# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Zeiss

## tx11

Anyone having difficulty with Individual adaptions issues?

----------


## Barry Santini

large pupil heights are sometimes an issue.

B

----------


## NCspecs

I try not to fit anything too deep- it extends the intermediate corridor too much and I've gotten a complain that a trapazoidal effect can been seen by the wearer. Also, the reading is too far near the bottom of the lens which making reading difficult. I suppose the new Individual 2 is supposed to address these issues.

----------


## Judy Canty

> Anyone having difficulty with Individual adaptions issues?


Any specifics?

----------


## tx11

Our Dr likes to use strictly Zeiss. We have had good success withthe GT23D (and short) But not the individual. We do not use the i-profiler only the i-terminal. Everyone we place in the lower priced GT2 is happy with it but there seems to be adaption issues with the digitals. Does anyone have any tips?

----------


## tx11

> Any specifics?


Its just the "progressive old complaint" of not being able to see eually well at intermediate( Computer) and near (reading). We were hoping that the individual would solve all that,but maybe it doesn't work well without the i-profiler recomputations.

----------


## Judy Canty

I guess I was looking for more information on the kinds of adaptation issues your were finding.  Are there similarities in power, frame size/seg placement, etc.?  Or is it all over the map?

----------


## Judy Canty

While digital fitting systems are more accurate, you should still be able to fit them without it.  Have you investigated the Individual 2?  I am getting some very positive feedback on the various designs.

----------


## tx11

I have not tried the "regular" individual 2 yet. I have tried the I2 I (reading too narrow) and I2 N (Intermediate too narrow) ( kind of reminds me of the days of thye VIP and XL). I think that the next will be an I2. Mostly fitting 17-18mm  seg hts, 175 -250 adds

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Its just the "progressive old complaint" of not being able to see eually well at intermediate( Computer) and near (reading). We were hoping that the individual would solve all that,but maybe it doesn't work well without the i-profiler recomputations.


Optimized lenses do not solve the problems you mentioned. However, you can fine tune the PAL design to increase the near and intermediate function, albeit with a hit on the distance peripheral vision. Zeiss makes this easy by offering three design options, or you can select specific PALs that have fundamental designs that are biased towards near or far utility i.e., distance peripheral vision, corridor length, etc. Here's Zeiss's solution...

http://www.personalizedlens.com/ProfEyeFit.aspx

Our age 40 to age 60 clients are experiencing declining accommodation due to presbyopia. We need to anticipate their loss of near vision, and use lens designs (or mutiple lenses) that provides the best and most comfortable vision for each individual.

----------


## tbyrdman03

We use pretty much only Zeiss products.  We have tried our best to fit the Individual 2 on everyone.  We really haven't had problems with the Indiv. 2 but we were having problems in the past 4-6 months with the GT2 3D.  I believe, from what a Zeiss rep has told us, that the digital mapping on the GT2 3D is forever changing due to its digital nature.  I may be wrong, but I understood it as they are constantly trying to improve it (not that it always works).  We have been fitting the Individual 2, 2I, and 2N with little problems and little adaptation.  With that said, the people that really like the 2I were having issues with the intermediate of their current progressives. I get the impression that these people are more concerned with the intermediate overall.  Also, fit our doc in the 2I and he loves it.  Claims it's the best pal he's tried. I actually fit my own mother in the 2I and it did take her a bit to get used to it.  I think I over estimated the amount she probably uses a computer/tablet.  After about a week she does really like the 2I.  Oddly enough, we have not done many 2N's but we work in a techy area so we have a lot of computer users.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> large pupil heights are sometimes an issue.
> 
> B


I've read that the corridor length can be as long as 16mm. I'm not sure how that's defined, but the corridor length on Individual that I tried 18 months ago was similar to the Physio, and other general purpose designs- too long for my Rx (-4.00 add +2.25) and desires. Fitting height was 20mm. I assume that that was the 16mm corridor, and that the corridor length would cease to increase if the fitting height greater than 20mm!




> I have not tried the "regular" individual 2 yet. I have tried the I2 I (reading too narrow) and I2 N (Intermediate too narrow) ( kind of reminds me of the days of thye VIP and XL). I think that the next will be an I2. Mostly fitting 17-18mm seg hts, 175 -250 adds


Tx11, 

Yeah, you had to get the order right- XL for emerging presbyopes, and then switch them to the VIP. Get it backwards, and you got nausea with the VIP, and very little near vision with e XL!

