# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  I think Zeiss is now in a very good position for a change.

## drk

OK, so now I'm hearing that VSP's effective ban on Essilor products is going to allow only Unity Via (formerly a Zeiss product from what I hear) and Hoya and Zeiss.

So an OD that has sucked at the teat of, say, Shamir is going to find that he's going to get his reimbursements cut.  That would be me.

So I would like to learn more about Zeiss PALs, now.

1. Does anyone have a professional link? Oops, found it: https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/us...ss-lenses.html
2. I hear nothing but wows about Zeiss Individual on this site.  Sold!  
3. What grinders and cost-cutters do Zeiss have?
4. Does anyone talk about Zeiss coatings, anymore?  They used to be killer good.

----------


## drk

Hey, how good/bad is the Zeiss lab in KY?

----------


## grudyfan13

> So an OD that has sucked at the teat of, say, Shamir


Wait, Shamir has teats?  How did I not notice this?!

----------


## azzathejunglist

Hi drk - the past few years i have been dealing exclusive with Zeiss. Please keep in mind that as i am in Australia some of the products we use here might be named differently or slightly different due to worldwide production


1: https://curioz.zeiss.com/pages/exter...lient=fallback

2: Indiv lens is brilliant, the Aspheric S/V lens is same. Office type lenses are very good, just need to know patient requirements before dispensing. Typically i find their Minus work is very good, Plus powers can be restrictive due to power ranges available. If doing stock s/v always add 2mm to what you think needed as blank size as they calculate MSU differently to any lab i have done with previously.

3: They do, but i am just a worker bee and not involved with that so cannot help.

4: DVP and DVP-Blu are really good. Can count ammount of lens crazing on 1 hand in past 3 years. HMC is well, HMC. Nothing new there. Locutec i personally don't like and will not dispense.


Any more questions feel free to ask

----------


## lensgrinder

I work for ZEiSS in the technical education capacity and I will be happy to discuss the differences with you.
I sent you a PM with my contact information.

The *ZEISS SmartLife Portfolio* includes 4 progressives, *Individual, Superb, Plus and Pure*. All are compensated with default PoW. 
Individual, Superb and Plus are variable corridor and the Pure has 3 corridor options. Superb and Individual have customizable PoW. 
Individual has three versions, Balanced, Intermediate and Near. 
Within the SmartLife portfolio you have an anti fatigue lens named Digital Lens where the add range is 0.50-1.25 and two free form SV options(one has customizable PoW and the other has standard PoW). 
The *ZEISS Light Portfolio* includes 3 progressives, *Light V, Light D and Light H*. Light V is a variable corridor and D and H are both fixed. None of these lenses have customizable PoW, but like all ZEISS lenses they are free form.
The *EnergizeMe Portfolio* has one fixed corridor progressive and two anti-fatigue lenses.

Our *PhotoFusion* is our self-tinting, photochromic or whatever you want to call it. The available colors are grey, brown, extra-grey, blue and green.
We offer three AR coatings and one blue coating:
*DuraVision Platinum UV
DuraVision Silver UV
DuraVision Chrome UV
DuraVision BlueProtect UV*(blue coating)

We have a full suite of mirror coatings and flash mirror coatings.

Clearly you would not want to offer all of these lenses.

----------


## drk

Thanks, LG!

First of all a conceptual big-picture question.

I'm guessing "smart life" means
a. it's organized for life stages 
b. "smart" means lots of variables are available?


And
"Light" portfolio is a economy package?


"Energize me" portfolio is basic antifatigue customers?

----------


## Sledzinator

I always thought Unity progressives were IOT. Also I think you will probably be ok working with Shamir, you can currently put VSP Sunsync photochromics on Shamir designs. Who know though.

----------


## bretk0923

> OK, so now I'm hearing that VSP's effective ban on Essilor products is going to allow only Unity Via (formerly a Zeiss product from what I hear) and Hoya and Zeiss.
> 
> So an OD that has sucked at the teat of, say, Shamir is going to find that he's going to get his reimbursements cut.  That would be me.


Hey doc, can you cite a source for this? I've been worried about cuts to reimbursements on Essilor/Shamir products ever since the big merger took place. I've done some cursory searching here and on the google, but come up fruitless. As much as the next guy, I'd like to try to stay ahead of the curve when VSP decides to cut payments to ECPs

----------


## drk

It's on the VSP website.  They don't like when you post top secret for VSP eyes only stuff.  But it's solid info.

----------


## drk

> Wait, Shamir has teats?  How did I not notice this?!


I squirted the milk out of my nose when I read that.

----------


## lensgrinder

> Thanks, LG!
> 
> First of all a conceptual big-picture question.
> 
> I'm guessing "smart life" means
> a. it's organized for life stages 
> b. "smart" means lots of variables are available?
> 
> 
> ...



*ZEISS SmartLife* encompasses the way we use SV, anti-fatigue and progressives lenses today.  
For example free form single vision lenses are only compensated for distant objects(>= 6m), neglecting the fact that a single vision wearer views a digital device looking 20 degrees down and holding the device at 30 cm.  Much the same way oblique astigmatism occurs as we look laterally at a distant object it also occurs when we view near objects.  This does not mean the lens has a boost of power, but rather a compensation at near for oblique astigmatism. 
As you know lenses having variable distributions of add power have peripheral power errors.  These astigmatic and mean power errors do not correlate to each viewing distance or gaze angle of the wearer which causes blur in the periphery.  The SmartLife Progressives and Digital(anti-fatigue) lenses are a change in designs which reduces overall blur levels.  
The portfolio also optimizes all designs utilizing pupil size based on the calculated age of the wearer.  Traditionally we would use ray tracing to evaluate the errors in lenses, by using the pupil size this ensures better evaluation of local dioptric power errors which ensures better optimization of the global lens surface.
We utilized pupil optimization in the Individual 2 and our DriveSafe lenses for a few years, we have now brought it a whole portfolio.
We have been considering the digital lifestyle since 2016 when we introduced a progressive enhancement to all ZEISS progressives to consider that progressive wearers viewed digital devices differently than printed material.  We updated the power profile to account for this change.
*ZEISS Light* is a newer free form portfolio, so it is not based off of older designs.  It has the same foundation as all ZEISS lenses(Center of Rotation optimization, near variable inset, optimized power profile, etc.). Because it does not come with some of the enhancements of the SmartLife portfolio if falls in the lower tier insurance categories.
*EnergizeMe* is marketed as a lens solution when CL wearers remove their contacts.  It has two anti-fatigue options along with a fixed corridor progressive option. The progressive is a wonderful solution for  hyperopes with higher add powers(>1.75D) who will not consider an office lens solution.  The lens is a true soft design which favors hyperopes.

----------


## grudyfan13

> I squirted the milk out of my nose when I read that.


I do what I can :D

----------


## DanLiv

> Hey doc, can you cite a source for this? I've been worried about cuts to reimbursements on Essilor/Shamir products ever since the big merger took place. I've done some cursory searching here and on the google, but come up fruitless. As much as the next guy, I'd like to try to stay ahead of the curve when VSP decides to cut payments to ECPs


It's publicly available info on their blog, no logins or proprietary info. https://www.vspproviderhub.com/news/...m_campaign=6_1

----------


## Tallboy

wait so we have to sell anti bacterial AR now? Am I reading that right?

----------


## drk

Parse-o-rama: (please join)




> ZEISS SmartLife 
> For example free form single vision lenses are only compensated for distant objects(>= 6m), neglecting the fact that a single vision wearer views a digital device looking 20 degrees down and holding the device at 30 cm. Much the same way oblique astigmatism occurs as we look laterally at a distant object it also occurs when we view near objects. This does not mean the lens has a boost of power, but rather a compensation at near for oblique astigmatism.


