problems with Varilux Physio 360
Odysseus
At age 48, I'm a first-time eyeglass wearer. I've managed without
glasses for so long because I'm near-sighted in my left eye, and
far-sighted in my right, and I tend to be monocular because of my
nystagmus. However, there has been a noticeable medium-distance zone
where I don't see clearly in either eye, so my ophthalmologist suggested
that I get eyeglasses with progressive lenses. I'm +.25 in the right
eye, -2 in the left eye, with +2 additional for both eyes, +.5 cyl and
95 axis.
I'm a professor, so I do a lot of reading and work at the computer. I
read (of course, on the Varilux web site) that Varilux Physio 360
lenses, in addition to having a wider usable "corridor" for viewing,
were particularly suited for office work, so I ordered these really
expensive lenses (almost $500 in addition to the frames). It turns out
that while they work really well for distance viewing, I have particular
problems with reading and medium-distance computer work, because the
optical distortion seems particularly evident when working with the
windows displayed on a computer screen: the top of my laptop screen
seems concave instead of flat, perfectly rectangular windows displayed
on the screen lean left and right as I move my head horizontally (which
I have to do in order to see particular text clearly). I'm surprised by
how narrow the area of sharp text is, both on the computer and the
printed page.
My optometrist tells me that I need more time to get adjusted (and she
had the temerity to tell me not to move my head in order to avoid the
distortion, but how can I see otherwise!), but I'm wondering if this is
really true, or whether there might be a progressive lens that would at
least distort right angles less.
Any advice you could offer would be appreciated.
Mark A
news:hms92-1DE23C....@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
What you have experienced is normal for a progressive lens, especially with
a first time user. But the useable reading and intermediate areas are quite
small in a progressive lens (this is simply the nature of the beast). You
will have to move your head, but you will get used to it. This assumes that
you glasses have been fitted properly. Try moving your frames left/right, or
up/down to see if your vision improves. If moving your glasses does improve
your vision, have your frame adjusted or have them do a remake with the
lenses placed more accurately in the frame for your vision. You should be
able to get a remakes for free if they fitted your lenses incorrectly (which
is one reason why they are so expensive).
There are progressives specifically made for office work that have a wider
reading an intermediate area (but only moderately wider). And you cannot use
these for driving (or distance viewing).
BTW, Wal-Mart sells a NikonEyes Progressive which is really the Accolade
Freedom lens, which is Essilor version of the Varilux Physio 360 (Essilor
owns Varilux). Wal-Mart charges less than $400 for 1.67 index lens.
For your relatively mild Rx, I would recommend that stay with a 1.60 index
or below (but not 1.59 polycarb). This will reduce chromatic aberration
compared to a 1.67 lens, and you will encounter slightly less distortion in
many cases.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> What you have experienced is normal for a progressive lens, especially with
> a first time user. But the useable reading and intermediate areas are quite
> small in a progressive lens (this is simply the nature of the beast). You
> will have to move your head, but you will get used to it.
Thanks for writing.
But it's moving my head to read what is on my computer screen that makes
right angles no longer perpendicular, which is really disturbing. I did
expect the side areas to be out of focus, but I didn't expect
geometrical objects to be distorted in this way (very noticeable in
graphic user interfaces).
It seems that the lenses *are* correctly fitted because the distortion
occurs wherever I move my head. Is it normal for there to be tiny
numbers inscribed on the lenses? On one lens they are near the center,
but on the other, near the nose bridge. In the course of careful
examination, I also found a scratch on one lens -- I don't think I could
have caused it (I've only cleaned them once). Not sure what to do!
riserman
For reading and computer work, you may decide to use my solution to the
problem. Use separate glasses. I actually have three pairs. One is for
reading, another for computer work, the third for driving. The result is
I have glasses that work well for their intended use and there is no
distortion or moving my head to bother with. The reading glasses are
carried in my pocket, the computer glasses stay next to the computer,
and the driving glasses stay with the car.
The variable lenses I tried out were just as you described, too many
compromises for me to accept. In my opinion variables are overrated,
although highly profitable for the optometrist.
Stick with simple lenses and you won't go wrong.
Good luck,
Bob
Zetsu
glasses that are already scratched and dented, cause him great
discomfort and worst of all, don't even help him to see, and to add
insult to injury, he was told to 'get used to it, keep your head still
and put up with the distortions, because it's completely normal', and
now he's being told to discard them and get a separate lens for each
individual activity. What kind of a harsh world is this.
Mark A
> Thanks for writing.
>
> But it's moving my head to read what is on my computer screen that makes
> right angles no longer perpendicular, which is really disturbing. I did
> expect the side areas to be out of focus, but I didn't expect
> geometrical objects to be distorted in this way (very noticeable in
> graphic user interfaces).
>
> It seems that the lenses *are* correctly fitted because the distortion
> occurs wherever I move my head. Is it normal for there to be tiny
> numbers inscribed on the lenses? On one lens they are near the center,
> but on the other, near the nose bridge. In the course of careful
> examination, I also found a scratch on one lens -- I don't think I could
> have caused it (I've only cleaned them once). Not sure what to do!
The geometric distortion you see is called "swim" because it is like being
underwater. This is normal for new progressive users and after a few weeks
of continuous use you will "accommodate" and it will not be noticeable
anymore. But make sure you don't go past your 30 day exchange warranty if
you are still not satisfied.
The fitting I talked about is how the lens is placed in the frame. The
optical center of the lens must be placed in a certain spot so that when
your frames are on your face the lenses are in the correct position for the
progressives to work properly in all viewing areas (distance, reading,
intermediate). You cannot tell if the lenses are fitted properly by moving
your head, you must move your frame around to see if your vision improves.
But my guess is that what you have described is normal new progressive user
adaptation problems.
Dan Abel
riserman <rise...@optonline.net> wrote:
I happen to like different glasses for different tasks, but many people
don't. My wife likes to slap her glasses on in the morning and put them
away at bedtime. She is willing to put up with the difficulties, I'm
not. It's just personal preference, as far as I can see.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Zetsu
used to it'. Honestly, it's hard to believe. If someone burns you with
a flame, and holds it there constantly, would you think it's
acceptable to be told to 'get used to it'?
Neil Brooks
I see you're no better with analogies than you are with vision
science.
Big surprise, that.
Zetsu
and glasses are worn, the eyes are under a constant strain. Thiis is
similar to being constantly burned by a flame and enduring it as
though it were 'perfectly normal'.
Odysseus
<dabel-DFCDBC....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> I happen to like different glasses for different tasks, but many people
> don't. My wife likes to slap her glasses on in the morning and put them
> away at bedtime.
I'm a bit like your wife, I guess. I just want to make sure that the
geometric distortion that I'm seeing when looking at the computer screen
is "normal."
