# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  New Comfort?

## DragonLensmanWV

I just got a piece of mail in from Essilor that I'm all excited about!
They tell me I should be excited anyway.:D

They're taking Varilux Comfort lenses to an exciting new place!
In October they'll bring exciting new developments to take Varilux Comfort lens design to new levels of excellence.

Look for their announcement at WE-W.

I can see it now ---- Comfort 360!

----------


## For-Life

I think it is great.

Get rid of the Physio and replace all of Essilors best designs with digital.  The Comfort is one of the most succcessful lenses out there.  Why go to a new design?  Just make the current one better.

Top Class Marketing.  Take successful designs that Opticians want to use, and make them better.  Now the company is listening to its customers.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> They're taking Varilux Comfort lenses to an exciting new place!


Let me be first on the rumor list with:  Varilux Comfort new fitting height of 14mm.  It has undergone the same technics  used to change it from 22 to 18. :bbg:

----------


## HarryChiling

Here's an idea, place an atoric back side on any progressive and call it a 360 or HD or whatever spin you want it.  Now I'll just sit back and wait for the royalties to roll in on such a great idea. :D

----------


## Barry Santini

...fitting Comfort (ol' & org "22") @ 18 is better than fitting many other lenses _which are design for 18_...at 18....

especially if the add is *spot* on..

FWIW

Barry

----------


## MarcE

> They're taking Varilux Comfort lenses to an exciting new place!
> 
> 
> I can see it now ---- Comfort 360!


I don't know if you were guessing, but you are exactly right.  Also just released or soon to be is the Ellipse 360.  Now if they only had Trivex . . . OH, and cut their prices in half then I could jump on board.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

The Ellipse 360 is already out, we've used it a few times, haven't heard the feedback one way or the other yet. My Essilor rep was saying that the Comfort 360 was suposed to be out by the end of Summer (This was August she told us), so it looks like they've pushed it back. As for the lens itself, I was under the assumption that the design itself was staying the same, they'll just be digitally surfacing it.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> I don't know if you were guessing, but you are exactly right.  Also just released or soon to be is the Ellipse 360.  Now if they only had Trivex . . . OH, and cut their prices in half then I could jump on board.



I was just guessing. Maybe Essilor needs to pay me big bucks to do their thinking.:D

My old Essilor rep (haven't heard from her in several years) used to tell me:
1. Europeans were LAUGHING at us for fitting progressives so high, i.e. their minimum fit height, which we all know was thrown out the window. Them there Europeans must laugh pretty loud.:bbg:
2. Essilor will NEVER even consider Trivex, as it's such an inferior material to Airwear.

----------


## hipoptical

> I just got a piece of mail in from Essilor that I'm all excited about!
> They tell me I should be excited anyway.:D
> 
> They're taking Varilux Comfort lenses to an exciting new place!
> In October they'll bring exciting new developments to take Varilux Comfort lens design to new levels of excellence.
> 
> Look for their announcement at WE-W.
> 
> I can see it now ---- Comfort 360!


(yawn) oh boy (yawn) i cannot wait (yawn) i may have peed a little
this is the (yawn) most exciting news ever

----------


## karen

It IS the Comfort 360, how did you guess?

dragon-heard a rumor about Definity maybe in Trivex.....

----------


## Johns

> They're taking Varilux Comfort lenses to an exciting new place!


Hey I took my Comforts to South Dakota this year!  What could be more exciting than that?

As far as the rest of the rumors...



_ZZZZ...ZZZZZ.....ZZZZZ.....ZZZZZ......ZZZZZ....ZZZZZ_

_Wake me up when they lower the prices._

----------


## braheem24

Sell me some blanks and I'll be on the "Varilux is the best" bandwagon.

Last time Varilux rep came to my office and asked what we fit, I said "Flat Tops" I dont think she'll be visiting much.  I offered to sell Varilux if they sold me semi-finished lenses but I guess they're too special for an ordinary person to surface  :Rolleyes: 

and that's the biggest reason why I dont even have an Essilor account.

You can have your lenses :cheers:

----------


## Johns

> Last time Varilux rep came to my office and asked what we fit, I said "Flat Tops"


:D

----------


## obxeyeguy

> I said "Flat Tops"


22 rounds are optically superior.  One out of one opticians in my office can verify that. :Rolleyes:

----------


## braheem24

I fit Flat Top 360s. They're the 4th generation design with a minimum fit of 12mm and a wider reading area then your round segs  :Rolleyes: 



...and to think you call yourself an optician  :hammer:

----------


## obxeyeguy

> I fit Flat Top 360s. They're the 4th generation design with a minimum fit of 12mm and a wider reading area then your round segs


My rounds are all done by Awtech, compensated for tilt and wrap.  I use the old essilor poloroid camera gigi from the 80's, that up till now, has held my lab coat.  Oh, I haven't worn a lab coat since the 80's.
Can't remember the name of the gizmo,  anyone.........

