# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Zeiss vs Varilux

## AutumN

Looking for advice on lens choices.  I've never done Varilux exclusively and have no problem with other manufacturers or private label depending on the situation.  I recently started at a new practice and have been told by the lead optician that they use Zeiss lenses almost exclusively...stating they get "unmatched" pricing.   I am not familiar with Zeiss lenses so I am not sure which Zeiss lens is comparable to say a comfort enhanced or physio. When I ask, this person being a tried and true Varilux/Essilor hater, they tell me that Varilux lenses are crap and to use Zeiss.  When I asked specifically what was comparable to a comfort 2 she told me to use an image!  Now I know Varilux isn't the only big gun out there but they do have decent lenses.  I know the area is full of comforts, comfort enhanced and physios. My concern is shooting from the hip with any ole Zeiss lens is going to end up with a visit to remake city.  So would someone in the know be kind enough to tell me which Zeiss lens = which Varilux lens. What would you advise for a Comfort, Comfort Enhanced, Physio, Physio Drx and Physio Enhanced.  Thanks all.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Looking for advice on lens choices.  I've never done Varilux exclusively and have no problem with other manufacturers or private label depending on the situation. 
> 
> 
> My concern is shooting from the hip with any ole Zeiss lens is going to end up with a visit to remake city.  So would someone in the know be kind enough to tell me which Zeiss lens = which Varilux lens. What would you advise for a Comfort, Comfort Enhanced, Physio, Physio Drx and Physio Enhanced.  Thanks all.
> *



Varilux, by then young ESSEL was the first progressive lens, put on the market in 1958 in Europe. My father had received a pair in 1956 (2 years earlier) and was loving it.

ZEISS has been the most diverse and oldest optical company that has been around forever and is known for optical quality development in all fields possible.

Progressive lenses which originally were marketed as a crutch for people in their early to mid forties, that did not want to show their age by wearing bifocals, and did not mind the actually inferior optical qualities of a clean optical surface.

So Zeiss entered the market with progressive lenses later on. 

These days they can are made by any generic name you want, made by anybody that has the facilities to produce them.

They all have at least a 30% part of distortion on the horizontal sides, but have taken the market to a big part worldwide, by reason as was first stated, and by optical retailers that have an easy selling point.

----------


## AutumN

Yes, I am familiar w/progressive history....been in the biz for over 20 yrs. I just have not personally used them and am only looking for anyone who may b familiar w/their designs.  If a person is already in a v-comfort enhanced, whuch zeiss lens would u use?

----------


## Uncle Fester

An interesting read from a few years ago but it's more Zeiss related than Essilor...

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...g+progressives

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Yes, I am familiar w/progressive history....been in the biz for over 20 yrs. I just have not personally used them and am only looking for anyone who may b familiar w/their designs.  If a person is already in a v-comfort enhanced, whuch zeiss lens would u use?


The Pure with a 17mm corridor or a Z INDV 2N would probably be the closest, in most RXs.

----------


## lensgrinder

> Zeiss lens = which Varilux lens. What would you advise for a Comfort, Comfort Enhanced, Physio, Physio Drx and Physio Enhanced.  Thanks all.


Zeiss Choice - Non compensated traditional style progressive ground on the back surface.  It comes in fixed corridors 13, 15, 17, 19.  These correlate to corridor length.  The 13 has roughly a 9mm corridor, 15 an 11 mm corridor, 17 about a 13 corridor, and the 19 is about 15 mm.
The number is also indicative of the minimum fitting height.

Precision Pure is also a fixed, but it is compensated for average PoW.  It has 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21

Precision Plus and Superb are variable corridor.  The Plus is compensated for average PoW and the Superb allows you to specify PoW.

Individual 2 is a variable and comes in three flavors, I2 Balanced, I2 Near, and I2 Intermediate.  The I2 balanced if for most wearers, the I2N is for individuals who want a wider near, and the I2I is for a wider intermediate.

Comfort, Comfort Enhanced, Physio, Physic Enhanced and DRx would work well in the Choice or Pure lens, but remember that the Pure is compensated where the Comfort and Physio are not unless you use a Fit.  The Plus will work here as well, but it is variable as opposed to fixed.