--Marc
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The fitting I talked about is how the lens is placed in the frame. The
> optical center of the lens must be placed in a certain spot so that when
> your frames are on your face the lenses are in the correct position for the
> progressives to work properly in all viewing areas (distance, reading,
> intermediate). You cannot tell if the lenses are fitted properly by moving
> your head, you must move your frame around to see if your vision improves.
> But my guess is that what you have described is normal new progressive user
> adaptation problems.
Thanks. What to do about the scratch? And is it normal for numbers to be
inscribed on the lens? (in different places, in my case)
Zetsu
> In article
> <dabel-DFCDBC.09482019052...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
It's not, ask anyone who has 'normal sight'.
Zetsu
> In article <l6iYj.24788$C8.12...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > The fitting I talked about is how the lens is placed in the frame. The
> > optical center of the lens must be placed in a certain spot so that when
> > your frames are on your face the lenses are in the correct position for the
> > progressives to work properly in all viewing areas (distance, reading,
> > intermediate). You cannot tell if the lenses are fitted properly by moving
> > your head, you must move your frame around to see if your vision improves.
> > But my guess is that what you have described is normal new progressive user
> > adaptation problems.
>
> Thanks. What to do about the scratch?
Write a complaint to the boss of the dumbass who made your lenses and
made you pay 500 dollars.
Mark A
> Thanks. What to do about the scratch? And is it normal for numbers to be
> inscribed on the lens? (in different places, in my case)
There is a manufacturer/lens model/lens material symbol etched in the lens
in one place. In another place is the add power. These are in areas of the
lens that do not have usable vision on a progressive lens.
I don't know what to tell you about the scratch. If you feel it is
unacceptable, tell them to remake it.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I don't know what to tell you about the scratch. If you feel it is
> unacceptable, tell them to remake it.
Thanks. Can you explain to me why these lenses are so expensive? It's
all done by computerized machine, isn't it? By the way, I'm pretty sure
that I have polycarbonate lenses, although I don't think the index of
refraction is particularly high. Would I gain by moving to simple
plastic?
Pramesh Rutaji
Nah, it's more like driving your "second" car after learning how to
drive. It's not the same. My daughter hates to drive any other but the
one she is used to. Me, I can sit behind the wheel of most cars and get
going after I've done a quick check as to where all the different
controls have been installed.
I've been reading some of Bates's stuff. He is really some what crazy
and his statements are more along the lines of "testimonials" and not
fact. You can read lots of testimonies about this religion or that
religion or how someone prayed or did a pilgrimage to this or that
shrine, or pored a libation on some alter and their wife was then able
to give birth instead of miscarrying like she did the previous 5 times -
then they thanks their gods/god. It's all a matter of chance and
doesn't mater what god you wasted time and resources on. Bates for
example stated that blinking more often is not a sign of nervousness,
but of good vision habits. Yet, studies on blinking rates as they
relate to emotional excitement, fear, etc., exist to establish that
bates is screwed up. Reading Bates is like looking for loose change in
a pile of shit. He may have had some good ideas but they get lost it
the crap he spread around.
It will take someone who is willing to stick with the scientific method
and who eschews testimonials of any kind to promote any form of natural
vision improvement or improvements of any kind (like using plus lenses).
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297ton...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
Neil Brooks
> Reading Bates is like looking for loose change in
> a pile of shit. He may have had some good ideas but they get lost it
> the crap he spread around.
Damn, that's good!
> It will take someone who is willing to stick with the scientific method
> and who eschews testimonials of any kind to promote any form of natural
> vision improvement or improvements of any kind (like using plus lenses).
Aw.
Otis and Atchoo are going to be deeply hurt.....
Mark A
> Thanks. Can you explain to me why these lenses are so expensive? It's
> all done by computerized machine, isn't it? By the way, I'm pretty sure
> that I have polycarbonate lenses, although I don't think the index of
> refraction is particularly high. Would I gain by moving to simple
> plastic?
The higher the index of refraction, the more chromatic aberration, which is
major cause of distortion in lenses. The only exception is polycarb, which
has the most chromatic aberration of any commonly dispensed lens material
even though at 1.586 index it not nearly the highest index materials (many
lenses these days are 1.67 or higher). Chromatic aberration is measured by
abbe value, the higher the better (the less distortion). Polycarb has an
abbe value of 30. Personally, I never recommend polycarb (although it is a
safety lens). If you need a safety lens, get Trivex (sold as Hoya Phoenix
material and other brands) which has excellent optics and an index of 1.53.
Your lens quality would improve if you went to ANY other material. With your
moderate Rx, 1.60 plastic would fine.
However, new users of progressives will almost always experience adaption
issues and there is a lot distortion in any progressive lens, regardless of
the material. So don't expect miracles.
But since the Varilux Physio 360 available in 1.60 plastic (called Thin and
Lite 1.60), I would invoke your guarantee and have them remade in that
material. I assume you are getting Crizal Alize AR coating with that (a good
durable coating). Make sure that the lens fitting height is correct (the
optical center of the lens is at the correct position on your face for a
good balance of distance and reading areas) on your current pair before
ordering the remake.
As I previously said, one reason the cost of progressives is so high is that
the lens manufacturer usually offers a satisfaction guarantee or a free
remake if something is wrong with the first pair. Remakes are common with
progressives and some people cannot adapt and get refunds. The R&D costs are
fairly high, and the marketing costs are high.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Your lens quality would improve if you went to ANY other material. With your
> moderate Rx, 1.60 plastic would fine.
>
> However, new users of progressives will almost always experience adaption
> issues and there is a lot distortion in any progressive lens, regardless of
> the material. So don't expect miracles.
Right, but plastic won't improve the swim effect, will it? Why would my
optometrist have preferred polycarb? (I don't need a safety lens)
I have to say that my optometrist never really discussed a guarantee,
except that if the progressives didn't work, they would give me
bifocals! But surely Varilux offers some sort of guarantee?
Another simple question: how does one make sure that the lens fitting
height is correct? When I'm reading, my eyes are looking just above the
lower rim of my eyeglasses, so could that be improved somewhat?
Mark A
> Right, but plastic won't improve the swim effect, will it? Why would my
> optometrist have preferred polycarb? (I don't need a safety lens)
>
> I have to say that my optometrist never really discussed a guarantee,
> except that if the progressives didn't work, they would give me
> bifocals! But surely Varilux offers some sort of guarantee?
>
> Another simple question: how does one make sure that the lens fitting
> height is correct? When I'm reading, my eyes are looking just above the
> lower rim of my eyeglasses, so could that be improved somewhat?
Using a lens material with a higher abbe value (less distortion) than
polycarb may slightly or moderately increase your near and intermediate
viewing area. It is more likely to help with a reading area is a net plus
power (sphere plus cylinder).