----------


## HarryChiling

> Sell me some blanks and I'll be on the "Varilux is the best" bandwagon.
> 
> Last time Varilux rep came to my office and asked what we fit, I said "Flat Tops" I dont think she'll be visiting much. I offered to sell Varilux if they sold me semi-finished lenses but I guess they're too special for an ordinary person to surface 
> 
> and that's the biggest reason why I dont even have an Essilor account.
> 
> You can have your lenses :cheers:


Your the man, it doesn't make sense to offer a product they don't trust you to fabricate properly, that's a back handed insult.




> I fit Flat Top 360s. They're the 4th generation design with a minimum fit of 12mm and a wider reading area then your round segs 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and to think you call yourself an optician :hammer:


Where do I get these wonderful lenses.  I'm tired of just these regular FT's I need the 360's. :)

----------


## braheem24

> Where do I get these wonderful lenses. I'm tired of just these regular FT's I need the 360's. :)


Sorry bro, you're not special enough.  It's an exclusive product for opticians that swallow lens rep sales pitches hook, line and sinker.

----------


## Fezz

Lets be fair people. I am sure the 14 plus year old Comfort design will be spectacular. Lets face it...if the sales of your newer products blow....why not bring out the old outdated designs and make them "New and Improved"?

----------


## loratz

Now All They Have To Do Is Fill A Specified Base Curve By A Real Person Entering The Job At Essilor.

----------


## nicko

There will be released mid Oct the Definity and Definity Short in Trivex material

----------


## bhess25

the prices for nearly any essilor lenses are outrageous..i work at a one hour lab and we have the natural and ovation...i also work part time at a small office (yep 7 days a week), and we fit the younger "image", not only does the image have one of the softest corridors available, but its also 1/3 the price of of any essilor design thats even close. I love how essilor wants to brag about all of these new designs, and yet keep them out of reach for any private practice to fit. I had a call from an essilor rep the other day and they asked how many times in the last year have i fit an essilor lens, you can imagine his dissapointment when i told him that we use a lens thats just as good if not better than essilors ovation and its sooo much cheaper, he then tried to sell me on their products. did he think we were rich?

----------


## Fezz

> the prices for nearly any essilor lenses are outrageous..i work at a one hour lab and we have the natural and ovation...i also work part time at a small office (yep 7 days a week), and we fit the younger "image", not only does the image have one of the softest corridors available, but its also 1/3 the price of of any essilor design thats even close. I love how essilor wants to brag about all of these new designs, and yet keep them out of reach for any private practice to fit. I had a call from an essilor rep the other day and they asked how many times in the last year have i fit an essilor lens, you can imagine his dissapointment when i told him that we use a lens thats just as good if not better than essilors ovation and its sooo much cheaper, he then tried to sell me on their products. did he think we were rich?


 
Great post!

Welcome to Optiboard!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Well I don't know about everyone else, but I am atleast interested in the Comfort 360. We have a lot of previous comfort wearers who quite like the lens, and I would imagine a lot of other offices are in the same boat. If the pricing is right, it might be a very popular lens. And for those harping about cost, I'd wait untill you see what they're actually going to cost before complaining. When essilor released the Ovation ADS, it was about $6 a lens more than the normal Ovation. If they keep a similar approach to the comfort 360, neither you nor your customers are going to break the bank with it.

----------


## Uncle Fester

The letter we got today reminds us that the Comfort 360 is only sold with Crizal so "Please remember to add the cost from our price list for your choice of Crizal."

In the words of Kevin Bacon in Animal House -*SMACK*- "Thank you sir. May I please have another.":shiner:

----------


## chip anderson

No one seems to have mentioned that Flat tops are optically superior for myopes (base up prism in seg. allowing less eye travel to optical center).
Round tops are optically superior for hyperopes (Base down prims in seg. allowing less eye travel to optical center.
Have we forgotten something as basic as this?

Now in what way is Airwear superior to Trivex/Phoenix?


Chip

----------


## hipoptical

> Well I don't know about everyone else, but I am atleast interested in the Comfort 360. We have a lot of previous comfort wearers who quite like the lens, and I would imagine a lot of other offices are in the same boat. If the pricing is right, it might be a very popular lens. And for those harping about cost, I'd wait untill you see what they're actually going to cost before complaining. When essilor released the Ovation ADS, it was about $6 a lens more than the normal Ovation. If they keep a similar approach to the comfort 360, neither you nor your customers are going to break the bank with it.