I think this is just a repackaged built-in benefit of FFSV vs. traditionally surfaced; whereas before we may have extolled the virtues of "peripheral vision" of the sides of the lenses, this statement seem to extol the virtues of the bottom of the lenses.   Which is fine.  Just another culturally-relevant selling point.  



> As you know lenses having variable distributions of add power have peripheral power errors. These astigmatic and mean power errors do not correlate to each viewing distance or gaze angle of the wearer which causes blur in the periphery.  The SmartLife Progressives and Digital(anti-fatigue) lenses are a change in designs which reduces overall blur levels.


Mansplain: yep, we have blur in PALs, and we put it somewhere.  But we have less unwanted blur to manage than most.  







> The portfolio also optimizes all designs utilizing pupil size based on the calculated age of the wearer. Traditionally we would use ray tracing to evaluate the errors in lenses, by using the pupil size this ensures better evaluation of local dioptric power errors which ensures better optimization of the global lens surface. We utilized pupil optimization in the Individual 2 and our DriveSafe lenses for a few years, we have now brought it a whole portfolio.


Wider zones are better.  Smaller pupils are less fussy about zone widths (for a variety of reasons).  So with big pupil situations (relative youth, low illumination) we maximize the zone widths (by hardening the lens design) (?).





> We have been considering the digital lifestyle


"Digital lifestyle" = life with digital devices




> since 2016 when we introduced a progressive enhancement to all ZEISS progressives to consider that progressive wearers viewed digital devices differently than printed material.


People tend to hold those teeny screens closer than, say, a big ol' book.  Plus it's a one-handed task, so it's ergonomically novel.   It's closer and not as low in the field of view as your lap or the top of your desk.




> We updated the power profile to account for this change.


I'm guessing this means that the near zone has been modified to  1. be "higher" in the lens  2. have a less gradual, more "usable" corridor?  Conjecture.

----------


## drk

> *ZEISS Light is a newer free form portfolio, so it is not based off of older designs. It has the same foundation as all ZEISS lenses(Center of Rotation optimization, near variable inset, optimized power profile, etc.). Because it does not come with some of the enhancements of the SmartLife portfolio if falls in the lower tier insurance categories.*


What do we give up with Zeiss Light, compared to SmartLife?  Obviously customization for POW. But what other features?  

What is the design goal for this lens?  Balance?  

Thanks Big B!

----------


## lensgrinder

> Parse-o-rama: (please join)
> 
> 
> I think this is just a repackaged built-in benefit of FFSV vs. traditionally surfaced; whereas before we may have extolled the virtues of "peripheral vision" of the sides of the lenses, this statement seem to extol the virtues of the bottom of the lenses. Which is fine. Just another culturally-relevant selling point.



FFSV in the past was not evaluated using a near object model.  We know that a traditional lens will encounter aberrations as the eye rotates in the periphery while focused on a distant object (one criteria of a FFSV is to reduce overall aberrations in the periphery), however, when we introduce an object at 30 cm these aberrations will also occur, however, they will be different.  We are using different criteria as light from the object at 30 cm is diverging from it source, where the rays from the distance object are parallel, which requires different ray tracing calculations.
If we evaluate a tangential and sagittal plot for a +5.00 D in 1.5 placed on a 9.00 D BC  for a distance object with 30 degrees of rotation in the periphery we see the oblique astigmatic error is +0.08 D, but if we use the same lens changing the criteria to a 30 cm object at 20 degrees eye rotation the error increases to +0.19 D.





> Wider zones are better. Smaller pupils are less fussy about zone widths (for a variety of reasons). So with big pupil situations (relative youth, low illumination) we maximize the zone widths (by hardening the lens design) (?).



Hardening the design would reduce the widths, but increase distance in the periphery.  
Our designs will change based on whether the wearer is a hyperope of a myope due to the viewing nature of each.
A lens that is evaluated for position of wear improves the overall blur around the corridor thereby improving the "widths" of the progressive lens.  Using pupil size helps to evaluate the global surface of a progressive and aberrations along the corridor.  
Using the pupil size based on average luminance(as opposed to a single ray) helps to smooth the lateral portions locally thereby reducing overall blur levels for the whole surface while increasing the smoothness.







> People tend to hold those teeny screens closer than, say, a big ol' book. Plus it's a one-handed task, so it's ergonomically novel. It's closer and not as low in the field of view as your lap or the top of your desk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing this means that the near zone has been modified to 1. be "higher" in the lens 2. have a less gradual, more "usable" corridor? Conjecture.



Correct, the near zone is modified as to increase the add power at a certain point along the corridor to account for the 35 cm reading distance.  
Since a person reading closer will look in more the zones need to be shifted as well,  this is to ensure the wearer is not looking through too much blur.





> What do we give up with Zeiss Light, compared to SmartLife? Obviously customization for POW. But what other features?  
> 
> 
> What is the design goal for this lens? Balance?  
> 
> 
> Thanks Big B!



SmartLife Progressives reduce blur using different enhancements to smooth the overall surface, pupil size, object space model, etc.
Individual has additional customization by offering three design types, one is to shorten the corridor to increase the rate of change, the other is to lengthen the corridor to keep intermediate wide.
Each SmartLife progressive enhances the lens for digital devices(explained above)
The corridor is adjusted based on where the pupils are located in the frame, this is based on frame shape, box dimensions, etc.


These are great questions!

----------


## Alex Camblor

> The *ZEISS Light Portfolio* includes 3 progressives, *Light V, Light D and Light H*. Light V is a variable corridor and D and H are both fixed. None of these lenses have customizable PoW, but like all ZEISS lenses they are free form.


Thats interesting, when I've ordered the Light Progressives in the past thru visionweb the POW box always appears like it does with the individual.

----------


## Alex Camblor

Zeiss needs a photofusion product that competes with Transitions Xtractive since they no longer offer transitions as an option with their progressives.  The Xtractive is very popular with our patients as most of them want their glasses to darken while driving.

----------


## Don Gilman

> Zeiss needs a photofusion product that competes with Transitions Xtractive since they no longer offer transitions as an option with their progressives.  The Xtractive is very popular with our patients as most of them want their glasses to darken while driving.


Educate me. I thought Driveware darkens when driving. I thought xtra actve started off with a 20 to 30% tint and didn't change appreciably when driving?

----------


## grudyfan13

> Educate me. I thought Driveware darkens when driving. I thought xtra actve started off with a 20 to 30% tint and didn't change appreciably when driving?


Transitions XtrActive always has a slight tint, even indoors, but only ~5-10% and will darken to a 30-40% tint even behind a windshield.

Drivewear is polarized and never clear - the color changes from an amber to brown depending on light conditions.

Transitions Vantage is like XtraActive in that it always has a slight tint (again, ~10%) but polarizes as it darkens.  Limited availability and high prices (not to mention inability to work well behind a windshield) make Vantage a bit harder to find.

----------


## lensgrinder

> Zeiss needs a photofusion product that competes with Transitions Xtractive since they no longer offer transitions as an option with their progressives.  The Xtractive is very popular with our patients as most of them want their glasses to darken while driving.


ZEISS has a PhotoFusion Extra Grey, along with Blue, Green, Grey and Brown.
To clarity we do not offer Transitions on product that we offer a PhotoFusion product.  For example we do not a Vantage type product so it is available in the portfolio.