But the swim affect is normal for all progressives due to the inherent
distortion of caused by the various lens powers ground into the lens that
let you see clearly (albeit in a small area of the lens) at distances from
near to far. However, you will adapt to the swim effect if you wear the
lenses continuously for a few weeks. All progressive newbie's have to go
through this transition period. The important thing is to give it a serious
try for a couple of weeks before your 30 day exchange period has expired.
Many recommend polycarb because it is light and thin, and has a high profit
margin. It is also a safety lens and therefore reduces their liability if
you are engaged in hazardous activities with your lenses (lab work, sports,
etc). If you have drill mount frames, polycarb is sometimes an advantage
because of its high tensile strength. Lastly, most customers are not
knowledgeable enough to complain about polycarb and don't know there are
better options for most people.
Most progressive manufacturers will allow you to switch at no charge from
progressives to another lens type (bifocals, SV, etc) if you cannot adapt.
They will usually do one remake of the progressive if something needs to be
changed, such as the fitting height (where the optical center is mounted in
the frame) or a change in your Rx from your OD. In most cases, switching to
a different lens material qualifies for a free remake. The guarantee to
switch you to bifocals is from Varilux, not your OD.
I realize that fitting height is confusing to a newbie. But just try and
move your frame up or down just a bit to see if your overall vision
improves. If it does, that means the original fitting height is not correct.
This can sometimes be corrected by a frame adjustment so that the frame sits
higher or lower on your face. The thing that is important for fitting height
is to achieve an overall good balance of distance, intermediate, and reading
vision.
The reading area will always be at the bottom. If you have a short frame,
then your reading area will be smaller and you will be reading very near the
bottom edge of the frame. Fashion (a short frame) has its penalties when it
comes to good vision. If you want a taller reading area (and maybe a bit
wider) get a taller frame. The reading area is like the bottom of a hour
glass, slightly wider at the bottom. The actual lens is round and about 75mm
in diameter, before it is cut to your frame.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Using a lens material with a higher abbe value (less distortion) than
> polycarb may slightly or moderately increase your near and intermediate
> viewing area. It is more likely to help with a reading area is a net plus
> power (sphere plus cylinder).
I'm not sure about the sentence, "It is more likely to help with a
reading area is a net plus power (sphere plus cylinder)." My reading is
a +2 with 95 cyl.
> But the swim affect is normal for all progressives due to the inherent
> distortion of caused by the various lens powers ground into the lens that
> let you see clearly (albeit in a small area of the lens) at distances from
> near to far.
I find the swim most noticeable in the medium distance area of the lens.
> Many recommend polycarb because it is light and thin, and has a high profit
> margin.
I didn't pay extra for polycarbonate -- there was basically one fee for
the Varilux Physio 360.
> The reading area will always be at the bottom. If you have a short frame,
> then your reading area will be smaller and you will be reading very near the
> bottom edge of the frame.
I understand that the reading area will be at the bottom. My frames are
of the more rectangular type, but they're not super narrow as I was
aware that they would compromise the near and medium distance somewhat.
Thanks for all your terrific help!
Mark A
> I'm not sure about the sentence, "It is more likely to help with a
> reading area is a net plus power (sphere plus cylinder)." My reading is
> a +2 with 95 cyl.
Your reading area is +2.00 in Addition to what ever the distance power is.
The 95 is not your cylinder power, it is the axis in degrees for the for the
corresponding cylinder measurement.
> I didn't pay extra for polycarbonate -- there was basically one fee for
> the Varilux Physio 360.
If you purchased the Varilux Physio 360 in 1.50 plastic, it would have cost
the OD less money than polycarb (and presumably they would have charged you
less). It is standard practise in the industry to quote the customer a
single fee, and not even get into discussions about various lens index
options (time is money and they don't want to spend time talking to you or
waiting for you to decide).
> I understand that the reading area will be at the bottom. My frames are
> of the more rectangular type, but they're not super narrow as I was
> aware that they would compromise the near and medium distance somewhat.
Narrow is a matter of degree. The taller your frames are, the bigger (and
usually wider) your reading area will be. Just because your frames are not
super narrow, does not mean they are not narrow (short) relative to frames
5-10 years ago.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> But since the Varilux Physio 360 available in 1.60 plastic (called Thin and
> Lite 1.60), I would invoke your guarantee and have them remade in that
> material.
One last question :) : what about UV protection? Will I need to add that
to the 1.60 Thin and Lite?
Mark A
> One last question :) : what about UV protection? Will I need to add that
> to the 1.60 Thin and Lite?
UV protection is built into almost all modern lenses including 1.60 Thin and
Lite. If they want to charge you extra for that, they are ripping you off.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure about the sentence, "It is more likely to help with a
> > reading area is a net plus power (sphere plus cylinder)." My reading is
> > a +2 with 95 cyl.
>
> Your reading area is +2.00 in Addition to what ever the distance power is.
> The 95 is not your cylinder power, it is the axis in degrees for the for the
> corresponding cylinder measurement.
OK, sorry. My ADD value is +2, and CYL is +.50 (distance power is +.25
in the right eye, -2 in the left eye). So would plastic (thin and lite,
or standard 1.50) be likely to reduce chromatic aberration and other
distortions in my case?
What should I do about UV protection?
> Narrow is a matter of degree. The taller your frames are, the bigger (and
> usually wider) your reading area will be. Just because your frames are not
> super narrow, does not mean they are not narrow (short) relative to frames
> 5-10 years ago.
You're right. Of course, I was super-picky about frames and I liked
these frames (OGI 5025 51-18) best.
> You cannot tell if the lenses are fitted properly by moving
> your head, you must move your frame around to see if your vision improves.
When I move the frames horizontally on my nose, vision improves for one
eye but then deteriorates for the other. Moving the glasses vertically
does seem to improve things in terms of moving me more into the
medium/short distance area, but that's to be expected, right?
Finally, is it normal that at about arm's length (26") from my 20"
computer LCD display, only about 10"-11" horizontally is sharp (without
moving my head)?
> As I previously said, one reason the cost of progressives is so high is that
> the lens manufacturer usually offers a satisfaction guarantee or a free
> remake if something is wrong with the first pair.
I'll check with my optometrist, but Varilux wrote me that "The
warranties in place from us are directly to the wholesale laboratories
to whom we sell Varilux lenses. Your warranty would be through the eye
care professional from whom you purchased the lenses."
Pramesh Rutaji
> What should I do about UV protection?
Why would you want UV protection? In terms of evolution, hunter
gatherers spent all day in the sunlight without vision problems and UV
influences some of life's biological functions/cycles. Eliminating what
little UV you might get seems unwise.
MsBrainy via MedKB.com
>
>Why would you want UV protection? In terms of evolution, hunter
>gatherers spent all day in the sunlight without vision problems
How do you know that they had no vision problems?
>and UV
>influences some of life's biological functions/cycles.