I have some REALLY nice computers I would like to sell you for resale to your customers. They have Pentium processors and run Windows for ease of use. I would like $500 each for the towers. I should mention that they are 10 years old technology, but brand new components. (But hey- they were THE BEST back then, and a lot of previous customers "quite like" them. I would imagine that you will, too). And about the cost- they're only a little more than a new '07 tower, so you really won't be breaking the bank. Let me know how many I can build for you- shipping will be included on large quantity orders. :Cool:

----------


## drk

Comfort 360.....

WHY.  Just, why?

----------


## For-Life

> Comfort 360.....
> 
> WHY. Just, why?


Because the Comfort has been a very successful lens.  I think it is the number one or two current most popular PAL.

So they took the lens and made it better.

Much better idea than the Physio, Freedom, Individual and such.  Take a successful design, and make it better.  Why come up with a new design?

----------


## drk

Apparently it's a brand, F.L., not a design.

Riddle me this: when is a "Comfort" not a "Comfort"? When it's modified!

_You,_ sir, are the market for the new lens. 

I'm sure it's going to work quite well, however. Just like the Accolade, Physio, Ovation, Panamic, ad nauseum.

Can we really, really believe that these "tweaks" are more than simple brand-defining marketing hype?  Essilor insults intelligence on the highest order.

If you do, I have a new Acuvue Oasys 8.5/14.1 to add to your fitting set.

----------


## For-Life

Acuvue 2 was a huge improvement of Acuvue 

Thing is, do you believe that the digital surfacing on both sides will improve the lens?  If so, will a good lens even be better?  So if there is a small price increase to this lens for something to even offer clear vision, is it worth it?  Of course.

It is like Crizal.  When Alize first came out, many OBers were down right mad.  "Who cares?  Zeiss has been doing Hydrophobic for years!!!"  "Just Essilor marketing and rebranding."  What they did not know is that the Crizal was always hydrophobic, but is now oliphobic.  Now they get a set of lenses and act like it is nothing.  But they slowly shut their mouths and dispensed them like crazy.  Before it was introduced OB was split down the middle on the best coating between Hoya Hi-Vision, Sola UTMC, Zeiss Carat, Nikon HCC, and Crizal.  Now, it is mostly Crizal.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> If you do, I have a new Acuvue Oasys 8.5/14.1 to add to your fitting set.


Was it made using digital technology?

----------


## MarcE

> Well I don't know about everyone else, but I am atleast interested in the Comfort 360. We have a lot of previous comfort wearers who quite like the lens, and I would imagine a lot of other offices are in the same boat. If the pricing is right, it might be a very popular lens. And for those harping about cost, I'd wait untill you see what they're actually going to cost before complaining. When essilor released the Ovation ADS, it was about $6 a lens more than the normal Ovation. If they keep a similar approach to the comfort 360, neither you nor your customers are going to break the bank with it.


If you are fitting the Ovation ADS (Accolade in US, I believe), you are already fitting a superior lens to the Comfort 360; if this new Comfort is indeed based on the old design.  It will be more expensive than the Physio and equal or maybe a little less expensive than the Physio 360.
No thanks, no way.  I like to give my profit margins to myself and not Essilor.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Because the Comfort has been a very successful lens. I think it is the number one or two current most popular PAL.
> 
> So they took the lens and made it better.
> 
> Much better idea than the Physio, Freedom, Individual and such. Take a successful design, and make it better. Why come up with a new design?


That is because they were one of the first designs ad they offered a guarenteed fit.  You know who else does that, Luxottica they were the first to offer a refund on purchases if you were not happy and they are the number one or number two most popular retailer in the US.  So now I suggest stop wasting your patients time and send them to Lenscrafters since they are the most succesfull.

360 - back of the lens is optimized using free form processing.

I suggested a while back that a lab with this free form processing in house should take and apply aspheric surfaces to the back of every progressive lens desing to compensate for the base to power error present in the various designs.  For instance if a -2.50 Rx belongs on a 4 base lens and you have an Rx that's -3.00 with most blanks you would still put this -3.00 on the 4 base knowing it would introduce a slight error in the periphery of the lens.  Then why couldn't you take and apply a simple aspheric surface to the back side to compensate for this error.  Now lets elaborate a little further lets say that same lens has a -3.00 -2.00 x 045 why not place an atoric back surface on the bakc side to comp the sph and a seperate aspheric value to comp the meridian perpendicular to that with the cyl.  Now call it a 720, 2 x 360, 2 x better.  Then make sure to TM 720, 1080, 1440, 1800, etc. so that noone can say their desing is x times better than yours.