----------


## drk

So, big B:

Are you saying that:

1. we used to optimize FFSV in such a way that was radially symmetric (tops, sides, bottoms); that is: what compensations that are needed off-axis was applied to EVERY meridian, equally, and we were using parallel light for the ray tracing or somesuch.

2. and now we do that, but in the lower middle portion of the new Zeiss designs, since divergent light needs a separate type of compensation (vs. parallel), you have a non-radially symmetric off-axis compensation ability?

I guess that shouldn't surprise me that you can do that.  I guess I'm surprised that there is an optical need for that.  And we're decidedly NOT just adding +0.37 DS or something as an accommodative aid, right?

----------


## lensgrinder

> 1. we used to optimize FFSV in such a way that was radially symmetric (tops, sides, bottoms); that is: what compensations that are needed off-axis was applied to EVERY meridian, equally, and we were using parallel light for the ray tracing or somesuch.
> 
> 2. and now we do that, but in the lower middle portion of the new Zeiss designs, since divergent light needs a separate type of compensation (vs. parallel), you have a non-radially symmetric off-axis compensation ability?
> 
> I guess that shouldn't surprise me that you can do that.  I guess I'm surprised that there is an optical need for that.  And we're decidedly NOT just adding +0.37 DS or something as an accommodative aid, right?


1. The ZEISS FFSV was somewhat rotationally symmetrical, however, if you had cylinder then it was not.  
2. Yes, that is correct.  As you start to focus at near this requires a different optimization.  If you look at Tscherning's Ellipse for a distance object and compare the same power for a near object(30 cm) you will notice that you need two forms to be free from aberrations.

0.37 D could be overkill.  Consider a lens that has 0.18 D of astigmatic error when looking 20 degrees down, if you used the spherical equivalent it would equal 0.09 D.  Ultimately we want to correct for the aberrations at near and distance.

----------


## drk

*Geometric, Physical, and Visual Optics*By Michael P. Keating

I'll be darned, lensgrinder.  I never heard of such a thing.  With a little lucky searching and the snipping tool, I bring to Optiboard proof of your statement.  Cool!

----------


## Uncle Fester

The smoke continues to flow from my ears and obscures the room.

Can you dumb this down for the mathematically challenged?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## lensgrinder

> The smoke continues to flow from my ears and obscures the room.
> 
> 
> Can you dumb this down for the mathematically challenged?





In order for a lens to be free from astigmatic blur at all gaze angles light should come to a point focus on the far point sphere(center of rotation - focal length of the lens). This imaginary sphere is used as a reference point.  If light focuses behind or in front of the sphere the lens will not be clear.  You may have experienced this when a wearer looks in the periphery and states it is not as clear as it is in the center. 
Dr Marius Tscherning discovered that two forms exist where a lens will be free from astigmatism(each one of these forms had been previously discovered independently by Ostwalt and Wallaston).  For example a -5.00 that is 2 mm thick with a 27 mm center of rotation in CR-39 should be placed on either a 16.73 D BC or a 4.64 D BC.  If you change the power to -4.75, this changes the two base curves to 16.84 D and 4.78 D.  Based on Tscherning's work the ZIESS Punktal and AO's Tillyer lens were created.
Corrected curve theory is based on Tscherning's ellipse. Corrected curve theory groups powers that will have a certain amount of astigmatism in a series of base curves.  
As our focus changes the far point sphere becomes the near point sphere, which will require a new form to be free from astigmatism.
FFSV lenses  corrects the astigmatism for each gaze angle in the distance portion, however, in the past they did not correct the astigmatism produced at near.


I hope this helps.

----------


## Lawman Nick

*edit*

nevermind, question answered. Please delete

----------


## Uncle Fester

Thanks- this did help with a second closer reading of drk's always erudite posts.

If this came to me easily I very much doubt I would be an optician.

I still get nervous selling something that seems to fix for most what isn't broken. or seemingly they didn't know it was broken until I'm selling it.

Too often I fear the what if- such as when a patient gets switched to the latest and greatest and expects immediate results only to return later asking for a redo (and worse, refund) for the more expensive lenses.

So I often qualify the change with a proverbial "your results may vary".

With the right patient who doesn't like the change I've even lightened the mood with a "Who are you going to believe? The optical engineers or your own d*amn eyes!" :Smile:

----------


## AngeHamm

> Too often I fear the what if- such as when a patient gets switched to the latest and greatest and expects immediate results only to return later asking for a redo (and worse, refund) for the more expensive lenses.


I'll take "Varilux S Design" for a thousand, Alex.

----------


## drk

OK, I'm learning. 

The most basic model of Zeiss' new "Lite" basic model series has a 14 and 18mm variation.

14 is corridor length, I think.  Ergo, for a minimum recommended fitting height for this variation, add, what?  4-5 mm?  So, it's good for 18-19 mm fitting heights?

Or is 14 the minimum recommended fitting height, itself?

Same with 18.  It could be for 22-23 mm fitting heights, or it could be the minimum recommended fitting height.

I need some smart dude to set me straight.

----------


## Alex Camblor

> OK, I'm learning. 
> 
> The most basic model of Zeiss' new "Lite" basic model series has a 14 and 18mm variation.
> 
> 14 is corridor length, I think.  Ergo, for a minimum recommended fitting height for this variation, add, what?  4-5 mm?  So, it's good for 18-19 mm fitting heights?
> 
> Or is 14 the minimum recommended fitting height, itself?
> 
> Same with 18.  It could be for 22-23 mm fitting heights, or it could be the minimum recommended fitting height.
> ...


I've always added 4 to the minimum fitting height so people dont complain about the near zone being too low.  

The Zeiss Lite lenses come in three flavors.

The D is the lowest tier with 14,18 corridors and "optimized boundaries for widest fields of view"
The H comes in 14, 16, and 18 with optimized boundaries and "binocular optimization"
The V is a variable corridor for customized fitting heights as low as 13mm.

The intermediate and Near Zones are supposed to be a few mm wider than average but the distance zone seems pretty narrow with a good amount of distortion in the periphery. I'm not sure if thats due to "Binocular optimization" or not trying to put all the bells and whistles in a lower priced lens.  

Now Zeiss has the Smartlife "Pure" in Small, Medium, and Large to replace the Precision Pure.  I have no idea what lengths Small, Medium and Large refer to and the only thing the lab could tell me was that its the same as the Precision Pure which comes in 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 lengths.  I have not been able to find any centration charts or other documentation explaining how to fit small, medium, and large which is pretty unhelpful on zeiss' part.

----------


## drk

Thanks, Alex. 

Have you sampled the Lite lenses?  Or have had patients react?

----------


## lensgrinder

> OK, I'm learning. The most basic model of Zeiss' new "Lite" basic model series has a 14 and 18mm variation.14 is corridor length, I think.  Ergo, for a minimum recommended fitting height for this variation, add, what?  4-5 mm?  So, it's good for 18-19 mm fitting heights?Or is 14 the minimum recommended fitting height, itself?Same with 18.  It could be for 22-23 mm fitting heights, or it could be the minimum recommended fitting height.I need some smart dude to set me straight.


The Light D has two fitting height options, 18 mm and 14 mm (Light D 18 and Light D 14), these are the minimum fitting height.  The corridor length for the 14 is ~10 mm and the 18 is ~14 mm.  The Light H has three fitting heights 14, 16, 18 (Light H 14, Light H 16, Light H 18), each of those numbers are the minimum fitting height and the corridor length for the Light H 16 is ~12 mm.


> I've always added 4 to the minimum fitting height so people dont complain about the near zone being too low.  The intermediate and Near Zones are supposed to be a few mm wider than average but the distance zone seems pretty narrow with a good amount of distortion in the periphery. I'm not sure if thats due to "Binocular optimization" or not trying to put all the bells and whistles in a lower priced lens.