Their life expectancy was about 37 years. Unfortunately, there are no
medical records determining their cause of death. Obviously, they died
before they had a chance to get any of the age related diseases or disorders
that our modern day population is subjected to in the second half of humans
lives.
>Eliminating what
>little UV you might get seems unwise.
>
--
MsBrainy
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200805/1
Robert Martellaro
And the correct answer is-
>For reading and computer work, you may decide to use my solution to the
>problem. Use separate glasses. I actually have three pairs. One is for
>reading, another for computer work, the third for driving. The result is
>I have glasses that work well for their intended use and there is no
>distortion or moving my head to bother with. The reading glasses are
>carried in my pocket, the computer glasses stay next to the computer,
>and the driving glasses stay with the car.
>
>The variable lenses I tried out were just as you described, too many
>compromises for me to accept. In my opinion variables are overrated,
>although highly profitable for the optometrist.
>
>Stick with simple lenses and you won't go wrong.
>
>Good luck,
>
>Bob
Fitting a progressive when there is Nystagmus and an anisometropic Rx is asking
for trouble, not to mention that a general purpose progressive would not work
well if the primary use is for looking at a monitor, even under ideal
conditions. In other words, they gave you a lens design that had about the same
chance of success as a hail mary pass in football.
The trapezoid distortion and the poor field of view that you see may be normal,
but can be exaggerated by improper lens positioning. This may diminish or
disappear with time. However, this is the wrong type of lens for this
application, especially if you look at a monitor frequently.
Measure the distance to the monitor and have the doctor Rx a spherical single
vision lens with the vertical optical centers aligned with the center of the
screen. If the screen is more than about 22" away, and there are additional
tasks at 16", then you might have to use a multifocal lens (with lines).
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman
Mark A
> OK, sorry. My ADD value is +2, and CYL is +.50 (distance power is +.25
> in the right eye, -2 in the left eye). So would plastic (thin and lite,
> or standard 1.50) be likely to reduce chromatic aberration and other
> distortions in my case?
Anything is better than polycarb. But it depends somewhat on the person and
the Rx as to whether you can tell the difference (just like any other
product).
> What should I do about UV protection?
I specifically told you it was included in the lens. You definitely need new
glasses.
> When I move the frames horizontally on my nose, vision improves for one
> eye but then deteriorates for the other. Moving the glasses vertically
> does seem to improve things in terms of moving me more into the
> medium/short distance area, but that's to be expected, right?
>
> Finally, is it normal that at about arm's length (26") from my 20"
> computer LCD display, only about 10"-11" horizontally is sharp (without
> moving my head)?
Discuss this with your OD/optician.
> I'll check with my optometrist, but Varilux wrote me that "The
> warranties in place from us are directly to the wholesale laboratories
> to whom we sell Varilux lenses. Your warranty would be through the eye
> care professional from whom you purchased the lenses."
You are asking too many questions about this. The point I was making is that
the OD/optician is not the one who pays out of his own pocket for a single
remake or if you cannot adapt to a progressive. The manufacturer warranties
are offered through the labs (some of which are owned by the manufacturer)
to the retailer. It is not the same kind of warranty that exists when you
call Sony when your Sony TV needs service. I just don't want you to think
that the retailer is paying out of his pocket.
Some large retail chains that buy generic progressive lenses in bulk with
any warranty may incur the risk of remake or failure to adapt themselves.
But that is not the case for small retailers or most name brand products.
The warranty is one reason that progressives are so expensive.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> You definitely need new glasses.
Because my current lenses are polycarb, or for other reasons?
I visited the Varilux site and noticed the Ipseo custom-tailored lenses.
Wouldn't those have the fewest disadvantages of progressives? Are only a
few optometrists equipped to fit those? Shouldn't all computer-cut
progressives be designed to fit an individual's particular habits and
eyesight?
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> But since the Varilux Physio 360 available in 1.60 plastic (called Thin and
> Lite 1.60), I would invoke your guarantee and have them remade in that
> material.
Thin and Lite has an ABBE value of 32, whereas polycarbonate has an ABBE
value of 30. Is the difference really significant? By comparison, Trivex
has an ABBE value of 43-45, but it's not listed under the availability
chart for Varilux Physio lenses on the Varilux web site.
--Marc
Mark A
> Thin and Lite has an ABBE value of 32, whereas polycarbonate has an ABBE
> value of 30. Is the difference really significant? By comparison, Trivex
> has an ABBE value of 43-45, but it's not listed under the availability
> chart for Varilux Physio lenses on the Varilux web site.
>
> --Marc
Thin and Lite 1.67 has an abbe value of 32. Thin and Lite 1.60 has an abbe
value of at least 36 (I think newer versions may be even higher, maybe 42).
Essilor/Varilux uses the same confusing name for both 1.60 and 1.67 because
they treat customers, and even eye care professionals, as if they are
retarded.
Mark A
> Thin and Lite has an ABBE value of 32, whereas polycarbonate has an ABBE
> value of 30. Is the difference really significant? By comparison, Trivex
> has an ABBE value of 43-45, but it's not listed under the availability
> chart for Varilux Physio lenses on the Varilux web site.
>
> --Marc
Hoya uses Trivex under the lens material name of Pheonix. It is available on
the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle progressive lens, which is available in two design
choices:
HOYALUX iD LifeStyle: 18mm minimum fitting height (this will give your a
larger reading area, but is not for very short frames)
HOYALUX iD LifeStyle cd: 14mm minimum fitting height (for short frames)
The HOYALUX iD LifeStyle is an excellent lens design, and of course the
Phoenix material (Trivex) has outstanding optics. Probably priced in same
range as the Varilux Physio 360 (or maybe a bit higher).
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Thin and Lite 1.60 has an abbe
> value of at least 36 (I think newer versions may be even higher, maybe 42).
You're right, it's 41. I just visited the Hoya web site and had a look
at the documentation on the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle. Does it really
"Eliminate the uncomfortable perception of skew distortion and swimming
sensations" or at least significantly reduce them? That would be a HUGE
advantage over the Physio 360. But I wonder whether my optometrist
carries them...
Mark A
> You're right, it's 41. I just visited the Hoya web site and had a look
> at the documentation on the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle. Does it really
> "Eliminate the uncomfortable perception of skew distortion and swimming
> sensations" or at least significantly reduce them? That would be a HUGE
> advantage over the Physio 360. But I wonder whether my optometrist
Don't get caught up in the hype. All progressives have swim for new users.
But almost everyone adapts after a few weeks if the lenses were fitted
properly. Nevertheless, the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex is an excellent
lens (but not cheap).
OD's and independent opticals don't "carry" anything. They order the lenses
from one or more labs, some of which are owned by the lens manufacturer.