I can't wait for a lab to offer a service similar to this as an add on to the base lens price.  Mark my words it will happen.  I would personaly fit the Image 720o, I heard they are two times better than the leading 360o design. :D

----------


## wasan

:cheers:

----------


## Barry Santini

Comfort is, and has been, the most widely-successful, *traditional* progressive lens design. Although I understand that Essilor had expectations that Panamic would replace it, history has shown that it did not provide the same *special* qualities that enabled Comfort to enjoy such terrific success. After reading many posts here, I believe Comfort's success is due to:

1. A design with a longer- corridor, i.e., 22mm, which inherently allows more optimal management of peripheral aberrations compared with a shorter-corridor (i.e., 18mm), _traditional_ (important!) design.
2. Anecdotally, and through some studies, Comfort has been found to have the _utility_ of an 18mm-height designed progressive (while having been designed for 22mm)
3. Comfort 360 optimizes and extends its good qualities to a greater range of Rxs _within the Rx range recommended for a particular base_ curve (particularly cylinder powers through an atoric, free-form back surface.
4. The free-form back surface applied to Comfort 360 also permits Essilor to *tweak/optimize* the aberrations (particularly mid-corridor and outer-peripheral) inherent in Comfort's original design (somewhat akin to what Definity purports to do with their two-surface optimization).

This lens sounds like a real potential winner on paper. I have three pairs in process now for present Comfort wearers with 1.0D or more astigmatism. I'll let you know what the clients say.

What I would _really_ like to know is how we could use any of the advanced lens-analysis tools we have now to discover or quantify _why_ Comfort has been such a success (in its spherical form) in the first place. Now that would be really useful!

FWIW

Barry

----------


## hipoptical

> Comfort is, and has been, the most widely-successful, *traditional* progressive lens design...
> 
> What I would _really_ like to know is how we could use any of the advanced lens-analysis tools we have now to discover or quantify _why_ Comfort has been such a success (in its spherical form) in the first place. Now that would be really useful!
> 
> FWIW
> 
> Barry


Some of you must know by now that I cannot pass on an opportunity like this one...

1. The Comfort's success is due to marketing a lens that at one time was better than others to "opticians" who were ignorant and consumers who were desperate.
2. The continued success is due to "opticians" who are nothing more than trained monkeys, pushing the proper button for a reward, yet lacking the intelligence or drive to actually learn something about the industry they work in.
3. Lens-analysis tools are not necessary. There are other lenses that are BETTER, but we are in an industry where the "professional" was just yesterday making hamburgers and today is an expert. People refuse to engage their brains for fear that something might actually turn out to be "work". "If I start looking into other lenses, I might actually have to learn something, and that's not what I get paid for. What I do works, so why change?"
There's your answer. Spend more than five minutes trying to speak intelligently to MOST "opticians" and you will see that I am absolutely right in this. Look back at other posts throughout Optiboard, listen to what people say. Laziness and ignorance rule.
(Attn. all readers of this post: If these comments upset you, then YES, I'M TALKING TO YOU. :D )

One more thing: the Panamic doesn't work because it is too technical for the average "optician" to fit properly, and too technical for the average wearer. I posted more information on this some time ago.

----------


## Barry Santini

Gee...I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be insulted by this post...or not.

Feedback?

Barry




> Some of you must know by now that I cannot pass on an opportunity like this one...
> 
> 1. The Comfort's success is due to marketing a lens that at one time was better than others to "opticians" who were ignorant and consumers who were desperate.
> 2. The continued success is due to "opticians" who are nothing more than trained monkeys, pushing the proper button for a reward, yet lacking the intelligence or drive to actually learn something about the industry they work in.
> 3. Lens-analysis tools are not necessary. There are other lenses that are BETTER, but we are in an industry where the "professional" was just yesterday making hamburgers and today is an expert. People refuse to engage their brains for fear that something might actually turn out to be "work". "If I start looking into other lenses, I might actually have to learn something, and that's not what I get paid for. What I do works, so why change?"
> There's your answer. Spend more than five minutes trying to speak intelligently to MOST "opticians" and you will see that I am absolutely right in this. Look back at other posts throughout Optiboard, listen to what people say. Laziness and ignorance rule.
> (Attn. all readers of this post: If these comments upset you, then YES, I'M TALKING TO YOU. :D )
> 
> One more thing: the Panamic doesn't work because it is too technical for the average "optician" to fit properly, and too technical for the average wearer. I posted more information on this some time ago.