Your Superb and Individual 2 are aligned with the S fit and 4D.

----------


## AutumN

Excellent, thanks guys

----------


## AngeHamm

> Zeiss Choice - Non compensated traditional style progressive ground on the back surface.  It comes in fixed corridors 13, 15, 17, 19.  These correlate to corridor length.  The 13 has roughly a 9mm corridor, 15 an 11 mm corridor, 17 about a 13 corridor, and the 19 is about 15 mm.
> The number is also indicative of the minimum fitting height.
> 
> Precision Pure is also a fixed, but it is compensated for average PoW.  It has 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21
> 
> Precision Plus and Superb are variable corridor.  The Plus is compensated for average PoW and the Superb allows you to specify PoW.
> 
> Individual 2 is a variable and comes in three flavors, I2 Balanced, I2 Near, and I2 Intermediate.  The I2 balanced if for most wearers, the I2N is for individuals who want a wider near, and the I2I is for a wider intermediate.
> 
> ...


That is a lot of really useful information! Thanks!

----------


## Robert_S

Zeiss progressives have a really wide distance zone, so I would promote them to your clients on that basis (improving their distance vision, especially in the periphery). The Plus, The Superb and the Individual should all out perform a comfort or a physio, just advise them that although better, they are different so adaptation could take a few days.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Adding to the above...

The 2I, although wider in the intermediate than the balanced, has a narrower near and distance zone width. The 2N has a shorter corridor than the balanced, roughly 2mm depending on the add power, and a wider near zone, with no change in the distance zone width.

----------


## lensgrinder

> Adding to the above...
> 
> The 2I, although wider in the intermediate than the balanced, has a narrower near and distance zone width. The 2N has a shorter corridor than the balanced, roughly 2mm depending on the add power, and a wider near zone, with no change in the distance zone width.


You are correct on the narrow near for 2I and narrow intermediate for 2N, however, the Individual distance zones remain the same across all versions.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> You are correct on the narrow near for 2I and narrow intermediate for 2N, however, the Individual distance zones remain the same across all versions.


I got that from my Zeiss rep. He was extremely knowledgeable. Here's a cut and paste from my notes:




> 2I NARROWER NEAR SOME DISTANCE OFF-AXIS INCREASE IN ASTIGMATISM


Pretty much expected because we have to push some cyl well above the 180 to widen the intermediate on any PAL. 

I'm starting another (long overdue) round of personal trials shortly, but I wasn't planning to include the 2I, just the 2N, balanced, Pure 17 and 19, and maybe a few Choices. I'll post the results in about 4 weeks in the pro forum, and include the 2I if I don't run out of resources. Rx is about -4.50 +2.00 x 90 add 2.25 (1 month old).

----------


## lensgrinder

Attached is a contour plot of the Near, Balanced, and Intermediate.  I Put a black horizontal line across all lenses at the same position.  You can see that from the 180 and above there is not change.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Attached is a contour plot of the Near, Balanced, and Intermediate.  I Put a black horizontal line across all lenses at the same position.  You can see that from the 180 and above there is not change.


Thanks. I saw that here, but I had/have my doubts. Pretty neat how they overlaid the sphere map on the cylinder map.

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> Attached is a contour plot of the Near, Balanced, and Intermediate.  I Put a black horizontal line across all lenses at the same position.  You can see that from the 180 and above there is not change.


If you look closer at the nasal side, you will see significant change. Not radical change, but significant.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> If you look closer at the nasal side, you will see significant change. Not radical change, but significant.


That's lower in the lens, one might call it the intermediate periphery. But the maps that Lensgrinder and Zeiss are presenting show no change in the distance periphery. 

It's important to note that the differences in zone widths in the intermediate are 25%, I think. If we use .50 DC to define the zone width, that means a 4mm wide intermediate becomes 5mm. Not a big difference, small enough that they might be able to keep the distance periphery the same as the Balanced design, maybe without narrowing the near zone too much. 

I'll have to try the lens to know for sure.

----------