Some opticals are lazy (maybe that is a little too harsh), and don't want to
deal with a lot of different labs, and they sometimes get special rewards
for doing a certain level of business with one lens brand. For this reason
they may tend to deal with a limited number of labs and dispense a
particular brand or a limited number of brands. But if your OD really wanted
to open an account with a Hoya lab, he could get the Hoya lenses.
The other option is to take your Rx out the door (your OD is required by
Federal law to give it to you) and call around until you find an optical
that dispenses Hoya. You can also contact the Hoya lab closest to you and
find out what retailers dispense Hoya products near where you live:
http://www.hoyaopticallabs.com/ (select Laboratory Services)
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Don't get caught up in the hype. All progressives have swim for new users.
> But almost everyone adapts after a few weeks if the lenses were fitted
> properly. Nevertheless, the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex is an excellent
> lens (but not cheap).
The question is: is there noticeably less swim in the HOYALUX iD
LifeStyle in Trivex than in the Physio 360?
> OD's and independent opticals don't "carry" anything. They order the lenses
> from one or more labs, some of which are owned by the lens manufacturer.
Right, but they have to have accounts with the various labs. Believe me,
I wish I didn't have to inquire about this stuff, but my optician is
making things *very difficult* for me. I get the impression that no one
has *ever* had a problem with a progressive lens sold by them and that
I'm a huge burden on them.
I'm having to do *everything*. The optician was seemingly unaware of the
problems with polycarbonate, and only after talking to her boss (!) was
willing to change to Thin and Lite, but she has to talk to him again
about whether or not I may change lens manufacturer!
My impression (please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that I would be *even
better* off with the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex. Is that right? I
want as good optical quality as is possible right now, with as wide a
corridor in the middle and lower distance ranges as possible.
> But if your OD really wanted
> to open an account with a Hoya lab, he could get the Hoya lenses.
She has an account (I checked). However, s/he seems hardly familiar with
them.
> The other option is to take your Rx out the door (your OD is required by
> Federal law to give it to you) and call around until you find an optical
> that dispenses Hoya.
The Rx isn't the problem -- the $559 that I've spent on frames & lenses
(after vision plan contribution) is what makes me nervous. I don't think
I'm going to be able to get that back, so I'm stuck dealing with these
people. Unless I'm missing something.
Mark A
> The question is: is there noticeably less swim in the HOYALUX iD
> LifeStyle in Trivex than in the Physio 360?
That is impossible to say. But chances are you will like the Hoya better.
> Right, but they have to have accounts with the various labs. Believe me,
> I wish I didn't have to inquire about this stuff, but my optician is
> making things *very difficult* for me. I get the impression that no one
> has *ever* had a problem with a progressive lens sold by them and that
> I'm a huge burden on them.
>
> I'm having to do *everything*. The optician was seemingly unaware of the
> problems with polycarbonate, and only after talking to her boss (!) was
> willing to change to Thin and Lite, but she has to talk to him again
> about whether or not I may change lens manufacturer!
That is typical of many opticians. Not very knowledgeable and not very well
paid either.
I would not use the term "Thin and Lite" anymore. Use the term "1.60" or
"Thin and Lite 1.60". Varilux/Essilor also has a Thin and Lite 1.67 that is
overkill for your Rx.
> My impression (please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that I would be *even
> better* off with the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex. Is that right? I
> want as good optical quality as is possible right now, with as wide a
> corridor in the middle and lower distance ranges as possible.
I would recommend the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex over the Varilux Physio
360 in polycarb. But a lot depends on how well the frames/lenses are fit,
and not every patient has the same preferences. In your case, since you have
not made a serious attempt as a new progressive wearer to adapt (this
usually takes a few weeks of constant use), you may be expecting miracles.
Remember, the brain is capable of major vision adaptations. The objects we
see are actually displayed on our retina's upside down (just like they are
in a camera), but we adapt to see them right side up. The ability to "see"
clearly takes time and doesn't happen immediately when we pop out of the
womb.
> The Rx isn't the problem -- the $559 that I've spent on frames & lenses
> (after vision plan contribution) is what makes me nervous. I don't think
> I'm going to be able to get that back, so I'm stuck dealing with these
> people. Unless I'm missing something.
It is up to the retailer as to whether you can get a complete refund, or
whether you can only switch to another design/material. You will have to ask
them.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It is up to the retailer as to whether you can get a complete refund, or
> whether you can only switch to another design/material. You will have to ask
> them.
Well, they agreed to a lens material change, but it remains to be seen
whether they agree to a design change. I don't see why they wouldn't --
doesn't Varilux allow a refund instead of allowing just a switch between
their designs?
> In your case, since you have
> not made a serious attempt as a new progressive wearer to adapt (this
> usually takes a few weeks of constant use), you may be expecting miracles.
Should I try to adapt to these Physio 360s longer before switching to
another design/material?
I just received this from someone at Essilor:
"you might also enjoy another Varilux 360 lens design- like Varilux
Comfort 360 or even our Definity lens. Both of those lenses will offer a
wider reading area with less distortion, and the Definity has a wide
intermediate area as well."
My choices might now be:
1) Get Physio 360 in Thin and Lite 1.60 or plastic
2) Try another Varilux design (Definity?)
3) Get HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex
I'm only going to be allowed one change, so where is my best bet?
Thanks again so much for all your help!
Mark A
> Should I try to adapt to these Physio 360s longer before switching to
> another design/material?
>
> I just received this from someone at Essilor:
>
> "you might also enjoy another Varilux 360 lens design- like Varilux
> Comfort 360 or even our Definity lens. Both of those lenses will offer a
> wider reading area with less distortion, and the Definity has a wide
> intermediate area as well."
>
> My choices might now be:
>
> 1) Get Physio 360 in Thin and Lite 1.60 or plastic
> 2) Try another Varilux design (Definity?)
> 3) Get HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex
>
> I'm only going to be allowed one change, so where is my best bet?
>
> Thanks again so much for all your help!
I have heard good things about Definity (not part of Varilux brand AFAIK)
which Essilor bought from Johnson and Johnson. But some people like the
Physio 360. Everyone seems to have their own opinion. But both Physio 360
and Definity are premium lens designs, as is HOYALUX iD LifeStyle.
Personally, I would go with HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex for your Rx. But
I am concerned that you are expecting miracles. As a new progressive user,
there is still going to be swim until you adapt. And the
intermediate/reading areas are still going to be small compared to SV or
bifocals (which of course has no intermediate, but a wide reading and
distance area).
You might be better off with "computer" progressives, which only have near
and intermediate vision (cannot be used for driving). But it is up to you. I
use regular progressives and do a lot of reading and computer work. Over
time, moving my head has become second nature, but it took a little while to
adapt.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> You might be better off with "computer" progressives, which only have near
> and intermediate vision (cannot be used for driving). But it is up to you. I
> use regular progressives and do a lot of reading and computer work. Over
> time, moving my head has become second nature, but it took a little while to
> adapt.