----------


## fusion

IMHO there are 3 important considerations for progressive lens evaluations

1. Most important, become familiarized with EVERY piece of information you can about progressive lens geometry, including room distance lenses. Whatver you end up recommending to your patient, your words will have REAL meaning if they know that you fully understand the optics beghind progressive design in general, and specific lens you are recommending to them

2. Listen to you patients. make notes of their feedbacl. Call everyone who you sell a new design to 1 month later and find out what's working and what isn't. You will score PR points galore and learn about what "isn't working" which is what you want to know.

3. Take this info and share it with your rep and the company and get thier response amd use it to form a strategy that either re-inforces your belief in the product or has you looking for alternative.

fusion

----------


## hipoptical

> Gee...I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be insulted by this post...or not.
> 
> Feedback?
> 
> Barry


No insult intended. I do, however, believe that if something stirs you, then you should at least take a look at what it is. My comments are meant to educate or provoke thought. The key to that post is to look at the details: "optician" is not the same as Optician, for instance. What we all have to do is to decide which we want to be. The true professional offers what is best for the patient, the practice, and the overall good of the industry all at the same time- every time. The "optician" does whatever the Evil Empire tells them to do, because they are too stupid and lazy to think. 
You should only be offended if you are an "optician" rather than Optician. If that is the case, then you are insulting yourself more than I ever could.:)

(You should know that I do think the Empire makes SOME good products. I'm not completely against everything they sell. They overstate things and offer partial truths so openly that it has ruined this industry. I don't like that.:angry:)

----------


## Barry Santini

Oh...I get it now...

I didn't realize that being an optician was *case* sensitive!

Jkng...

Barry

_I'll be smarter if you'll be nicer_

----------


## hipoptical

> Oh...I get it now...
> 
> I didn't realize that being an optician was *case* sensitive!
> 
> Jkng...
> 
> Barry
> 
> _I'll be smarter if you'll be nicer_


That's funny! I actually LOL at that.
:cheers:

----------


## Happylady

> One more thing: the Panamic doesn't work because it is too technical for the average "optician" to fit properly, and too technical for the average wearer. I posted more information on this some time ago.


Explain how the Panamic is too technical for the average optician to fit and for the average patient to wear. 

My brother wears the Comfort. He gets his glasses from some place in San Diego and they tried to switch him to the Panamic and he didn't like it. He really is happy with the Comfort.

My first progressive was the Comfort about 8 years ago. I remember being pleasantly surprised how easy and yes, comfortable it was right from the start. Other then a slight adjustment to the floor looking different, I had no adjustment period and loved them from day one. Of course, my add was only a +1.25. I have not tried it with a stronger add.

----------


## MarcE

Since we are all giving our untested opinions.  Here is what I think:  
By design AND by luck, AND by marketing, the Comfort was a grand-slam design.  Even though it is 16+ years old, it was the best design out there until about 7-8 yrs ago.  In the last 3 years, the number of great designs has exploded, and Comfort isn't even in the top 20 any more.  Although it's priced as though it is.  Why?  This is where I agree w/ Hip.  It's priced high, because the market will bear it because many "opticians" and Opticians that fit it haven't looked for anything better or less expensive.  Lazy.

Talk about lazy: I have a guy come in today that wants the "thinnest lenses available".  Another optical shop said that they can't get anything thinner than the 1.60 Compact that he was wearing.  And they couldn't understand how I could do any better.  He bought a 1.70 index progressive from us, even though it cost 2.5x the quote he got on the 160 Compact.  Laziness kills (business, that is).

This is only my untested opinion.  If you liked it and want to see my x-rated opinions, become a member - then you can see the good stuff.:D

----------


## HarryChiling

> By design AND by luck, AND by marketing, the Comfort was a grand-slam design. Even though it is 16+ years old, it was the best design out there until about 7-8 yrs ago. In the last 3 years, the number of great designs has exploded, and Comfort isn't even in the top 20 any more. Although it's priced as though it is. Why? This is where I agree w/ Hip. It's priced high, because the market will bear it because many "opticians" and Opticians that fit it haven't looked for anything better or less expensive. Lazy.