It sounds like your way ahead of me- I haven't tried the 2N or 2I. I suspect that the 2I would be similar to the Gradal Top, suitable for mostly hyperopes using a lap top on the lap, maybe tablets, but not avid book or newspaper readers. The 2N looks interesting for myopes- they generally won't miss the intermediate, and the avid readers will need the slightly shorter corridor. I wonder if the distance stays the same with these two variants. My guess is yes, considering that only one zone is being significantly modified. 

Regardless, I would think that the standard design would service the needs of the average wearer, and that might be where your running into trouble, by not using the balanced design, if I've read you correctly. Another recommendation is to increase the fitting heights slightly.

----------


## Robert_S

Yes, we've always had trouble with the Individual, for whatever reason. It's interesting that someone mentioned the GT23D design may have changed because we've had a couple of adaptation issues with that as well recently, one being with someone who wore the GT23D already and had only a small Rx change... prior to this we've been very successful with the GT23D

However, I must say that the new progressives from Zeiss (in the UK they are called 'Superb' and 'ProgressivePlus2') have been fantastic; virtually no non-tolerances and impressive wearer responses. And of course the Individual SV is an amazing lens.

----------


## snotbagel

Fitting height issues abound with variable corridor length designs. Choose shorter than the fit suggests and you narrow the intermediate, etc. I prefer to choose my own, based on wearer usage, rx, age. Seiko Perfas allows corridor length choice in all their designs, and Digital Eye labs has some simliar choices.

I am loving the new Shamir Intouch, which by design does away with fitting height issues since the add power comes on faster in all fiiting heights (also avoiding narrow near zones..).

----------


## tx11

I also noticed that the GT23D and Individual2 are coming back from the lab thick. When I asked if they could thin them up a bit I was told that the lab techs could not change any part of the surfacing process because it was free form. Any suggestions? Thanks.

----------


## ThatOneGuy

I fit Individual 2 and gt2 3d all day every day.  Virtually no issues when used "correctly."  High Hyperopes reject Individual, but love individual 2.  Alternatively, GT2 3D works, but doesn't get rave reviews from hyperopes.  Myopes LOVE Individual/2 all day every day.  The only time you should be using 2i or 2n is for "specialty" purposes.  If the person wants general use out of the progressive, use the balance lens.  If they are using them as glorified readers, use 2n or 2i depending on the work they do.  2i and 2n were developed to make lens customization quick and functional for those who feel they need to change an already rockstar lens design.  That being said, I also don't recommend using it over 22ish mm because of the long corridor and reading issues mentioned above.  Also, what lab is doing the work?  I've had issues with labs cutting lenses too big for frames causing flex and unwanted distortion before.  Finally, I find patients don't recognize how great individual 2 is until you point it out to them.  When you challenge them to see how good their distance/reading vision really is, they will suddenly realize what they couldn't see before...

----------


## ThatOneGuy

[QUOTE=Robert Martellaro;440384] The 2N looks interesting for myopes- they generally won't miss the intermediate, and the avid readers will need the slightly shorter corridor. QUOTE]  Your patients wont be missing the intermediate in a 2n...they'll miss their distance.  Think Hoya Mystyle with heavy emphasis on near work.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Your patients wont be missing the intermediate in a 2n...they'll miss their distance.  Think Hoya Mystyle with heavy emphasis on near work.


Both distance and intermediate, according to this...

http://vision.zeiss.com/content/dam/...012FNLAppd.pdf

One could argue that that if all they did with the 2n was to shorten the corridor, the distance periphery could have been kept the same as the balanced profile. That would have been my preference. However, adds over +2.50 will benefit from the increased width, or to put it another way, less or no decrease in width, compared to +2.50's and +2.25's. 

As is typical with PALs, and ophthalmic optics in general, there are going to be compromises and trade-offs, regardless of my desire to have the cake and eat it too!

----------


## smj1285

The individual 2 is what we fit exclusively at our office is a great lens for all.  With the adjustable corridor, it has made fitting even difficult patients pretty painless.  I have run in to trouble when the frame is very deep, in which case the patient has difficulty reaching the reading area. Other than that, this has hands down been the best progressive I have fit.

----------


## EvilBoris

The fact of the matter is the individual 2 should provide the most consistent results for all patients, due to the powers being optimised individually for every patient as opposed to being a result of an average from the fitting parameters typically selected for a progressive.

There is no reason why a patient would tolerate a GT23D or GT23DV or any of Zeiss' other current lenses over the individual, unless you had taken inappropriate measurements.

----------


## ThatOneGuy

To date, individual 2 is performing extremely well, including better with high hyperopes.