I think I'm going to have to live with the disadvantages of a
one-type-fits-all-situations progressive. Thanks for insisting that I
may be expecting miracles.
Regarding my frames, the Ogi 5025 is only 24 mm in depth. Someone else
wrote me: "The Physio has a minimum fitting height of 17. At this height
it is only sitting 7mm from the top rim of your frame. At it's minimum
ht it will not have a very wide near area. If it is fit at less than 17
mm from the bottom of the frame, the bifocal will be cut off
considerably. If your physio's work well in everyday life, you might
just keep them for non critical tasks. If you go with the Hoya lens get
the iD Lifestyle CD."
I can't keep the physios for cost reasons.
Does it make sense to you that I should get the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle cd
in Trivex?
--Marc
Mark A
> I think I'm going to have to live with the disadvantages of a
> one-type-fits-all-situations progressive. Thanks for insisting that I
> may be expecting miracles.
>
> Regarding my frames, the Ogi 5025 is only 24 mm in depth. Someone else
> wrote me: "The Physio has a minimum fitting height of 17. At this height
> it is only sitting 7mm from the top rim of your frame. At it's minimum
> ht it will not have a very wide near area. If it is fit at less than 17
> mm from the bottom of the frame, the bifocal will be cut off
> considerably. If your physio's work well in everyday life, you might
> just keep them for non critical tasks. If you go with the Hoya lens get
> the iD Lifestyle CD."
>
> I can't keep the physios for cost reasons.
> Does it make sense to you that I should get the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle cd
> in Trivex?
>
> --Marc
Yes, the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle cd is designed for short frames that have a
minimum fitting height of 14mm. The regular HOYALUX iD LifeStyle is designed
for a minimum fitting height of 18mm (and they aren't kidding when then say
"minimum").
I guess you can't change frames now, but as you can surmise, I would have
suggested taller frame. These days, opticians know a lot about fashion, but
little about optics.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Yes, the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle cd is designed for short frames that have a
> minimum fitting height of 14mm. The regular HOYALUX iD LifeStyle is designed
> for a minimum fitting height of 18mm (and they aren't kidding when then say
> "minimum").
>
> I guess you can't change frames now, but as you can surmise, I would have
> suggested taller frame. These days, opticians know a lot about fashion, but
> little about optics.
The frame height problem was actually one that I knew about -- but it
was really hard to find a frame that I liked.
In any case, what will the LifeStyle cd do differently with respect to
the regular LifeStyle? Will that help accommodate the near/medium range
better than the Physio?
--Marc
Mark A
> The frame height problem was actually one that I knew about -- but it
> was really hard to find a frame that I liked.
>
> In any case, what will the LifeStyle cd do differently with respect to
> the regular LifeStyle? Will that help accommodate the near/medium range
> better than the Physio?
>
> --Marc
A lens design that is designed for a short frame will have a shorter (not
necessarily wider) intermediate area, but a taller (and therefore wider)
reading area.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless, the HOYALUX iD LifeStyle in Trivex is an excellent
> lens (but not cheap).
My research suggests that it should be about $45 more wholesale than the
Physio 360. Is that about right? So about $100 more for me?
> A lens design that is designed for a short frame will have a shorter (not
> necessarily wider) intermediate area, but a taller (and therefore wider)
> reading area.
Oy. All these tradeoffs. There isn't going to be anything that is
noticeably WORSE about the Hoyalux ID lifestyle cd than the Physio 360,
is there? I'd be crazy to pay more in that case and endure all this
hassle.
Have a good weekend!
--Marc
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It is up to the retailer as to whether you can get a complete refund, or
> whether you can only switch to another design/material. Y
But it would be highly anomalous if I could only switch to another lens
material, i.e. if I were forced to stick with the Physio 360, right?
Mark A
> But it would be highly anomalous if I could only switch to another lens
> material, i.e. if I were forced to stick with the Physio 360, right?
Most retailers will let you switch to another manufacturer (because the
manufacturer, through the lab, will not charge them if the customer is not
satisfied/cannot adapt).
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > But it would be highly anomalous if I could only switch to another lens
> > material, i.e. if I were forced to stick with the Physio 360, right?
>
> Most retailers will let you switch to another manufacturer (because the
> manufacturer, through the lab, will not charge them if the customer is not
> satisfied/cannot adapt).
That's what I hope. I talked to my retailer who isn't that sympathetic
and who admitted that he has a "relationship" with a lab, implying that
it isn't easy for him to change lens manufacturers! And when I mentioned
the Hoya to him, he told me that he doesn't have a lot of experience
with it but that he had a "friend" who isn't happy with it. Oy. And last
but not least, he told me that he mainly sells polycarbonate lenses and
gets nary a complaint.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> But since the Varilux Physio 360 available in 1.60 plastic (called Thin and
> Lite 1.60), I would invoke your guarantee and have them remade in that
> material. I assume you are getting Crizal Alize AR coating with that (a good
> durable coating).
If my retailer won't switch me to a Hoya, then should I ask him about
the Definity or just stick with the Physio 360 change the lens material?
In this last case, is there something about the Thin and Lite 1.60
(thickness?) that would make it superior to just the 1.50 Index Plastic?
Odysseus
Robert Martellaro <rob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Fitting a progressive when there is Nystagmus and an anisometropic Rx is
> asking
> for trouble, not to mention that a general purpose progressive would not work
> well if the primary use is for looking at a monitor, even under ideal
> conditions. In other words, they gave you a lens design that had about the
> same
> chance of success as a hail mary pass in football.
>
> The trapezoid distortion and the poor field of view that you see may be
> normal,
> but can be exaggerated by improper lens positioning. This may diminish or
> disappear with time. However, this is the wrong type of lens for this
> application, especially if you look at a monitor frequently.
I know that no solution is going to be ideal. I don't want 3 pairs of
glasses (for reading, computer work, and distance). So I'm looking for
the best progressive for someone like me.
Any suggestions?
--Marc
The Real Bev
Yeah, you also need a pair of sunglasses :-)
Well, that's my system. I also have contacts...
I find having to move my head in order to focus the thing I want to see
to be intolerable. If multifocal contacts had worked they would have
been perfect :-(
--
Cheers, Bev
================================================================
"Is there any way I can help without actually getting involved?"
-- Jennifer, WKRP
Mark A
> If my retailer won't switch me to a Hoya, then should I ask him about
> the Definity or just stick with the Physio 360 change the lens material?
> In this last case, is there something about the Thin and Lite 1.60
> (thickness?) that would make it superior to just the 1.50 Index Plastic?
1.60 is thinner (and therefore lighter) than 1.50 plastic. How much depends
on your exact Rx. Obviously, 1.50 has better optics, but both are good.
1.60 is definitely superior optically to polycarb and about the same
thickness/weight.