I agree, the original Varilux was the first progressive commercially available (Europe '59) and the first US desing available was the Omnifocal ('61) when the Varilux crossed the sea they took advantage of the slwo adoption of progressives and the non adapt issues by offering their guarenteed fit (from what I understand) this was just smoke and mirrors (good marketing). Sice then it has just been a matter of maintaining the success, but if you think of it they haven't been able to duplicate the Varilus success. Now if we look at the math involved in the creation of a progressive lens you will notcie that their is an infinate number of variations that could exist and they can all be named anything you want as long as you patent it first, but in reality with the processing technology of today we have just abotu eached the theoretical limits of what can be done with a progressive. With every new desing lately I have noticed nothing more than a shift in the aberrations from one spot to another or the reduction in one aberration with an increse in another. With all the variables that could be manipulated and all the different permutations that coudl exist you would think the manufacturers would provide some technical data to differentiate theselves from the flock, but instead:
Widest corridorsLeast amount of swimShortest corridorMost comfortableSharpest visionThis is insulting, widest corridors if you look at the minkiwitz theory you wil come to the conclusion that although a lens may have  the corridors are not going to get significantly better in newer designs. Least amount of swim, this is another way of saying you wouldn't understand what's going on in the periphery of the lens and it's easier to give you a lolipop then to explain it. Most comfortable is subjective and does nobody any good, try telling your patient that the next time they complain, "ma'am those are the most comfortable". Now the reason why I mentioned the Omnifocal and the Varilux being introduced to our market around the early '60s has a significance. Patents last for 20 years and if you look at the '80s their was a number of desings coming out in the '80s when the patents for both these pioneers patents were up, that meant other would have access to fabricating the same or similar desings with one or two variables changed. Once that fad was over the companies actually focused on creating better designs and fast forward untill today and what do you have great designs. Can they get better? It depends do you want the widest corridor, the sharpest vision, or the least amount of swim?:D

(hipoptical thanks for your insight and it did provoke thought)

A few more quick facts on the Varilux design in acceptance trilas Varilux wearers average at 93&#37; adaption, but in satisfaction trials Varilux wearers average at 83% (Young and Borish '94) which means they might be wearing them, but it doesn't necessariy mean they are happy.  In that same study Young and Borish found that isolated offices had lower success rates than the other offices and concluded that "Success is apparently influenced by fitting skills".  It is my opinion that proper fitting and patinet education as to use and expectations is more important than the desing, and my adaption rate is higher than the Varilux's so it would be hard to argue tha especially when I fit only value designs which some would say should equate to higher non-adapts.

----------


## Barry Santini

Comfort (and others) have qualities (yet not openly defined or understood) that facilitate adaptation.  Satisfaction, however, is another issue, and is comprised of:

1. The starting Rx
2. The serendipitous marriage of measurements and client posture
3. The not-well-accepted issue of neural adaptation.

We as opticians tend to focus on #2.  However, my experience indicates that #1 is THE most important issue, and that #3 (aka, "you'll get used to it") is almost equallly important.  If #3 wasn't important, then so many of the fittings we see with non-optimal #1s & #2s would not be *accepted* & and worn as much as they are. Its really all about having the client/eyewear relationship continuing to lie within the client's "sweet spot of satisfaction", IMHO.  I believe we focus far too much on lens design parameters that aren't robust enough at present to be reliable predictors of degree of client satisfaction.

Bottom line for me:  give me a really good refraction (to be defined) and an "older" design,  over a poor refraction with a newer (read: more expensive) anyday.  I personally love how many of my clients have worn Gradal Indiv as their primary pair, but have found Comfort fitted for Suns just fine

B

Barry

----------


## HarryChiling

Their are various trials available that are used as an indicator of what the adaption rate in a lens is:
AcceptanceSatisfactionObjectiveLet's say you have a design that you are going to bring to market, what do you think makes more money for the company. Well lets see, satisfaction means that the patients are going to want a almost perfect lens and the number of non-adapts are going to be higher, why as a business would you want to do that. Now acceptance is where they make their money, if 5 out of 10 patients are satisfied with the lens you would think that the lens is a dog, but if 9 out of 10 patients accept it and move on then you have a winner. I look at it as the good enough test. Objective testign is the type done by Sheddy where the data from the lens is used to come up with a indicator as to which lens might be better.

We already know that Varilux markets and is proud that their lens has a high acceptance rate even though it has a lower satisfaction.

And if you have seen the ads on optiboard "GT2 is desinged for total satisfaction".

The Image lens did very well in objective trials and no doubt brags abotu that in fact our area rep was proud to pull out data he just got from an optometry college "proving" his lens was the best.

There is no one set of trials better than another, I am more interested in Objective trials as the data is more scientific in nature and relies on the design, where as the satisfaction and acceptance is all based on subjective data. Which is why I would liek to see more lens plots available in the saem format for comparison, even though it has no bearing on the satisfacton or acceptance of a design. If I choose a design based on data from the lens that I think matches the patients visual needs better, then I measure the lenses accurately, and I infrom the patient of the performance and what their expectations should be, I find that adaption rates are better.