A Light D/H 14 has a 10 mm corridor length, this is pretty short so the wearer should be able to get into he near quite fast.  Adding 4 mm potentially places the wearer near the intermediate portion which will definitely cause blur.  This is not something we commonly hear.


> Now Zeiss has the Smartlife "Pure" in Small, Medium, and Large to replace the Precision Pure.  I have no idea what lengths Small, Medium and Large refer to and the only thing the lab could tell me was that its the same as the Precision Pure which comes in 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 lengths.  I have not been able to find any centration charts or other documentation explaining how to fit small, medium, and large which is pretty unhelpful on zeiss' part.


I will be happy to send you centration charts if you send me your email address, mine is Brent.mccardle@zeiss.comThe Pure S is a 14 mm minimum height the Pure M is 16 mm and the Pure L is 18 mm.

----------


## drk

Excellent info Grinder!

----------


## drk

Ok, new question for Brent or other geniuses.

I'm going to make a couple of sweeping generalizations.

1. The Zeiss Individual had become the Zeiss Precision Pure/Superb (depending on whether it's fixed or variable, respectively).  It is a balanced design.
2. The Zeiss Individual 2 has become the Zeiss Smartlife Individual, which comes in "Balanced" (T-shaped), "Intermediate" (V-shaped) or "Near" (hourglass).

Now, as to the subtle differences between the Smartlife Individual B and the Zeiss Pure/Superb, I will leave you to fill that in.  It will be a small difference, I'm guessing.



Now, on to the "Light" portfolio, and my main questions.

The Light is roughly organized into good-better-best based on two features: one, corridor type
a. variable corridor
b. fixed corridor 3 choices
c. fixed corridor 2 choices

and the other differentiating feature is "binocular optimization".  What is that, really?  Designing the lenses as a pair, and trying to match zone widths regardless of distance portion powers?  


And here's my big, big question about the Light portfolio:  I know they're digitally surfaced, and obviously you can input corridor length, but are these lenses optimized by lens power (atoric curves)?  And what is the intended design?  Is it a "softer" low-astigmatism approach?  It seems like it.




Also, in general, what is "digital inside"?  It's described as helping near devices and reading.  I understand what we were saying earlier about the Tscherning ellipse for SV near optimization.  Is this just the analogue for PALs?  Or, is it a corridor modification?

----------


## drk

Ok, so I read up a little about the "digital inside" issue. It's described as expanding the near zone horizontally and vertically (Shamir has done something similar) to help with "digital devices" ("digital" is a poor choice of marketing terms because opticians will think about digital surfacing, not digital devices like a consumer would) and for printed material.  

Now, I think everyone of all ages of all walks of life from everywhere around the globe would like that.  So...what's the trade-off?  Is it just more peripheral astigmatism in the near zone?  Is it a reduction in the intermediate utility?  Is it peripheral astigmatism above the 180?

----------


## drk

But I will say that Zeiss should get their website updated to the new branding.  Really, it's a bit of a hot mess, right now.

----------


## lensgrinder

> Ok, new question for Brent or other geniuses.


Not sure about this comment, but thank you!





> I'm going to make a couple of sweeping generalizations.
> 
> 
> 1. The Zeiss Individual has become the Zeiss Pure/Superb (depending on whether it's fixed or variable, respectively). It is a balanced design.



Are you referring to the original Individual?  If so there have been many improvements over the years and the Superb and Pure would be much better than the original Individual.





> 2. The Zeiss Individual 2 has become the Zeiss Smartlife Individual, which comes in "Balanced" (T-shaped), "Intermediate" (V-shaped) or "Near" (hourglass).



Although there are some similarities between the Individual 2 and the SmartLife(SL) Individual there are some big differences as well.  
The SmartLife progressive lenses have an updated fingerprint, updated object model and more accuracy when determining ray bundle diameter for optimization purposes.  All of these enhancements lead to lower blur levels.
The fingerprint for the Balanced, Intermediate and Near are the same if you are comparing same add and distance power.  We have moved away from hard and soft terminology, because with free form technology and optimization techniques a lens that was harder(constricted surface astigmatism in the lower half of the lens) is still much softer(i.e. less astigmatic change) in the lower lateral regions.  The design is altered further for hyperopes, myopes and different add powers.







> Now, as to the subtle differences between the Smartlife Individual B and the Zeiss Pure/Superb, I will leave you to fill that in. It will be a small difference, I'm guessing.



Since the Pure is a fixed corridor we will not alter the corridor length based on frame shape, PD, fitting height, etc.  This could, with odd shapes, "cut-off" the add power.  The Pure is only optimized for default position of wear, where the Superb and Individual have the ability to be further customized.  
Keep in mind that the power is not the only variable, as you will alter the design of the lens when PoW is accounted for.  These measurement help to further enhance the surface creating smoother lenses.





> Now, on to the "Light" portfolio, and my main questions.
> 
> 
> The Light is roughly organized into good-better-best based on two features: one, corridor type
> a. variable corridor
> b. fixed corridor 3 choices
> c. fixed corridor 2 choices
> 
> 
> and the other differentiating feature is "binocular optimization". What is that, really? Designing the lenses as a pair, and trying to match zone widths regardless of distance portion powers?



Lenses are designed independently first, then they need to be optimized as a pair or binocularly.  As a wearer gazes 20 degrees the right and left the eye will be located in different positions on the lens so each global surface needs to optimized as a pair. An object model is used to calculate objects at different distances and locations to determine the best optimization at each local point on the surface and then the global surface is optimized.
The power profile of the lens will also need to be optimized binocularly to reduce aberrations along the eye path.




> And here's my big, big question about the Light portfolio: I know they're digitally surfaced, and obviously you can input corridor length, but are these lenses optimized by lens power (atoric curves)? And what is the intended design? Is it a "softer" low-astigmatism approach? It seems like it.



All ZEISS Light and SmartLife lenses are optimized for lens power, although, atoric is a simplistic way to view the surface, it is easier to use this term as a description.
You will not see one design type with SmartLife or Light, the purpose is to produce the smoothest global surface(low-astigmatism) as possible.  SmartLife has added enhancements which help to reduce blur levels when compared to Light.  As stated above this will vary with lens and add power.





> Also, in general, what is "digital inside"? It's described as helping near devices and reading. I understand what we were saying earlier about the Tscherning ellipse for SV near optimization. Is this just the analogue for PALs? Or, is it a corridor modification?


Digital Inside is an optimized power profile(or "corridor modification"), therefore, it would not be included in SV.  
We know that a person who wears progressive lenses looks down 28 degrees and views a digital device(tablet, phone) at 35 cm(SV wearers view these object at 30 cm).  A wearer will need an added amount of power along the corridor to view a digital device and as there wearer views standard near objects at 40 cm the power is reduced to the prescribed add power.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> We know that a person who wears progressive lenses looks down 28 degrees and views a digital device(tablet, phone) at 35 cm(SV wearers view these object at 30 cm).  A wearer will need an added amount of power along the corridor to view a digital device and as there wearer views standard near objects at 40 cm the power is reduced to the prescribed add power.


I had a sit down with a Zeiss technologist earlier this year but I couldn't pin down how they were modifying their designs to be more mobile phone friendly- shorter/faster/higher corridor power profile, or an overpower low in the corridor. The former seems like it would work for intermediate presbyopes, relying on depth of focus for work distances shorter than 40cm, the latter for absolute presbyopes, or a combination of the two. 

