It is my understanding that the AR along with a "cushion coat" or something of that nature makes it work on drill jobs as far as tensile strength. There isn't much I miss about Hoya but the 1.71 is one thing I sure do miss so I have been recommending this to my accounts that switched over with me and so far so good. Would love to know if yo are drilling uncoated...

[hcjilson]

a 5/8ths of an inch steel ball bearing dropped 50" onto the surface of a lens.

The drop ball test for Trivex is a steel ball bearing weighing 2.2 Lbs ( Yes folks....if my formerly addled brain has any recollection left....its a KEY!)
dropped 50 inches on to the surface of the lens.

Jury is still out on strength of this product.I've been told by 2 labs its not more impact resistant than poly......but you also have read the answer to that question in this thread. I got to do some more research.

How did you survive during the earthquake?

hj

[johnnyoptical]

I have received some technical specifications regarding the strength of the MR-10 resin. The tensile strength of MR-10 is 15500 psi, Poly is 8500-1000 psi and CR-39 is 4390-5945 psi. This makes MR-10 at least 50% stronger than poly. As far as flexural strength, MR-10 is 24,700 psi and poly is 11,600-13,000 psi. This means the MR-10 is twice as strong as far as bending is concerned. Hopefully this info is helpful. I will try to answer any more questions as they come up and as always, thank you for you support.

[Joann Raytar]

johnnyoptical,

We have been using Seiko 1.67 for awhile now. In you conversations with Seiko, do you know if all Seiko 1.67 is MR-10 Resin or are there two different product lines?

If they are one and the same, I have to agree with you about how well the lens looks and performs.

[bbla]

Lat week I used this lens to grind a +11.25 -1.50 3mm Dec in a 54 eye and the job came out fantastic.
Bill

[johnnyoptical]

The MR-10 resin is the same as Seiko's 1.67. Glad to hear other people are using, many who probably don't even know that both are one in the same. :)

[mrba]

down to a 1.0 center, The best feature by far is the specific gravity of 1.1. They are the most comfortable lenses I've ever worn. +4.25/4.00 on top with a 3 add.
The real test will be a pair I ordered yesterday.
+5.00's with a 7.00 cylOD and 8 OS

I suppose in a plus power index doesn't make the lens appear as thick as a minus. Also note that lenses that are ground to a 1.0 increase distortion big time! I have a Hoya Lab that wont do it to a 1.0, after their initial claims of course.

I do however question the claim that this Seiko lens is stronger than poly. My lab says not! where did you get that info?

Not stronger, but pretty darn close.

[drk]

While we're on the subject, I am under this impression:

Seiko makes MR-6 which is the industry's dominant 1.6 material, and is used for such lenses as Varilux 1.6.

They also make MR-10, which is a 1.67 (as mentioned above) and Essilor uses that as well.

Hoya makes a 1.6 they call Eyas (I believe) which has properties superior to MR-6, and their 1.71 (Teslalid) is very good as well.

The points being that:
1. Not all 1.6's are alike
2. There aren't really that many different types of 1.6, however
3. Seiko must make a lot of money
4. Hoya is a pretty good company
5. Life would be easier if every trade name (Varilux Comfort 1.6) had a generic name attached to it (MR-6), so we could make intelligent decisions.

If anyone knows any fallacy in this, please post!

[drk]

Also:

For hyperopes: flat aspheric curves and specific gravity trump index. That means Spectralite and Trivex. Don't even think about leaving off AR. As a bonus, both materials have superb optics. (Now all we need are some good progressive designs to go in them! Genesis? Percepta? Image? VIP/XL? Take your pick.) (The atoric issue is discussed below.)

For myopes: Index and center thickness. The best balance of index and optics is desireable, since myopes are picky, picky, picky.

For cost, definitely go with Optima's Resolution Poly, since it is aspheric/ATORIC!, 1.2 mm CT. It's better than MR-6. I wear it myself, and it's optically as good as MR-6.

The best high-index lenses probably come from Hoya, but me-no-likey their AR or their lab or their price.

Having said that, for all practical purposes, Seiko's 1.67 is king for all high myopes that have the money.

What I'm starting to wonder, though, is if I shouldn't be recommending Sola's Vizio in 1.66 (Optima's 1.66?) for all high minus patients with cylinder exceeding a diopter. If atoricity is really that big a deal, I might recommend Optima's Resolution poly, even for the hyperopes.