On a side note, I think it is interesting that some of the ideas from study=ies have been adopted into our industry without many eve knowing where they came from, for instance almost every optician I know will tell the patient to try the lenses for two weeks they'll get used to it.  This is a way of getting the patient to put more merit towards the acceptance value fo the lens rather than the satisfaction value of the lens, so in a way we have been trained to be succesfull with designs that perfomr well in the acceptance trials (example: Varilux) over desings that truly satisfy the patients visual needs.

----------


## Fezz

**Thread Hi-Jack Alert**

Harry,

Have you gotten anywhere with your independent progressive lens study?


**Thread Hi-Jack=Over**

----------


## HarryChiling

> **Thread Hi-Jack Alert**
> 
> Harry,
> 
> Have you gotten anywhere with your independent progressive lens study?
> 
> 
> **Thread Hi-Jack=Over**


Yes, I have obtained about 8 different desings so far, So far the only manufacturer that has decided they can part with their blanks has been Younger with the image, and I have bought a bunch of other blanks which is causeing a bit of a delay (since opticians don't get payed a heck of a lot, I have to buy them here and there and surface onyl wen their isn't work in the office).  I also have Polycore and VE that are supposed to send me their lenses, but like I said in the previous post some of these manufacturers desings are optimized to do better in subjective trials so they don't want to put the objective data out there, even though it wold still be useful.  Instead we get lollipops (widest intermediate zone):D.

----------


## hipoptical

> Explain how the Panamic is too technical for the average optician to fit and for the average patient to wear.


It's basically this...
The Panamic is a very precise lens, meaning that everything has to be in line for the lens to work. The design of the lens was meant to be useful for any type of lifestyle. Because it was so precise in it's placement of viewing zones, any shift would throw off the balance and make viewing difficult. It is a non-forgiving lens. Most modern PALs can be off by 1-3 mm either in seg height or PD, do not require (necessarily) an exact amount or parabolic curve or pantoscopic tilt, and they may sit a little crooked on the face and still be OK. None of that is true with the Panamic. That doesn't mean everyone will suffer when they bump their glasses, the temples get floppy, or the seg height is a bit off. The problem is that the majority will. This could account for some of the discussion regarding adaptation vs. satisfaction. You may adapt quickly to this lens, but you likely will not be satisfied in the long run. (Why do you think there is a Comfort 360 and NOT a Panamic 360?)

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> It's basically this...
> The Panamic is a very precise lens, meaning that everything has to be in line for the lens to work. The design of the lens was meant to be useful for any type of lifestyle. Because it was so precise in it's placement of viewing zones, any shift would throw off the balance and make viewing difficult. It is a non-forgiving lens. Most modern PALs can be off by 1-3 mm either in seg height or PD, do not require (necessarily) an exact amount or parabolic curve or pantoscopic tilt, and they may sit a little crooked on the face and still be OK. None of that is true with the Panamic. That doesn't mean everyone will suffer when they bump their glasses, the temples get floppy, or the seg height is a bit off. The problem is that the majority will. This could account for some of the discussion regarding adaptation vs. satisfaction. You may adapt quickly to this lens, but you likely will not be satisfied in the long run. (Why do you think there is a Comfort 360 and NOT a Panamic 360?)


Wanna bet that's next?:D

----------


## bhess25

i smell a panamic 360 comming....would they be so bold as to skip the 360 and go straight for the panamic 1440?

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> If you are fitting the Ovation ADS (Accolade in US, I believe), you are already fitting a superior lens to the Comfort 360; if this new Comfort is indeed based on the old design.  It will be more expensive than the Physio and equal or maybe a little less expensive than the Physio 360.
> No thanks, no way.  I like to give my profit margins to myself and not Essilor.



You're gonna have to explain that one to me. The Ovation ADS is simply a digitally surfaced Ovation. The comfort 360 will be a digital comfort, plain and simple. The price difference was very small between the Ovation and the ADS... now I'm going to assume there's going to be a bigger price difference between the Comfort and the 360, but they're not going to price it as high as you say, because they still want people to use the physio. Essilor's thing now it to get everyone into a 'digital lens!' ADS being your lower end, Physio 360 being the higher. The comfort is going to land somewhere between them, but I don't think it'll be as high as the Physio. (and yes, I can definatly see them coming out with a Panamic 360, which again will fall between the comfort 360 and the physio 360... even more reason for the comfort 360 to be lower priced.)