Mark A
> That's what I hope. I talked to my retailer who isn't that sympathetic
> and who admitted that he has a "relationship" with a lab, implying that
> it isn't easy for him to change lens manufacturers! And when I mentioned
> the Hoya to him, he told me that he doesn't have a lot of experience
> with it but that he had a "friend" who isn't happy with it. Oy. And last
> but not least, he told me that he mainly sells polycarbonate lenses and
> gets nary a complaint.
I would suggest to him that unless he wants to have a relationship with the
District Attorney or the State Board of Optometry, that it would be best if
he had access to more than one lab.
Most people are not very demanding, and even those who are dissatisfied
rarely complain to the OD or optician out of fear, intimidation, or
ignorance.
When I was about 15 years old and very farsighted, I was given eye drops to
relax my eye muscles before the refraction. The glasses I got were so strong
they were unusable (except for starting my sneakers on fire), but the
ophthalmologist/Optician never heard a complaint.
If you go to this forum, you will find that most opticians have had a very
good experience with Hoya. Don't even think about posting, since they don't
allow consumers to post.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/index.php
Mark A
http://www.opticampus.com/cecourse.php?url=progressive_lenses/
Of particular note to new progressive wearers is the section called "Anatomy
of a Progressive Lens." In that section is a diagram that shows the usable
vision area (distance, intermediate, and near) of a typical progressive
lens. Note that the usable area (green or yellow in the diagram) is a
relatively small part of the lens. The purple area is blurry in all
progressive lenses.
Also note that a lens is round when ground to your specific Rx, and when the
lens is cut and put it into a short frame, the useable reading (near) area
is significantly smaller.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Also note that a lens is round when ground to your specific Rx, and when the
> lens is cut and put it into a short frame, the useable reading (near) area
> is significantly smaller.
I'm most worried about the intermediate area, which is the smallest. Did
you read what Robert Martellaro wrote here on 5/20?
"Fitting a progressive when there is Nystagmus and an anisometropic Rx
is asking for trouble, not to mention that a general purpose progressive
would not work well if the primary use is for looking at a monitor, even
under ideal conditions. In other words, they gave you a lens design that
had about the same chance of success as a hail mary pass in football...
this is the wrong type of lens for this application, especially if you
look at a monitor frequently."
He's a bit of a pessimist, isn't he? In any case, the Hoya iD LifeStyle
cd isn't going to be worse in any significant way than the Physio 360 in
my frame, is it?
Mark A
> I'm most worried about the intermediate area, which is the smallest. Did
> you read what Robert Martellaro wrote here on 5/20?
>
> "Fitting a progressive when there is Nystagmus and an anisometropic Rx
> is asking for trouble, not to mention that a general purpose progressive
> would not work well if the primary use is for looking at a monitor, even
> under ideal conditions. In other words, they gave you a lens design that
> had about the same chance of success as a hail mary pass in football...
> this is the wrong type of lens for this application, especially if you
> look at a monitor frequently."
>
> He's a bit of a pessimist, isn't he? In any case, the Hoya iD LifeStyle
> cd isn't going to be worse in any significant way than the Physio 360 in
> my frame, is it?
Robert is one of the best opticians in the country. He is certainly more
qualified than me, especially with regard to your Nystagmus and an
anisometropic Rx.
I very much doubt the Hoya iD Lifestyle would be worse than the Physio 360,
especially if the Physio 360 is polycarb and the Hoya is 1.60 plastic. But
an accurate fitting by a qualified professional is very important with a
progressive lens. If your Optician is determined to prove that the Hoya is
no good, then it might become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I personally wear a Zeiss Individual general purpose progressive with a
fairly strong plus lens (a challenging Rx), and I use it at work with a
computer monitor for almost the entire day. I probably have the monitor a
little closer and lower than most people, which lets me use the reading area
of my lens to view the monitor. I also have a fairly tall frame (about 39mm
high) which gives me a decent reading area.
Even if you eventually decide you need a separate computer lens for work,
you still will probably want a general purpose progressive for the rest of
the time, so I would go ahead and get something.
Odysseus
The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I find having to move my head in order to focus the thing I want to see
> to be intolerable.
It's in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. Moving my head seems a lot
easier than changing eyeglasses to me!
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I very much doubt the Hoya iD Lifestyle would be worse than the Physio 360,
> especially if the Physio 360 is polycarb and the Hoya is 1.60 plastic. But
> an accurate fitting by a qualified professional is very important with a
> progressive lens. If your Optician is determined to prove that the Hoya is
> no good, then it might become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Well, I got him to order the Hoya iD Lifestyle cd in Phoenix (Trivex),
so we'll see. He told me that the Hoyas are actually more like the
Physio than the Physio 360 (implying that I was moving backward in terms
of technology) since only the backside of the Hoya lens is "customized."
I didn't believe him, but checking Hoya's documentation, I see that they
claim a "standardized vertical progression" on the front surface and a
"customized horizontal progression" on the back surface, but in any
case, it's the final results that count, right?
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> If your Optician is determined to prove that the Hoya is
> no good, then it might become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
He agreed to the Hoya. However, I thought that the complete
manufacturing process of the lenses according to my prescription would
take place at the Hoya facility (Dallas?), but today I learned that the
lenses would be shipped from Dallas to my optician's shop and that they
would do the progressive resurfacing (I was told that it would happen
"here," which presumably meant the store in Austin). Is that possible?
If that is the case, how could they do it to Hoya's specifications? I
just want everything to be done right this time (the fitting seemed
better).
--Marc
Mark A
> He agreed to the Hoya. However, I thought that the complete
> manufacturing process of the lenses according to my prescription would
> take place at the Hoya facility (Dallas?), but today I learned that the
> lenses would be shipped from Dallas to my optician's shop and that they
> would do the progressive resurfacing (I was told that it would happen
> "here," which presumably meant the store in Austin). Is that possible?
> If that is the case, how could they do it to Hoya's specifications? I
> just want everything to be done right this time (the fitting seemed
> better).
>
> --Marc
The round lens is made and fully ground to your Rx specifications at the
Hoya Lab (this includes putting a factory AR coating on the lens). The Hoya
Id Lifestyle lens is not resurfaced at your retailer (only lenses made at a
one hour optical shops are done that way, and these are usually less
sophisticated lens designs).
Sometimes, the retailer sends the frame to the lab along with the Rx and
fitting measurements and the lab cuts the round lens to fit and mount into
the frame and has to send the whole thing (frame and lens) back to the
retailer. A small optical shop, such as might be in the office of an
individual Optometrist, will usually have the lab do everything.
In other situations (probably your retailer), the lab will send the finished
round lens made the Rx back to the retailer who then cuts the round lens and
fits the lens into your frame (obviously they have to have special equipment
to do this). It usually depends on whether the retailer has the facilities
to cut and mount the lens themselves (A large optical store probably does).