----------


## Slim

was told by Zeiss rep to measure 1mm above pupil.    been doing that and its better but may up it to 2mm.  that 7mm drop is nuts..  
fitting right on pupil cause almost a 100% fail and was to the point of swearing them off, but seems to be better now.

----------


## tx11

OVERDUE UPDATE....Raising seg height 1 1/2mm  to 2mm definitely helps. Using the I2 quite a bit now. working better. Still using I2I and I2N sparingly. Thanks for all the suggestions. Also getting better at measuring with the I terminal (definitely have to watch pt. posture)

----------


## Robert_S

> was told by Zeiss rep to measure 1mm above pupil.    been doing that and its better but may up it to 2mm.  that 7mm drop is nuts..  
> fitting right on pupil cause almost a 100% fail and was to the point of swearing them off, but seems to be better now.


do you not think all the patient trials will have been conducted with pupil on centre? The lenses do work when fitted correctly...

----------


## tx11

10 - 12 degree panto also helps quite a bit and is in the fitting guide lines

----------


## Robert_S

The whole point of the individual i thought was to accommodate for variations in frame position. No?

----------


## Slim

> do you not think all the patient trials will have been conducted with pupil on centre? The lenses do work when fitted correctly...


Im not doubting that.

My issue was, that dead on pupil with the 3d and up lenses, which all have that 6mm drop, were causing pt's to look well above level before intermediate kicked in, and also made the reading way to low and struggled to get to it.

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> The whole point of the individual i thought was to accommodate for variations in frame position. No?


The individual will adjust the design to maximize performance of the lens with various frame positions, but there are still better frame positions to shoot for that provide maximum comfort and performance.  Said another way, the frame should still be fit properly to have the best performing lens, but if it is not fit properly, then the individual will squeeze the most performance out of the lens that is possible.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Im not doubting that.
> 
> My issue was, that dead on pupil with the 3d and up lenses, which all have that 6mm drop, were causing pt's to look well above level before intermediate kicked in, and also made the reading way to low and struggled to get to it.


There is no direct relationship between the distance from the fitting point and prism reference point (drop), and the corridor length and/or power rate. Short corridors can have large drops, and long corridors can have zero drop.




> The individual will adjust the design to maximize performance of the lens with various frame positions, but there are still better frame positions to shoot for that provide maximum comfort and performance.  Said another way, the frame should still be fit properly to have the best performing lens, but if it is not fit properly, then the individual will squeeze the most performance out of the lens that is possible.


Good advice. I can get better results with a _budget_ PAL that's placed in a optimally fit frame, compared to the most expensive, optimized lens in a poorly fit frame. 

This is one of many reasons why online eyeglass merchants will only capture a very small percentage of the presbyopic eyeglass market.

----------


## Slim

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

yet again, zeiss lens design is wacked.

pt had a 17mm seg, they ordered a indiv 2 for him, and to read he had to put the frame into view to be able to read. since Z did the whole job there so there should be NO reason to hang most  of the read off the bottom of the frame no?( re dotted lens and was perfectly on his pupil.

Id like to know how the read is positioned when its a variable corridor... I would have thought 100% would be avail not 50%

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Slim,

Are you measuring the fitting point to the bottommost edge of the lens (see diagram below)?

During dispense, is the fitting cross center pupil when the client is sitting and standing?

Are your examples moderate to high myopes?

Are they advanced presbyopes?

Are the RXs from the same doctor?

Less then 1% of my PAL fittings have a height lower than 18mm. It doesn't explain why your clients are lifting their chin to see J1, but it does imply that something unusual is going on here that may be relevant to your problem.

----------


## Slim

I measure from where the lens surface stops, not the bevel.  My edger goes off of that method so its what I have always used.

lemme see if I can find this pt's info... cant remember off hand but Im sure he was a good -2.50 or so.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> I measure from where the lens surface stops, not the bevel.  My edger goes off of that method so its what I have always used.


We should include the bevel in our lens measurements. Usually about .5mm to .75mm. Measure to the bevel apex. Use the boxing system. 

Do not measure from the pupil center to directly below the pupil as discussed in the previous post. If you do (unless the frame is perfecting round with no decentration), the fitting height will be too low.




> lemme see if I can find this pt's info... cant remember off hand but Im sure he was a good -2.50 or so.


Most folks with that distance power will take their eyeglasses off for near tasks and wonder why the reading zone is so small (low and narrow) with their PALs. 

Any other examples?

----------


## Darryl Meister

> OVERDUE UPDATE....Raising seg height 1 1/2mm  to 2mm definitely helps. Using the I2 quite a bit now. working better. Still using I2I and I2N sparingly.


