Nikon "Online" Lens available, anyone...

**Texas Ranger** · 10-29-2003, 11:43 AM

...tried this lens yet; it looks like the answer to a prayer; ? need some feedback. And btw, who is allowed to post on the "product review" section? not me...

**Pete Hanlin** · 11-05-2003, 10:18 AM

Nikon "On-Line" should be available through any Varilux distributor (or ELoA laboratory). The product comes in two or three digressions (depending upon lens material)... 1.00D, 1.50D, and 2.00D. There is a 1.67 index version (with all three digressions) and a CR-39 version (with only the lower two digressions).

The product is ordered using the NVO Rx and a specified digression. Use the monocular NEAR pd and a fitting height equal to the center of the pupil.

If you need any further info on On-Line (which does seem to be a pretty good intermediate lens), please feel free to email me at phanlin@essilorusa.com.

**Susan Henault** · 11-05-2003, 01:56 PM

I haven't been out in the field with ELOA long, but I can tell you that all of the feedback that I have heard about this product has been very positive.

One note of caution regarding selecting the digression power: as with any other product of this type (such as Sola Access and Shamir Office), the digression MUST be chosen based on the prescribed ADD POWER, and not the NVO power. Contact PETE if you have any questions.

**Texas Ranger** · 11-05-2003, 02:55 PM

Susan, I must have missed something...?? my lens oreder for instructs me to compute the 'reading total power', then select the digression I desire, based on how I will be using the lens. the only reason to bring in the add power would be in computing the total near power, right? I plan on wearing then in the office while dispensing and working in the lab, where the 1.50 digression should be fine, I have a 2.25 add in my panamics, and am about a -5.50...so the bottom of the "online" will be the full width of the lens and a -3.25, while the 1.50 digression will give me a -4.75 on top, right? so, aren't we saying the same thing?

**Susan Henault** · 11-05-2003, 06:34 PM

I am really surprised that the instructions suggest calculating the digression from the NVO ... For example, if a dispenser sends in an Rx - NVO: + 3.00 O.U. and chooses the 1.50 digression -- that seems well and good.

BUT what if that patient's actual Rx is +2.00 distance/+1.00 add? Using the 1.50 digression would actually over minus the patient at the top of the lens -- I know it should be common sense ... but -- it's not out of the realm of possibility.

What say you Pete???

**Texas Ranger** · 11-06-2003, 09:42 AM

Susan, with an rx of +2.00 distance/+1.00 add, they will not be minused in the distance...+2.00(+) +1.00= +3.00. with a 1.50 digression, means the top is a +1.50, over a +3.00....that's why the digression has nothing to do with the 'add'...because the add by it'self is not relavent...

**Susan Henault** · 11-08-2003, 12:32 PM

Tex -- perhaps not in terms of literal power, but the patient would be over minused (under plus) in terms of their actual distance correction. It is the same concept, but how about this?:

NVO Rx submitted to the lab is: -1.00 O.U., with -1.50 digression. The patient's actual prescription is: -2.00/+1.00 add. In this example, the patient would end up with -2.50 at the top, or over corrected (minus) by half a diopter. Hopefully this example makes my point more clearly.

**Texas Ranger** · 11-10-2003, 09:37 AM

Susan, let's be "practical"...sure the +/+ example leaves the patients with a wrong power, relative thetheir "distance Rx, but , what we have here is a computer work station lens...the -2.00/+1.00 add is just an exercise in numbers. in reality, this job would never be ordered, the patient would be taking their glasses off to do a lot of close work at the pc., wouldn't they? so, why would they buy an expensive PC lens...i'm a good "salesman", but not that good...talk to Pete, this is an Essilor lens, so you should be up to speed about how and why your company wants it ordered as a digression from the NV. ??

**Susan Henault** · 11-10-2003, 11:39 AM

Pete, one way or another -- will you please set the record straight on this? THANKS.