[mrba]

Hoya makes a 1.6 they call Eyas (I believe) which has properties superior to MR-6, and their 1.71 (Teslalid) is very good as well.

drk,
pray tell by which marketing madness bit of over priced information did you come by this information?

flat aspheric curves and specific gravity trump index.

There are those that disagree withthis statement which I have always held as true. I am beginning to question the advantages of asphericity optically, however still prefer the cosmetic advantages.

What I'm starting to wonder, though, is if I shouldn't be recommending Sola's Vizio in 1.66 (Optima's 1.66?) for all high minus patients with cylinder exceeding a diopter. If atoricity is really that big a deal, I might recommend Optima's Resolution poly, even for the hyperopes.

Optima makes a 1.66 they market as atoric. Are you saying this is the same as Visio. Optiboard to Sola... Is visio really atoric optima 1.66?

[Darryl Meister]

Optima makes a 1.66 they market as atoric. Are you saying this is the same as Visio. Optiboard to Sola... Is visio really atoric optima 1.66

ViZio uses a proprietary design developed by SOLA's lens designers. Also, the last I checked, Optima only employed atoric surfaces in the very extremes of its 1.66 prescription range (e.g., over a 4.00 cyl/6.00 sph); you would have to check with Optima to see what the current availability is, though.

Best regards,
Darryl

[drk]

MRBA:

Seriously, I remember that Hoya's 1.6 had a better abbe, and something else, maybe specific gravity. I'd have to look it up.

Darryl has said this, so I believe it, about aspheric lenses and optics: aspheric optics are NOT better than spherical optics. Aspheric design just compensates for the radial astigmatism induced by going flatter, off of the corrected curve design. Aspherics are ALL ABOUT cosmetics, period.

But the kicker is that the asphericity can only correct one meridian in a spherocylinder, leaving the other meridian partially uncompensated for. Atoric optics would correct each one individually. That's been my new optics lesson for the month.

[johnnyoptical]

The data on the strength of this lens over polycarbonate comes directly from Seiko.

[johnnyoptical]

While we're on the subject, I am under this impression:

Seiko makes MR-6 which is the industry's dominant 1.6 material, and is used for such lenses as Varilux 1.6.

They also make MR-10, which is a 1.67 (as mentioned above) and Essilor uses that as well.

Hoya makes a 1.6 they call Eyas (I believe) which has properties superior to MR-6, and their 1.71 (Teslalid) is very good as well.

The points being that:
1. Not all 1.6's are alike
2. There aren't really that many different types of 1.6, however
3. Seiko must make a lot of money
4. Hoya is a pretty good company
5. Life would be easier if every trade name (Varilux Comfort 1.6) had a generic name attached to it (MR-6), so we could make intelligent decisions.

If anyone knows any fallacy in this, please post!

DRK,
Thanks for the info about the MR-10 being used by Essilor. I spoke with my Walman rep and she assured me you were correct. She still recommends Trivex for all drill mounts, until thickness become the overriding issue, then MR-10.

[Darryl Meister]

Seiko makes MR-6 which is the industry's dominant 1.6 material, and is used for such lenses as Varilux 1.6... They also make MR-10, which is a 1.67 (as mentioned above) and Essilor uses that as well.

Just a slight correction... Mitsui Toatsu chemicals makes all of the MR (or Mitsui Resin) resins. Though Seiko (and other manufacturers) have obviously worked closely with them over the years.

Best regards,
Darryl

[Jim Stone]

Seiko 1.67 is too different to compare with Trixex. Is is closer to the 1.70 Hoya. What I have found, putting the products in the same frame, one on the right the other in the left, using a -6.00, is the seiko is actually thinner. Also the Seiko 1.67 is clear and the Hoya has a yellowish tint.(This tint may be due to the UV treatment of some kind, however the UV protection, at least in the lenes I tested, was better in the Seiko. The Proceed progressives, made fron this material, are the least non adapting lenses we manufacturing. This is good because Seiko has no non adapt or refit policy and the labs have to cover that. Overall the Seiko is the best of all. If you want the best ask for Seiko.

[drk]

Darryl, I'm going to serve one up for you.

Please tell us how Finalite is a better 1.6 than MR-6, which it is. How does it compare to the Hoya 1.6?

SolaOne in Finalite should be one nice lens!

[Darryl Meister]

Finalite has a slightly better refracive index (1.600 versus 1.597) than MR-6, a considerably better Abbe value (42 versus 36), and a considerably better density (1.22 g/cc versus 1.34 g/cc).

Best regards,
Darryl