Again, the fitting height and PD measurements need to be accounted for when
the retailer cuts the lens to fit the frame so the lens is properly
positioned with respect to where your eyes are. The round lens comes with
special erasable marking on them to indicated the fitting height and optical
center of the lens. The frame must be adjusted on your face before these
fitting measurements are taken.
In some cases, there are machines at the retailer which can measure the
inside of the frame where the lenses go, so only the frame measurements are
transmitted to the lab (along with the Rx and fitting measurements), and the
lab produces the lens to your Rx and cuts the lens per the exact frame
dimensions. The cut lens is sent back to the retailer and all the retailer
has to do is to mount the cut lens into the frame.
When I talked about "fitting," and where the retailer can mess this up, I
meant taking the proper measurements of the frame as it sits on your face.
These include fitting height and Pupil Distance (PD) at an absolute minimum,
along with some other measurements such as panto tilt, dihedral angle (face
wrap), etc. The exact number of measurements required (or allowed to be
submitted) depends on the lens design. Since many retailers cut the round
lens and fit it into the frame themselves per the measurements above, that
is one more place where something has to be done correctly by the retailer.
So in answer to your question, just because the lens is completely ground to
your Rx and the AR coating is applied at the Hoya lab does not guarantee
that your progressives will work in an optimal manner in your frames, on
your face, with your eyes. But I don't want to create any paranoia, and I
really have no evidence that your retailer wants to sabotage the Hoya
lenses, so maybe you should ignore what I said about that.
Mark A
news:0E40k.84655$%15.6...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> The round lens is made and fully ground to your Rx specifications at the
> Hoya Lab (this includes putting a factory AR coating on the lens). The
> Hoya Id Lifestyle lens is not resurfaced at your retailer (only lenses
> made at a one hour optical shops are done that way, and these are usually
> less sophisticated lens designs).
Just to clarify, the retailer may polish or otherwise finish the edges of
the lens after it is cut to fit your frame, but they do not "resurface" the
lens, especially in the case of the Hoya Id Lifestyle.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Since many retailers cut the round
> lens and fit it into the frame themselves per the measurements above, that
> is one more place where something has to be done correctly by the retailer.
Do you think I should insist that the lab handle everything, or is that
not my place? As far as the fitting goes, the fitting height and the 2
PD measurements were taken, but I don't think anything else was
(certainly not panto tilt and dehedral angle).
For what it's worth, when I picked up the frames with the Physio 360s,
the lenses still had the erasable markings on them.
I'm not thinking that the retailer wants to sabotage the Hoya lenses --
au contraire, I think they want everything to go right this time so that
they're rid of me -- but I just want to minimize the chances for them to
make a mistake.
Thanks again for all your help with all of this!
--Marc
Mark A
> Do you think I should insist that the lab handle everything, or is that
> not my place?
No, that is not your place. Anyway, there are relatively few mistakes made
in cutting and mounting the lens. Most of the mistakes are in taking the
fitting height and PD measurements.
> As far as the fitting goes, the fitting height and the 2
> PD measurements were taken, but I don't think anything else was
> (certainly not panto tilt and dehedral angle).
It depends on the lens model as to whether they accept those other
measurements. I don't know what measurements that Hoya recommends for that
lens (you can ask Hoya). If your panto and wrap measurements are typical it
is probably OK.
> For what it's worth, when I picked up the frames with the Physio 360s,
> the lenses still had the erasable markings on them.
Not worth anything.
> I'm not thinking that the retailer wants to sabotage the Hoya lenses --
> au contraire, I think they want everything to go right this time so that
> they're rid of me -- but I just want to minimize the chances for them to
> make a mistake.
I can understand that.
Robert Martellaro
Marc,
You snipped my recommendation from the above quote-
>Measure the distance to the monitor and have the doctor Rx a spherical single
>vision lens with the vertical optical centers aligned with the center of the
>screen. If the screen is more than about 22" away, and there are additional
>tasks at 16", then you might have to use a multifocal lens (with lines).
One pair is probably all that is required at this point, considering that you've
been satisfied with the distance and near vision without glasses heretofore.
Ask your doctor or optician to "trial frame" this Rx in front of a large reading
card set at the same distance and height as your monitor. The clarity and field
of view, without posturing, will be substantially improved over what any
progressive lens can provide.
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman
Odysseus
Robert Martellaro <rob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >Measure the distance to the monitor and have the doctor Rx a spherical
> >single
> >vision lens with the vertical optical centers aligned with the center of the
> >screen. If the screen is more than about 22" away, and there are additional
> >tasks at 16", then you might have to use a multifocal lens (with lines).
>
> One pair is probably all that is required at this point, considering that
> you've
> been satisfied with the distance and near vision without glasses heretofore.
I'm 48, and my vision is worsening, alas. It's my impression that my
vision could be improved for a variety of tasks. It's awkward to wear
glasses designed for one specific task.
Zetsu
And you still follow these doctors who prescribe you glasses?
Who do nothing to achieve a cure for you?
Be intelligent, investigate the facts, and you will realize that the
cure has already been discovered a century ago and you can stop your
vision worsening, and get a cure if you are dilligent.
Neil Brooks
Sounds more and more like Rishi....
Pramesh Rutaji
Exactly how again does one keep the eye immortal?
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297ton...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
Mike Tyner
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I would suggest to him that unless he wants to have a relationship with the
> District Attorney or the State Board of Optometry, that it would be best if
> he had access to more than one lab.
Hey Mark,
After waiting for my new Hoyas for 10 days, my optician called me to
let me know that my lenses had arrived, but that he had measured the
power of the right lens and that it didn't correspond to the
prescription. So I have to wait another week and a half! How likely is
it that the Hoya lab could have made a mistake?
Mark A
> Hey Mark,
>
> After waiting for my new Hoyas for 10 days, my optician called me to
> let me know that my lenses had arrived, but that he had measured the
> power of the right lens and that it didn't correspond to the
> prescription. So I have to wait another week and a half! How likely is
> it that the Hoya lab could have made a mistake?
That is hard to say, but my guess is that the optician made the mistake
entering the order. But I don't know for sure.
Odysseus
"Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> That is hard to say, but my guess is that the optician made the mistake
> entering the order. But I don't know for sure.
I picked up my glasses yesterday. And after only a day, it's apparent to
me that while they're not perfect, the Hoya iD Lifestyle cd lenses work
much better in these frames than the Varilux Physio 360s ever did.
Without your help, I would have been stuck. So thanks again!
Mark A
> I picked up my glasses yesterday. And after only a day, it's apparent to
> me that while they're not perfect, the Hoya iD Lifestyle cd lenses work
> much better in these frames than the Varilux Physio 360s ever did.
> Without your help, I would have been stuck. So thanks again!
You are welcome. Glad that it worked out for you. After I a few weeks, I
think things will be looking even better if you wear them all the time.