----------


## hipoptical

I say there will be no Panamic 360, and the Comfort 360 was brought out because they can't sell enough Physio to justify the cost of the investment in the Definity. Think about it....
If they were selling as many as they would have you believe, then there would be no production room for anything else. They are not buying up tons of new lathes and polishers, they are just trying to make the initial investment work. The older equipment has been cost-justified years ago, so they are trying to now cut the need for production employees by using less labor-intensive equipment. Fewer people handling product usually means fewer mistakes. All this talk about "better for the patient" is really bunk. The real driving force is $$. There is no new business out there, so labs must find a way to steal it from each other. Thus, the old lens comes out, made in a new way, and people assume that it must be better. The "company" knows that the old is more trusted than the new, so they push it, and leave the "new" lenses to "a more upscale wearer who desires only the best". (Which is translated: we have other lenses for people who have lots of dollars, but no sense (cents).) :)
The ONLY reason you will see a Panamic 360 is if The Evil Empire decides to go totally (or mostly) "free-form". It will be a matter of production, and NOT quality or performance. Of course, they will never admit that unless it's strictly "off-the-record".

----------


## For-Life

> You're gonna have to explain that one to me. The Ovation ADS is simply a digitally surfaced Ovation. The comfort 360 will be a digital comfort, plain and simple. The price difference was very small between the Ovation and the ADS... now I'm going to assume there's going to be a bigger price difference between the Comfort and the 360, but they're not going to price it as high as you say, because they still want people to use the physio. Essilor's thing now it to get everyone into a 'digital lens!' ADS being your lower end, Physio 360 being the higher. The comfort is going to land somewhere between them, but I don't think it'll be as high as the Physio. (and yes, I can definatly see them coming out with a Panamic 360, which again will fall between the comfort 360 and the physio 360... even more reason for the comfort 360 to be lower priced.)


I agree.  And what better way to start than having their best selling lens made into 360.

It is a smart move.  Those who want to go high end will use Physio and Ipseo.  Those who want to stay the present course will use their current lens, with the 360 or digital process.

Yes, we will get OBers who will complain, but there will be many more people using these new lenses and being very satisfied with the results.  If Zeiss or Shamir did the same, no one would be complaining.

----------


## Happylady

> It's basically this...
> The Panamic is a very precise lens, meaning that everything has to be in line for the lens to work.


Yes, I have heard this and I find this kind of information very valuable. I have fit quite a few Panamics over the years with very few problems but maybe that is because I am very anal about measuring progressives. I had a pair and they were fine, but they were probably fit correctly.

I can't remember the last time I fit one, though.

----------


## Barry Santini

> I have fit quite a few Panamics over the years with very few problems but maybe that is because I am very anal about measuring progressives.


Gee, I've had only mediocre success with panamic, but excellent acceptance with this lens is _wraps_!

Maybe my clients aren't so *anal* about how well they keep their eyewear in place...

Barry

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> The ONLY reason you will see a Panamic 360 is if The Evil Empire decides to go totally (or mostly) "free-form". It will be a matter of production, and NOT quality or performance. Of course, they will never admit that unless it's strictly "off-the-record".


There's no if about it. They've already decided. They're going to milk it though, releasing the new lenses slowly. They want to say "We're the only ones with a digital lens for everyone!". Motives aside, it's a good buisness model. But if they keep going with the trend and not make new lenses to suppliment, they'll be left behind. They know that as well though.

----------


## For-Life

What is evil about turning the whole product line digital?  To me that is smart business.  Who is at a disadvantage?

----------


## AdmiralKnight

I never said it was evil, it's wonderful business too, not disputing that. The big disadvantage is if they concentrate purely on the "OMG IT'S DIGITAL" part, and forget to make new lenses, a lot of people are going to be stuck in old lenses, instead of newer/better designs. But I don't think they'll do that.

To set the record straight, I have absolutely no problem with Essilor. They're great to us, and I'd never call them evil :)

----------


## For-Life

You have been fair.  I was more referring to the others.

----------


## hipoptical

> You have been fair.  I was more referring to the others.


You refer to me...

I don't call them evil, though, so be fair. I call them The Evil Empire. I only say this because it's true. Anyone who thinks differently has already had a glass of their kool-aid or a labotomy or both. 

:D

----------


## For-Life

> You refer to me...
> 
> I don't call them evil, though, so be fair. I call them The Evil Empire. I only say this because it's true. Anyone who thinks differently has already had a glass of their kool-aid or a labotomy or both. 
> 
> :D


Not directed to one person.  Talking about regular comments from several

----------


## bhess25

that was a failed attempt at starting more trouble...man that doesnt happen often!!!..so whats the 360 designation for?...Theyve tried everything around and only ended up back where they started? sounds like the crap went full circle and they decided to give it some new designation to sell more!!!:D

----------