**Andrew Weiss** · 04-07-2004, 10:13 PM

I've had mixed results with the Online. 2 jobs came through well, the third didn't. I'd be careful ordering any power over +3.00 in CR39. We ordered a lens with effective spherical +4.00 digression 1.50 and it was far too thick. We ordered the exact same power in a Zeiss RD (CR39, of course) from the same lab and got a nice, thin lens that the patient liked. We've used the RD successfully for years. I plan on trying an Online myself, Essilor gave me a coupon :-) -- my total power is +5.25 with a 1.50 digression. I'm getting the lens in a 1.67, and I'll post my impressions once I've used it.

**mrba** · 04-08-2004, 10:18 AM

Andrew Weiss said:
I've had mixed results with the Online. 2 jobs came through well, the third didn't. I'd be careful ordering any power over +3.00 in CR39. We ordered a lens with effective spherical +4.00 digression 1.50 and it was far too thick. We ordered the exact same power in a Zeiss RD (CR39, of course) from the same lab and got a nice, thin lens that the patient liked. We've used the RD successfully for years. I plan on trying an Online myself, Essilor gave me a coupon :-) -- my total power is +5.25 with a 1.50 digression. I'm getting the lens in a 1.67, and I'll post my impressions once I've used it.

Use shamir office. Specify Near power with the shift you want. (easier to think about it backwards. You won't have any redos.

**Andrew Weiss** · 05-10-2004, 02:13 PM

I've finally received my Nikon Online lenses. For reference, these are 1.67 lenses with Crizal and this is my Rx: R +4.75 -0.50 x090, L +5.25 - 1.00 x 095. Digression is 1.50. Online uses the total reading Rx and then takes off the digression value to determine the outermost focal length of the lens. I've been wearing them for a couple of days, on the computer at the office and at home.

My initial impression is, I'm underwhelmed. I expected to have a more "stable" Rx vertically and horizontally. At best I can hold about 2/3 of the height of a 14" diagonal monitor screen, and about 1/2 of the width. This is not substantially better than my Life 2 progressive! There is also a bowl-shape quality to the images. The farthest clear image is about 4 feet out. I do switch back and forth amongst several different progressives (Rodenstock Life 2 and XS, Zeiss Shorti, Nikon Presio 13) and lens materials (1.6, 1.52, 1.67), so I am used to adapting to different contours and abbe values.

The reading area on the lens, however, is nice and large, better than any standard progressive I've used. Maybe the lens will grow on me as I use it.

As of now, I would not consider this lens an acceptable alternative to a FT28, with computer distance Rx on top and reading in the seg, unless the patient really wants a progressive. The FT has greater image stability in all meridians, and in my experience gives me as great a focal range as the Online does.

How does this compare to the alternatives? I haven't tried some of the older-generation alternatives (Rodenstock Office, Zeiss RD, Shamir), but from what I understand they have an outer focal length of 10 feet. I notice Zeiss' new lens (Business) also has a 4-foot outer focal length, so maybe this is the new trend. If it is, I wonder if it's really useful.

**For-Life** · 05-10-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Weiss

I've finally received my Nikon Online lenses. For reference, these are 1.67 lenses with Crizal and this is my Rx: R +4.75 -0.50 x090, L +5.25 - 1.00 x 095. Digression is 1.50. Online uses the total reading Rx and then takes off the digression value to determine the outermost focal length of the lens. I've been wearing them for a couple of days, on the computer at the office and at home.

My initial impression is, I'm underwhelmed. I expected to have a more "stable" Rx vertically and horizontally. At best I can hold about 2/3 of the height of a 14" diagonal monitor screen, and about 1/2 of the width. This is not substantially better than my Life 2 progressive! There is also a bowl-shape quality to the images. The farthest clear image is about 4 feet out. I do switch back and forth amongst several different progressives (Rodenstock Life 2 and XS, Zeiss Shorti, Nikon Presio 13) and lens materials (1.6, 1.52, 1.67), so I am used to adapting to different contours and abbe values.

The reading area on the lens, however, is nice and large, better than any standard progressive I've used. Maybe the lens will grow on me as I use it.

As of now, I would not consider this lens an acceptable alternative to a FT28, with computer distance Rx on top and reading in the seg, unless the patient really wants a progressive. The FT has greater image stability in all meridians, and in my experience gives me as great a focal range as the Online does.