The proof is in the pudding of course, but I never received a voucher to evaluate effectiveness and any potential negativities, that is, reduced quality of vision on the primary gaze. 

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## drk

I appreciate your response.

----------


## drk

https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/us...nses-pure.html

I did find this link that describes the "Std, Med, Short" seg ht numbers.

Std = 17-19 high
Med = 15-17 high
Short = 13-15 high

----------


## drk

LG, are they renaming the Precision Pure/Plus/Superb into the newer Smartlife terminology?

----------


## lensgrinder

> https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/us...nses-pure.html
> 
> 
> I did find this link that describes the "Std, Med, Short" seg ht numbers.
> 
> 
> Std = 17-19 high
> Med = 15-17 high
> Short = 13-15 high



This link is to our Precision Portfolio, where the Pure had fitting heights of 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21
SmartLife Pure has three fitting height(S = 14, M = 16, L = 18)





> LG, are they renaming the Precision Pure/Plus/Superb into the newer Smartlife terminology?



The Precision Portfolio is currently active, however, it will eventually be phased out.  The SmartLife Portfolio is what we will use moving forward.  We kept the lens names the same(i.e. Individual, Superb, Plus, Pure) to ease confusion when an ECP changed from the Precision to the SmartLife.

----------


## drk

I have no interest in getting all up-to-speed on a product with a sunset.

What is it going to be, then?  The SmartLife Individual and the Light and that's it?  (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)

Or, are you saying the Precision BRANDING is going to be retired?  And the designs will live on?

This is important to me, if you can clarify.

----------


## lensgrinder

> I have no interest in getting all up-to-speed on a product with a sunset.
> 
> What is it going to be, then?  The SmartLife Individual and the Light and that's it?  (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)
> 
> Or, are you saying the Precision BRANDING is going to be retired?  And the designs will live on?
> 
> This is important to me, if you can clarify.


My apologies for being unclear. 
The SmartLife Portfolio includes four progressives, one anti-fatigue lens and two free form single vision lenses.  
The four progressives in the SmartLife portfolio are Individual,  Superb, Plus and Pure.  The anti-fatigue lens is called SmartLife Digital Lens and the two free form SV lenses are called SmartLife SV and SmartLife Individual SV.
We kept the same progressive names as the Precision Portfolio, but the designs are different. 
ZEISS Light Portfolio is different from SmartLife and it only includes three progressives, Light D, Light H and Light V, this portfolio is not part of SmartLife.

----------


## drk

I'm making you earn your money, here, Brent.

OK, so  
1. the Precision lenses _are going to be or have been_ re-branded as SmartLife lenses
2. the Precision lenses _are going to be_ re-designed when they're re-branded?  Or they _have already been_ re-designed and re-branded?

----------


## lensgrinder

> I'm making you earn your money, here, Brent.
> 
> 
> OK, so 
> 1. the Precision lenses are going to be or have been re-branded as SmartLife lenses
> 2. the Precision lenses are going to be re-designed when they're re-branded? Or they have already been re-designed and re-branded?



Ha!  I can justify my pay this week 😀


1. The Precision portfolio is separate from the SmartLife portfolio.  It is not  re-branding, but the progressive names of each portfolio are the same. We currently offer both portfolios, SmartLife was introduced in November of last year. 
2. The Precision portfolio will eventually be discontinued. The new portfolio going forward is the SmartLife portfolio. 
There is no difference in regards to power ranges, fitting, materials, coatings, etc. 
There is a design difference from the Precision to the SmartLife.

----------


## drk

Holy smokes that's confusing.

So if I want to order the new Precision Pure, for example, how does Zeiss know I want the new Smartlife portfolio Precision Pure?

----------


## drk

Public service announcement.  

I am wearing a new pair of Zeiss Officelens Room.

I am literally astounded by the quality of these optics.  I don't think I've ever seen this clearly.  It's like wearing butter. 

I'm not exaggerating.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Public service announcement.  
> 
> I am wearing a new pair of Zeiss Officelens Room.
> 
> I am literally astounded by the quality of these optics.  I don't think I've ever seen this clearly.  It's like wearing butter. 
> 
> I'm not exaggerating.


+0.50 over the distance (add cut by the same) is sweet in a small room, primarily for the more advanced presbyopes. The cut add also reduces unwanted astigmatism, and of course Zeiss designs a nice PAL with a wide distance zone. 

They might even double as computer/task eyeglasses for some folks (screen carefully) and select nursing home residents. 

It used to be called Gradal RD (room distance) decades ago.

Best regards

Robert Martellaro

----------


## drk

Well, that's exactly right.

I overrefracted through these to ascertian the effective add through the upper portion of the lens and it was just about -0.50.  So it's what you said.  

And we designed those before with any old PAL, like anyone.  

And truth!  If you want a "room design" you add +0.50, and if you want a "computer design" you add +1.00, more or less.  And yes, turning a +2.50 progression into a +1.50 progression widens out the near zone.

And yes, these are digitally surfaced and well-designed.

But I gotta say that the area of the intermediate and near zones is super-ample.  They're just nice.

----------


## Uncle Fester

I remember my same reaction when I got a pair of Shamir Workspace lenses a few years ago and Robert correctly pointing out my minimal rx probably needing more plus in the distance as it is commonly under-corrected in the chair.

I have better success prescribing to minimal rx's with this type of lens but recall drk is quite nearsighted- so not sure if I want to change my go to recommendation of single vision for strong myopes.

----------


## grudyfan13

> It's like wearing butter.


That's all I really need to take away from this.  And somehow, I need to incorporate this into my everyday vernacular with patients.

"Sir, you're right, that's not a bad option, but THIS lens is like wearing butter."

----------


## ak47

And this butter has not been produced from Shameer's teats!

----------


## ak47

Which US Zeiss locations have you had any luck with?          Do all of the 1.74 Individual still get produced in Germany or are there US locations for this now?  Its been a few years, but the turn time used to be atrocious.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Which US Zeiss locations have you had any luck with?          Do all of the 1.74 Individual still get produced in Germany or are there US locations for this now?  Its been a few years, but the turn time used to be atrocious.


I use Walman Optical in Oak Creek Wi. 

They're still being produced in Germany, with both sides being worked for the thinnest possible optics, especially on plus powers. I ordered a pair about 4 weeks ago that looked like this:

Rt +4.50 -1.00 x 96 add +2.50
Lt +2.50 -0.75 x 86 add +2.50

It took 16 days, with I assume a fast track through customs. US produced product has had a seven to ten day turn around, again through Walman.

Hope this helps,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## drk

OK, a basic question that is shameful to ask.

I know the answer, but I want reassurance.

When ordering a FFSV lens (like the Zeiss Individual SV), you provide whatever POW numbers you like, and monocular p.d.s, and..."fitting heights" NOT the pupil height minus 3-4 mm for pantoscopic tilt.

RIGHT?

Because it's funny that I have for sooooo many years forgotten that I'm really doing compensations for POW everytime I order a traditional SV lens, by customizing OC height for the frame.  (But heck, I always used the same number, 3mm.)

So now, Zeiss will take my pupil center fitting height, and my pantoscopic tilt measurement and work their own magic.  (It might just be 3.1mm or even 2.9mm!)

----------


## Kwill212

> OK, a basic question that is shameful to ask.
> 
> I know the answer, but I want reassurance.
> 
> When ordering a FFSV lens (like the Zeiss Individual SV), you provide whatever POW numbers you like, and monocular p.d.s, and..."fitting heights" NOT the pupil height minus 3-4 mm for pantoscopic tilt.
> 
> RIGHT?
> 
> Because it's funny that I have for sooooo many years forgotten that I'm really doing compensations for POW everytime I order a traditional SV lens, by customizing OC height for the frame.  (But heck, I always used the same number, 3mm.)