The lenses are designed for fitting at pupil center. If you feel that your patients will need more reading utility than the Individual 2 Balanced design can provide, I'd recommend ordering the Individual 2 Near design, instead of "fudging" the fitting height upward. I should also add that the new Individual 2 also uses a shorter corridor length with more reading utility in most prescriptions than the original Individual lens.




> Said another way, the frame should still be fit properly to have the best performing lens, but if it is not fit properly, then the individual will squeeze the most performance out of the lens that is possible.


Well stated. The optics of the lens design are fine-tuned for the fitted position of the frame, either way, but some frame fitting geometries are still preferable to others. The _optical_ field of view produced by the optimized lens design can still be limited by the _mechanical_ field of view produced by the size and fit of the frame. This is analogous to getting a wider field of view through a keyhole the closer you are to it.

Consequently, a close vertex distance, a bit of face-form wrap, and at least 8 degrees of pantoscopic tilt will ensure a wide mechanical field of view as the eyes rotate to see peripheral and near objects. The optics of the Individual 2 lens design will still be corrected for whatever position you measure, but the wearer can still run out of available lens area more quickly than necessary in a poorly fitting frame.




> pt had a 17mm seg, they ordered a indiv 2 for him, and to read he had to put the frame into view to be able to read...


Keep in mind that, even for a variable-corridor product like Individual 2, the wearer will not have as much near zone area available in shorter fitting heights, below 18 or 19 mm. Although the corridor length is decreased in order to keep a minimum amount of near zone inside the frame, the lens design must still provide sufficient distance and intermediate utility as well.

As the frame becomes smaller and smaller, there is no way to avoid completely the optical compromises associated with the optics of a short-corridor progressive lens, although the design of Individual 2 is adjusted to make maximum use of the available lens area for all three viewing zones as the corridor length becomes shorter. If the wearer prefers more reading vision, however, Individual 2 Near is always an option.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## tx11

Thanks for the info Darryl. Does switching to the Individual 2N narrow the intermediate more than the regular Individual 2?

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Thanks for the info Darryl. Does switching to the Individual 2N narrow the intermediate more than the regular Individual 2


The corridor length of Individual 2 Near will be about 1 mm shorter than Individual 2 Balanced, resulting in a slightly narrower progressive corridor. For "far" mid-range viewing distances, such as a desk top monitor at 60 cm, this will narrow the field of view slightly. For "near" mid-range viewing distances, such as a lap top at 50 cm, the higher near zone may actually widen the field of view slightly, because the wearer is often using the top of the near zone and bottom of the corridor to read.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Mr.Powers

I found out that I'm not a Zeiss "fitter" always had problems whit them rodenstock same problem. I'm Essilor and Shamir man works every time. 
if you don't have a choice. then stay whit the GT2 that lens works well. 
but stay away from Individual, i believe Zeiss have hired SATAN ti Lick them 
before they leave the factory. Don't know what wrong whit them but something is.

best regards
Peter

----------


## Robert_S

The individual has the highest wow factor but the highest rejection rate in my experience.

----------


## EyeCare Rich

I agree with Robert_S, fantastic results with the Individual, and now the Individual 2 lenses.  I have not had a problem with rejection though, less than a 1% non adapt rate. 
 Mr. Powers, I recall seing one of your threads earlier about how you (asking others how they) fit progressives.  If I recall, you fit them very low.  That may be the issue with fitting the Zeiss lenses you seem to have a problem with here in this thread.  Might try fitting per manufacture guidlines???  
Just my 2 cents to add to the discussion.

----------


## Mr.Powers

Nope did it by the book whit my RVT my personal friend was sales rep at that time

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Mr. Powers, I recall seing one of your threads earlier about how you (asking others how they) fit progressives.  If I recall, you fit them very low.  That may be the issue with fitting the Zeiss lenses you seem to have a problem with here in this thread.


Yes, fitting ZEISS progressive lenses "low" (that is, below the recommended guidelines that all lens manufacturers currently use, which is to pupil center) will unnecessarily compromise intermediate and near zone utility by causing the wearer to have to depress his or her eyes more to reach the necessary add power.

While fitting some progressive lenses low may improve wearer satisfaction with the distance zone utility, ZEISS progressive lenses already provide a very large, clear distance zone, so fitting the lenses incorrectly in order to compensate for a poorly conceived optical design is not necessary with ZEISS lenses.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Nope did it by the book whit my RVT my personal friend was sales rep at that time


RVT? Would you mind clarifying the time period are you referring to in your post? ZEISS Individual has improved quite a bit over the years. For that matter, we actually use a slightly different design in North America compared to Europe, with a slightly greater emphasis on near zone utility.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Mr.Powers

4 years ago

----------


## Darryl Meister

> 4 years ago


Your past experiences in Europe with the original ZEISS Individual may not really be indicative of what current users of ZEISS Individual 2 should expect in North America, due to differences between the two designs. In fact, even the European version was improved in meaningful ways with the launch of Individual EyeFit about 3.5 years ago.