How does this compare to the alternatives? I haven't tried some of the older-generation alternatives (Rodenstock Office, Zeiss RD, Shamir), but from what I understand they have an outer focal length of 10 feet. I notice Zeiss' new lens (Business) also has a 4-foot outer focal length, so maybe this is the new trend. If it is, I wonder if it's really useful.

Well you do have a higher rx so you will not get the full 8-feet worth of vision; however, I think you would of been better off with the 2 digression, and I am surprised that they have you in the 1.50. I love the Online (and also the Rodenstock Office and Sola Access). They are great lenses. I would say that your main problem is the digression and the higher rx.

Edit - I did some research and found that the new Zeiss business only comes in a 1.00 and 1.50 digression, same as the Access. The Shamir comes in a 0.75, 1.25, and 1.75 same as the Office. A 1.75 would be better than a 1.50 for you, but your best solution would be the Online at 2.00.

**Andrew Weiss** · 05-10-2004, 05:08 PM

Thanks for the comments. It makes a lot of sense to me, except that all the information we got about the Online says that the digressions are only 1.00 and 1.50. Nothing we got from Nikon via our Essilor lab rep showed anything different.

We've been working through Optogenics in Syracuse on this. Is it possible that they aren't getting correct or current information? If the Essilor rep on this board would comment on this, and also on the spec materials they've been giving to dispensers like me that don't even mention a 2.00 digression, I'd greatly appreciate it. Maybe Optogenics will redo it in the 2.00 digression under the same freebie coupon . . .

**For-Life** · 05-10-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Weiss

Thanks for the comments. It makes a lot of sense to me, except that all the information we got about the Online says that the digressions are only 1.00 and 1.50. Nothing we got from Nikon via our Essilor lab rep showed anything different.

We've been working through Optogenics in Syracuse on this. Is it possible that they aren't getting correct or current information? If the Essilor rep on this board would comment on this, and also on the spec materials they've been giving to dispensers like me that don't even mention a 2.00 digression, I'd greatly appreciate it. Maybe Optogenics will redo it in the 2.00 digression under the same freebie coupon . . .

I find that quite strange. See in Canada Nikon and Essilor are treated as competitiors, and the Nikon lenses come with the Nikon coating. It could be that the 2.00 is only available in Canada, but from what I have seen on this board I thought the 2.00 was available in the US also. If it isn't available to you then the Rodenstock Office or Shamir Business will be a little better with their 1.75. See I deal with the Access, Office, and Online because each has their own digressions. The Access works for the lower Rx's, the Online works for the higher (with the mid ones I do Online with AR, Access without just because the way they are priced). For the highest ones I try to use the Office, because the 2.00 is only available in 1.67 and I find that many lenses do not need the thinner lens and it is a waste of money, but in yours a thinner lens would be nice and the 2.00 is better.

**Texas Ranger** · 05-10-2004, 06:23 PM

Andrew, the 2.00 digression is only available in the 1.67 index, but then that what you said you had; have them redo them with a 2.00 digression; btw, you didn't say what add power you wear? did you? I'm at a 2.25 add, so the 1.50 digression leave me about .75 short of my distance rx, which works just fine. The near area is way wider than any pal design. so it's great for me...has just saved my neck...

**Andrew Weiss** · 05-11-2004, 10:24 AM

My add power is like yours, 2.25; my DV is R= +2.50-0.50, L= +3.00-1.00. Should I still head toward the 2.00 digression?

**For-Life** · 05-11-2004, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Weiss

My add power is like yours, 2.25; my DV is R= +2.50-0.50, L= +3.00-1.00. Should I still head toward the 2.00 digression?

Yes. You have to think of it this way. The bottom of the lens would be your total reading power, ie. your +5.25... Your top is that minus the digression. So with a 2.00 you would get a +3.25, but with a 1.50 you get a +3.75. So the 1.50 would bring you back.

**Andrew Weiss** · 05-11-2004, 02:45 PM

Thak you. I'll let you know what happens.

**mike.elmes** · 12-27-2010, 03:42 PM

I know this is a very old thread but it does contain some mis information regarding the PD. According to Nikon Canada's website the distance PD is used Not the near PD.

here's a link: http://www.nikonlenswear.ca/en/tips/..._Online_EN.pdf