Correct. You should not be adjusting the fitting height for FFSV lenses. Most are fit on center. I think the Zeiss Ind SV is a 4 drop from the fitting cross to the prp.




> So now, Zeiss will take my pupil center fitting height, and my pantoscopic tilt measurement and work their own magic.  (It might just be 3.1mm or even 2.9mm!)


Not really. Sounds like you are saying they will be adjusting the height, just by a different amount than you would? Which they wont. The fitting height will be whatever you supply. They will be adjusting the lens power and design to optimize viewing for your supplied measurements.

----------


## drk

Hai. Ah, so, Obi Wan.  Domo.

----------


## obiwan

In Australia the Energize Me progressive comes in 3 corridor lengths, 10, 12 or 14  (FFV 0, 2 or 4)

----------


## drk

I think this is kinda neat (I'm still "crushing" on Zeiss for now):

There's a concept that I found on their website that I think is novel.  One of their Office lenses is called "Room"  (Book, Desk, Room) and it's the one I'm sampling (so successfully).  They call it an "indoor progressive",

Hmm...indoor progressive.  I like that concept.

As Robert alluded, I've previously designed my own "indoor progressives" with +0.50 overplus with reduced progression for the presbyopic opticians/receptionists and they wore the heck out of them (even outdoors by accident).  It's a fun concept.

----------


## Alex Camblor

Has anyone here had a patient that was upset about the Zeiss branding they are etching into the upper corners of every lens?  In the past, I have been able to request them to leave their branding off but today I was told I am no longer able to do this.  I tried to request "No branding" on a smartlife ind. 1.67 w/photofusion and duravision platinum and was told by the lab that I would have to switch to a synchrony if I didnt want branding.  I find the logo to be pretty distracting on Non-AR coated lenses and was disappointed by the labs response.

----------


## Uncle Fester

Is the etching the light bee hive boxes I'm seeing on the top corner?

----------


## Alex Camblor

> Is the etching the light bee hive boxes I'm seeing on the top corner?


Yes.

----------


## Kwill212

> Has anyone here had a patient that was upset about the Zeiss branding they are etching into the upper corners of every lens?  In the past, I have been able to request them to leave their branding off but today I was told I am no longer able to do this.  I tried to request "No branding" on a smartlife ind. 1.67 w/photofusion and duravision platinum and was told by the lab that I would have to switch to a synchrony if I didnt want branding.  I find the logo to be pretty distracting on Non-AR coated lenses and was disappointed by the labs response.


No chance I would dispense those lenses.

----------


## Tallboy

yes I have had that issue and I stopped using zeiss after that starting being the way they did things. Its a shame and an incredibly strange decision.

----------


## Alex Camblor

Well, I’m glad I’m not the only one disappointed by this.  
I know they announced they would start doing this a couple of years ago on edged jobs but it didn’t apply to uncuts until recently.  It’s not too noticeable on A/R coated jobs but it’s quite visible on non-ar lenses and it’s on BOTH lenses.

----------


## Dr Ben

Found this site finally! Great stuff guys!

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Found this site finally! Great stuff guys!


Welcome- A greenie sent to you!

Develop a thick skin and be kind to us simpletons who ask sometimes less than erudite questions.

Also- Consider subscribing and open up the Private thread where we can discuss prices and other things not for the general public's readily accessible knowledge!

----------


## Alex Camblor

This is a very expensive, uncut 1.67 Zeiss Smartlife Individual with all the  bells and whistles but the forced "logo branding" isnt positioned  properly and only half the logo will be visible when cut out. Who on  earth thought adding this to every lens was a good idea?

----------


## Tallboy

> This is a very expensive, uncut 1.67 Zeiss Smartlife Individual with all the  bells and whistles but the forced "logo branding" isnt positioned  properly and only half the logo will be visible when cut out. Who on  earth thought adding this to every lens was a good idea?


the idea did not come from a dispensing optician, I'll tell you that much!!! It's one of the dumbest decisions I have seen in my life. Especially when you think of the *type* of person who specifically comes in and requests zeiss

----------


## Kwill212

> Who on  earth thought adding this to every lens was a good idea?


Probably the same people that decided Zeiss should cut out every other lab get in bed with VSP. Seems like the bean counters are running the show to the bottom over there in Zeiss land.

----------


## Alex Camblor

> the idea did not come from a dispensing optician, I'll tell you that much!!! It's one of the dumbest decisions I have seen in my life. Especially when you think of the *type* of person who specifically comes in and requests zeiss


We brought this up to our rep and he said market research shows patients prefer "Branding" on their lenses and that we should use this as an opportunity to educate patients about their company....also compared it to branding done on Rayban and Maui Jim sunglasses.  I think it is absolutely ridiculous and they will lose alot of business if they do not make this optional.

----------


## drk

As a non-official shill, I've seen it on some lenses and while I think it's cool (and I think lens branding may just work) I do get worried some patient will see it, and gripe.  

We'll see.

----------


## Tallboy

> As a non-official shill, I've seen it on some lenses and while I think it's cool (and I think lens branding may just work) I do get worried some patient will see it, and gripe.  
> 
> We'll see.


Don't get worried, _expect it_.

----------


## Tallboy

> Which US Zeiss locations have you had any luck with?          Do all of the 1.74 Individual still get produced in Germany or are there US locations for this now?  Its been a few years, but the turn time used to be atrocious.


Either Germany or Japan for all 1.74 Zeiss Individual.

----------


## Alex Camblor

I just noticed they are also etching what appears to be a small "QR code" onto the temple edge on regular Single vision A/R coated jobs as well.

----------


## ak47

FYI, I ordered a smartlife individual 1.67 with duravision platinum last week and requested no branding, and received today without branding !

----------


## Tallboy

> FYI, I ordered a smartlife individual 1.67 with duravision platinum last week and requested no branding, and received today without branding !


I knew someone with some Brains would win the arguement there eventually!

----------


## Robert_S

I dispense hundreds of Zeiss lenses every month, all of which have the Zeiss logo in the corner, all of which come out in exactly the right place (since we specify the exact shape), all of which have AR (because why would you not have Duravision Platinum) and have not had a single customer complain. 

It's such a nice finishing touch, as well as a guarantee of quality. I really don't understand the problem. 

Maybe it's a regional thing?

----------


## Uilleann

Interesting.  I've literally never has a Zeiss lens give me a "WOW" effect.  Except for their camera glass - in particular their cost!  I found their PALS to be pretty average when I used them (probably been 6 years back now mind you), but their top AR would craze in a stiff breeze.  Not sure if they ever fixed that or not.  And at least at the time, their lab bills were pretty crazy as well.  Either that, or the local E lab was somehow able to give us a rockin price list to compete.  *shrug*  I'd like to see something truly innovative and that lasts (no scratching/crazing).  Might try again some day...

----------


## ak47

Pop quiz, hotshots.  Say we order a Zeiss SV Individual and specify fitting height of 20 and panto of zero.  The OC height produced will be A) 20,  B) between 16 and 17.  SPOILER ALERT:  The lenses we got back are B, not A ???

----------


## Robert_S

Zeiss Individual SV is positioned with the pupil 4mm above the prismatic centre so it sounds like they were made correctly. You should glaze them like a progressive with a drop of 4mm.

----------


## Tallboy

they always use prism thinning like that

----------


## ak47

Hmmm...standard 4 mm  doesn't sound very "INDIVIDUAL" to me.  I thought panto = zero would lead to optical centers at my specified fitting height???