I would recommend trying a few pairs of the newest Individual lens in order to see whether you experience better results with your patients. Just keep in mind that the lenses are still designed to fit at pupil center. Also, if you have patients with greater near vision or mid-range demands, remember that there are additional lens design options available now.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Mr.Powers

Still hear the same complaints from Zeiss shops the day to day they like the GT2 but individual is a problem lens. that don't bring anything on the table that GT2 can't.  
My personal opinion it that since backsurface progressive lenses came on the marker, its only technical that the new lenses are better not in real life. 
i like the old shotgun story i think its try) 
Sorry for my bad english  .......... I'm only a Dane

Best Regards
Peter

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Still hear the same complaints from Zeiss shops the day to day they like the GT2 but individual is a problem lens.


The basic "fingerprint" of semi-finished ZEISS GT2 relies upon the same lens design platform as free-form ZEISS Individual, so I would certainly not expect any _more_ issues with ZEISS Individual compared to semi-finished GT2. Individual would simply preserve the intended optics of GT2 for more wearers.

Although the original ZEISS Individual was not quite as successful in North America, probably because the market wasn't quite ready for it, we have actually had a great deal of success with the latest iterations of the product here.

In fact, ZEISS Individual FrameFit won the Optical Laboratory Association's Award of Excellence for Best Lens Design in 2009, which is a fairly prestigious award in the United States for spectacle lenses.




> that don't bring anything on the table that GT2 can't... My personal opinion it that since backsurface progressive lenses came on the marker, its only technical that the new lenses are better not in real life.


I cannot necessarily speak to the results of the Individual lens as used in Europe, but we actually have a great deal of objective evidence in support of the efficacy of Individual lenses in North America:

First, we track the return rate of progressive lens returns through our Rx laboratories. Our semi-finished lenses like ZEISS GT2 typically run at just under 1.5%. However, the last audit I ran of ZEISS Individual returns for the same period was at 0.5%, or less than half as many:


Second, we are the only optical company I am aware of that has actually had a wearer trial of our free-form lenses against standard lenses conducted by an independent university, the School of Optometry at the University of California Berkeley, with the results published in a peer-reviewed journal:
Clinical assessment of a customized free-form progressive add lens spectacle

I have heard only positive feedback from my colleagues in Europe as well.

Nevertheless, I would be happy to try to put someone from our European offices in touch with you, if you would like to discuss with them some of the issues that you've been experiencing and how those issues might be resolved.

Please feel free to message me with your contact details.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Mr.Powers

Not to rude, Darryl 
But you always talk technical , how they work in the real life is another story.

Wenn i was younger i had a friend, that was very in to cars, he dint had i drivers license, 
after many years defending "peugoet" he finally got his drivers license, sad down i one.
he changes his mind, on paper they where the best cars, but wen he started to drive them,feel them..... it felt wrong.
you comments, in this forum often reminds me of his arguments before he got the license. 

Best Regards
Peter

----------


## Darryl Meister

> But you always talk technical , how they work in the real life is another story.


No offense taken, Peter.

While I do frequently speak to the technical aspects of ophthalmic optics, my previous post presents independent data for how the lenses have actually performed in real life, including the results of a large-scale wearer trial, Rx return rates for thousands of lenses, and the overall market acceptance that earned it the Award of Excellence by optical laboratories.

I believe that a large set of objective data representing actual wearers is the most accurate reflection of the real performance of this (or any) lens. I have no doubt, however, that a small number of wearers may prefer other lens designs in some cases, for whatever reason. This is, after all, the main reason that we have so many different progressive lenses to choose from today.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Mr.Powers

"I believe that a large set of objective data representing actual wearers is the most accurate reflection of the real performance of this (or any) lens"

I Rest My case ;-)

----------


## Robert_S

Darryl is right, though, and the sentence you quoted is far from 'technical'.

----------


## Mr.Powers

Nope !! but i see you are en the same end of the distribution "The lab".

I never heard off a GT2 user that was not satisfied whit the lens, and the optometrist gave him a pair of individuals and the problem was gone. the upper set i hears of lots of times.

Zeiss GT2 is a great lens.

best regards
Peter

----------