> Zeiss Individual SV is positioned with the pupil 4mm above the prismatic centre so it sounds like they were made correctly. You should glaze them like a progressive with a drop of 4mm.

----------


## Robert_S

The lenses are fully optimised so I really wouldn't worry about it. I think Zeiss know what they are doing.

----------


## ak47

I would hope lensgrinder can comment on this.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Hmmm...standard 4 mm  doesn't sound very "INDIVIDUAL" to me.  I thought panto = zero would lead to optical centers at my specified fitting height???


No direct relationship because the software (when POW capable) corrects for any misalignment of the lens and visual optical axes. The 4mm 'drop' reduces lens thickness by aligning the PRP closer to the 180 line. 

That's one of the advantages of POW optimized free form surfacing: 15˚ of panto tilt on a zero drop Seiko PAL and the software corrects the power error and oblique astigmatism at most/all angles of gaze.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## drk

I'm at the level of AK47, here.  I would like to know.

Also, I was just told that face form angle data is warehoused by Zeiss labs on most frames, and that we get "free" face-form optimization on all the Precision series lenses.  Is that true?

----------


## drk

Grandpappy Robert, are you saying, in a non-mansplainy way, that

--"back in the bad old days, if you wanted to minimize (some kind of) errors (from some eye's center of rotation alignment with the optical axis of the lens or whatsmajiggit when in downgaze), you had no choice other than to lower the optical center of the lens 1mm per degree of pantoscopic tilt..."

--"now in these newfangled ages with these computeees, they can put the optical center of the lens nice and low to keep that lens thin as a hungry mudpuppy, but surface the optics such that the patient views through a point in the lens that is optimized for straight ahead and down gaze (and maybe lateral gaze but maybe not because of limited face-form frame options)??????

In other words, are you saying they can "disassociate" the optical center with the "optimal spot" for optics?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Grandpappy Robert, are you saying, in a non-mansplainy way, that
> 
> --"back in the bad old days, if you wanted to minimize (some kind of) errors from (some eye's center of rotation alignment with the optical axis of the lens or whatsmajiggit when in downgaze), you had no choice other than to lower the optical center of the lens *1mm per degree of pantoscopic tilt...*"
> 
> --"now in these newfangled ages with these computeees, they can put the optical center of the lens nice and low to keep that lens thin as a hungry mudpuppy, but surface the optics such that the patient views through a point in the lens that is optimized for straight ahead and down gaze (and maybe lateral gaze but maybe not because of limited face-form frame options)??????
> 
> In other words, are you saying they can "disassociate" the optical center with the "optimal spot" for optics?


Yes sonny, you are absolutely correct, except for the bold part where the relationship is .5mm per 1˚ of pantoscopic tilt.

I do get some relatively simple PAL Rxs on occasion. When their POW values look close to default, I'll use a non-POW capable lens to save my client a few bucks, if the fundamental PAL design is appropriate for their needs. (I charge for the extra time/work/expertise for POW measurements in addition to the increase in lens price).

Note: most dumb and smart PALs start out with default values of about  5˚ and 8˚ for the wrap and panto tilt respectively, and 13mm for vertex distance. There is significantly more aberration that can be corrected when the tilt values are larger than the default values, as opposed to lower values. Any large deviation in vertex distance should also trigger a decision to use POW optimized PALs.

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## drk

Thanks for the reply.  

I think I get the point, but I don't understand how they do such things.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Thanks for the reply. 
> 
> I think I get the point, but I don't understand how they do such things.


Your welcome. I like the familylike atmosphere here.

See: https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...l=1#post418640

Robert

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Here's the white paper referenced in the above link.

https://www.zeiss.co.uk/content/dam/...aper_15630.pdf

----------


## drk

That was a nice read.  He really did a good job balancing meaty optical physics with understandable language for the rest of us.

One thing he chose not to dicuss was "why tilt a lens, in the first place?".

Here's how I understand it, and see if you concur:

The eye rotates as we go about seeing stuff, and mostly up and down.  If the lens wasn't tilted with panto, it would be farther away from the eye in downgaze, and the optics would be different.

So, we tilt the lens in closer at the bottom but then that screws up the powers in straight-ahead gaze somewhat (and it really messes up the top, but who cares?).  

So to compensate that, we drop the optical center a little. Now, I'm not sure what this achieves.  

So, in other words we're trying to average out or split the difference between straight-ahead gaze and downgaze (and we are ignoring side-gaze and up gaze).  


Soooo...with custom optics, we can just zap the correct powers anywhere on the old lens that we want.  (Maybe I should look at Brent's Tscherning Ellipse for near vision, too.)  Is this correct?

Heck, it occurs to me (as in the post above) that we can have zero panto all the time, if we wanted it.  (But then we'd get some reflection issues, I'd think.  Mostly, zero panto is from fat cheeks and/or big eyesize.)

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> That was a nice read.  He really did a good job balancing meaty optical physics with understandable language for the rest of us.
> 
> One thing he chose not to dicuss was "why tilt a lens, in the first place?".


My books are at the office, so from memory: 

1) Our eyes/orbits are angled down slightly, maybe so that our ancestors didn't walk over cliffs!
2) We tend to lower our gaze when focusing on near objects.
3) Minimize vertex distance on the downgaze.
4) Facial bone structure generally protrudes at the brow as opposed to the cheek.




> Here's how I understand it, and see if you concur:
> 
> The eye rotates as we go about seeing stuff, and mostly up and down.  If the lens wasn't tilted with panto, it would be farther away from the eye in downgaze, and the optics would be different.
> 
> So, we tilt the lens in closer at the bottom but then that screws up the powers in straight-ahead gaze somewhat (and it really messes up the top, but who cares?).  
> 
> So to compensate that, we drop the optical center a little. Now, I'm not sure what this achieves.


 It aligns the optical axis of the lens with the center of rotation of the eye (see image below).

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## lensgrinder

> I would hope lensgrinder can comment on this.



The PRP location serves as a reference point to check power and prism.
This point does not necessarily represent the optical center of the lens since a free form lens lacks an optical center.
Although the rule of thumb is to lower the optical center 0.5mm per 1º of tilt in a spherical or toric lens, more is taken into account with a free form SV and the point from which the distribution starts is based on wrap, tilt, center of rotation distance, and other criteria.
You can look at a map with the same power, material and thickness, but with different PoW and you will notice a different distribution of power.







> Also, I was just told that face form angle data is warehoused by Zeiss labs on most frames, and that we get "free" face-form optimization on all the Precision series lenses. Is that true?



All ZEISS free form lenses are compensated based on default PoW measurements, this includes free form SV, Digital(anti-fatigue) and Office lenses.

----------


## drk

Ok, thanks for answering.

Let me be explicit...If I'm ordering a Pure (which doesn't have a face-form option) for a 20 degree wrap sunglass, will I get 20 degrees of wrap compensation?

Or, do I have to move up to the Superb to specify?

----------


## lensgrinder

> Ok, thanks for answering.
> 
> Let me be explicit...If I'm ordering a Pure (which doesn't have a face-form option) for a 20 degree wrap sunglass, will I get 20 degrees of wrap compensation?
> 
> Or, do I have to move up to the Superb to specify?


You would have to use a Superb or Individual to specify PoW.  You could also use one of the Sport options if the base curve is steep enough.

----------


## drk

Thank you.

----------


## drk

OK, more help needed.

People talk about a "6-drop" lens or a "4-drop" lens, and it always makes me wonder what they're talking about.  

So here's what I'm chewing on...

First of all, Zeiss Labs give this really, really cool print out with jobs (fanboying again, I know) that has a lot of good information on it.  Of course it has a mini-layout diagram.  

So...with Zeiss they've chosen to put the prism reference point (the prescribed prism--which is usually goose egg) six millimeters below the fitting cross (that is, where the pupil center is).

So...that means that our Zeiss PAL wearers will be getting a certain amount of prism in the distance zone, depending on the lens power in the vertical meridian, of course.  

Why do they choose this approach?  I get that a lower optical center (typically) can help make sure the lens thickness is minimized, and Zeiss' website does list thinness as a design goal.

Question: is this a problem for anisometropic patients?  Sure, it would help minimize prismatic imbalance on downgaze, but at the expense of prismatic imbalance on straight-ahead gaze.  True?

Question: will this give patients a weird feeling to be looking through "more" prism (than, say, a 4-drop lens)  in straight-ahead gaze?

----------


## Robert_S

Irrespective of the technicalities, most people prefer Zeiss progressives for distance vision. That's been the case for a long time.

----------


## drk

It's probably the "harder" design philosophy, I'm thinking.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Question: is this a problem for anisometropic patients?  Sure, it would help minimize prismatic imbalance on downgaze, but at the expense of prismatic imbalance on straight-ahead gaze.  True?


Yes.




> Question: will this give patients a weird feeling to be looking through "more" prism (than, say, a 4-drop lens)  in straight-ahead gaze?


Probably not, due to habitualization. CL wearers might have difficulties, along with changes from magnification and convergence effects.

Most of your concerns are addressed in this thread:

https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...l=1#post172064

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## drk

Hoo-hoo, another "collectible" Hall of Fame thread.

(Heck, anything with Darryl on it is HOF-worthy).

Thank you!

----------


## drk

BTW, you were pretty smart back in 2007.

What happened to you? hahahaha

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> BTW, you were pretty smart back in 2007.
> 
> What happened to you? hahahaha


My wife noticed I've been referring to RBG as RGB when discussing Ginsburg lately. Does that mean I'm slipping away? 

Robert

----------


## Uncle Fester

> My wife noticed I've been referring to RBG as RGB when discussing Ginsburg lately. Does that mean I'm slipping away? 
> 
> Robert


Robert- You, drk and several other Guru's here could fall from the peak of Everest, losing knowledge all the way down, to equal mine in the valley below.  :Wink:

----------


## drk

I'm not at guru status.

I'm still at gu.

----------


## Jason H

OK Devil's advocate here, but knowing I'm not smart enough I'll lobb a softball to those who are. Zeiss is mostly a 6 drop (Darryl actually told me why) Seiko is a zero drop. What does that do to vertical imbalance in anisometropes, antimetropes - wrestling with this as I hate to introduce prism to people who can cope without it. Please help the unknowing.

----------


## drk

If you remember, what did Darryl say?

----------


## lensgrinder

> OK Devil's advocate here, but knowing I'm not smart enough I'll lobb a softball to those who are. Zeiss is mostly a 6 drop (Darryl actually told me why) Seiko is a zero drop. What does that do to vertical imbalance in anisometropes, antimetropes - wrestling with this as I hate to introduce prism to people who can cope without it. Please help the unknowing.



Since blank size is no longer a concern due to free form production the PRP location ultimately is not relevant.  One could say increased distance between the fitting cross and the PRP reduces prism at near, but it will increase prism at the fitting cross compared to a decreased distance.
If we assume that the surface of a progressive is spherical(obviously it is not) then we can calculate the prism at the fitting cross(assuming no prism thinning) and if you have a 6 mm difference there will be more prism than that of a 4 mm difference, however, we cannot calculate it this way.  What power would you use for the calculation?  The power at the fitting cross is different than that of the ordered power(power verified at the DRP) and the power at the PRP.  
A progressive lens is a non symmetrical surface, which lacks a center of curvature, therefore, it lacks an OC.
For this reason prism at any point in a progressive lens is calculated using ray tracing, that takes the wrap and tilt along with the thickness and distance from the center of rotation, among other criteria) to the point on the back surface and front surface to calculate the prism at any given point.
The location of the PRP will not, in most cases, have an impact.

----------


## drk

> A progressive lens is a non symmetrical surface, which lacks a center of curvature, therefore, it lacks an OC.


Mind.  Blown.

----------


## OliMay

Yeah, it`s well known for qualified items

----------


## ak47

Is there a zeiss lens with identifier "CS67?"  The closest I can find is OS67, the 1.67 officeroom lens.

----------


## ak47

Ok, those were actually OS67...guess I need to bump my add :)    It looks like the officeroom lens gives a bump of +0.25-0.50 over written distance Rx in the top of the lens.   So if I read them as +0.50 in the lensmeter and they are engraved as 1.75 add, can someone please clarify how I would "work backwards" to get the full Rx that was used to produce these?

----------


## Lensman11

I think you over thinking this issue. When you fit a s.v. Lens you put the oc in the geometric center but normal gaze is usually above geometric center. This is rarely a problem. The same holds true for a multifocal. The pantoscopic tilt has the effect of raising the o.c.  
On a progressive the PRP is reference point to check for imbalance.  The distance Rx check point is just a place on the lens where you can get a reasonable Rx reading nothing more.

----------


## drk

> Ok, those were actually OS67...guess I need to bump my add :)    It looks like the officeroom lens gives a bump of +0.25-0.50 over written distance Rx in the top of the lens.   So if I read them as +0.50 in the lensmeter and they are engraved as 1.75 add, can someone please clarify how I would "work backwards" to get the full Rx that was used to produce these?


Aren't you better off just going to the source?

I don't know how they label it.  If you want to sleuth, I would look at the progression power between the top and the bottom.  If it's +1.75 progression, then that's how they label it.

But I doubt that.  It'd be weird.

More likely, +1.75 is the prescribed add power, and you'll find that there is about a +1.25 progression (inferring 1/2D more plus at the top than the distance Rx), and therefore the prescription would have been "top part reading in the lensometer, subtract out the 1/2 overplus, and the marking for the add as the add power".  

But that's a guess.

----------


## lensgrinder

> Ok, those were actually OS67...guess I need to bump my add :)    It looks like the officeroom lens gives a bump of +0.25-0.50 over written distance Rx in the top of the lens.   So if I read them as +0.50 in the lensmeter and they are engraved as 1.75 add, can someone please clarify how I would "work backwards" to get the full Rx that was used to produce these?


OS67 means that the lens is an Office Lens in 1.67 material.  On the temporal side you should see something like ##100 or ##200 or ##400, where ## could be 20 or 40 or 30, this does not matter.  The 100(100 cm) is the ZEISS Office Book, the 200(200 cm) is the ZEISS Office Desk and the 400(400 cm) is the ZEISS Office Room.  The Room add 0.25 D to the distance and subtracts 025 D from the add, the Desk adds 0.50 D to the distance and subtracts 0.50D from the add and the Book adds 1.00D to the distance and subtracts 1.00D from the add.
The engraved add power is the add power of the lens. 
If you read the distance as +0.50 with a 1.75 add and the lens is marked with a 200 then you know it is a Desk and you need to subtract 0.50 from the distance(0.50 - 0.50 = 0.00), the total near is 2.25(0.5 + 1.75).  The distance Rx would be Plano with a 2.25 add.

----------


## drk

"Book" = 1 D add in distance portion = 1 meter (~3 ft) punctum remotum ("far point")
"Desk" = 0.5 D add in the distance portion = 2 meter (~6ft) punctum remotum
"Room" = 0.25 D add in the distance portion = 4 meter (~12ft) punctum remotum

Got it.

----------

