# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Hoya/Seiko Nightmare

## huladude456

I feel like our shop is under siege because of the AR failures with Seiko lenses since the Hoya takeover.  Are we the only ones experiencing this?  We have for years ordered our lenses direct from Seiko in Hopkins, Minnesota or New Jersey (Prominent, Prestige II, etc).  Hoya, as you know took over their labs earlier this year, closed them down, and moved everything to Dallas.  ALL the CR-39 jobs with AR failed within the first four months.  We are on the second round of do-overs with many patients.  Now 9 months later we are starting to see more Trivex fails.

We have been assured everything was fixed by July 13, but how to know?  I feel like we are in a news blackout.  I know not many optical shops ordered their lenses directly from Seiko (formerly Pentax), but we can't be the only ones in this situation.  Anyone else?  

We gave up on Seiko PALs in July and have moved most of our business to Shamir through Luzerne, but, wow, we sold a lot of Seiko product this year and I fear a never-ending re-do scenario.

Thanks for reading my rant.  Let me know if you have any insights or similar situations.

----------


## huladude456

I guess we are in the minority with this problem!  Do any of you good people order lenses directly from Seiko (formerly Pentax)?  We had a great relationship with them until the lab in Minnesota was closed.  Oh well, onwards and upwards!

----------


## Judy Canty

Seiko products are available through Luzerne as well.

----------


## merrymaker

Interesting to hear of the issues you're having.  I work at an office thats a big Hoya user (in California) and while we have certainly seen some AR issues in the past, nothing like you are experiencing.  We do not use Seiko products thus its a completely different experience.  Best of luck!

----------


## huladude456

In fairness to Hoya, who we have used in the past, much of the problem seems to be meshing the Seiko product into the Hoya system.  But, we are the ones who have to face the unsatisfied customers.  It wasn't a well-handled transition to the Cleveland, then Dallas Hoya facility.  I'm just crossing my fingers that the newest re-do lenses will hold up.

----------


## Happylady

Is it just the Seiko products or Hoya ones too? We used to use that Hoya lab but stopped about 5 years ago. 

I live less than 3 miles from it!

----------


## huladude456

The problems are only with the Seiko products that are now processed by Hoya in Dallas.  We never had any AR problems with Hoya lenses from their Hartford lab.  That's why the whole thing is so unnerving.  Anyway, we have moved on, but I was just hoping to commiserate with someone else.

----------


## jefe

I've never had a problem with the (few) lenses I've ordered from Seiko directly.  That said, I get most of my Seiko lenses from other labs.

----------


## ThatOneGuy

Many years ago, Sola (having just been purchased by Zeiss, but were still largely acting like Sola) came out with their Teflon F2 formula. Locally, it was basically Carat Advantage with anti-static properties.

It was a complete bust, but not because of the coating being bad. The coating was great! In fact, the next version of Teflon performed terribly by comparison in my experience.

The reason F2 failed was because there was a directive for labs to use up their existing Teflon original lens blanks. Teflon had always been awful up until F2, so switching products on consumers was a dirty nasty trick and it backfired by making the new product look awful.

Perhaps, maybe just maybe, the new centralized lab at Hoya is trying to burn through inventory that is not the ordered product. They may have inherited a bunch of stock lenses that otherwise would not get used.

It is just a thought.

----------


## optical24/7

> The reason F2 failed was because there was a directive for labs to use up their existing Teflon original lens blanks. Teflon had always been awful up until F2, so switching products on consumers was a dirty nasty trick and it backfired by making the new product look awful.
> 
> 
>  .


Who the heck AR's prior to surfacing?

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> Who the heck AR's prior to surfacing?


Apparently the lab had premade stock single vision lenses that all they had to do were edge.

----------


## jefe

> Seiko products are available through Luzerne as well.


This is the best place to get the Seiko PALs.  If you want to pay the most, get them directly through Seiko.

----------


## Lab Insight

> I feel like our shop is under siege because of the AR failures with Seiko lenses since the Hoya takeover.  Are we the only ones experiencing this?  We have for years ordered our lenses direct from Seiko in Hopkins, Minnesota or New Jersey (Prominent, Prestige II, etc).  Hoya, as you know took over their labs earlier this year, closed them down, and moved everything to Dallas.  ALL the CR-39 jobs with AR failed within the first four months.  We are on the second round of do-overs with many patients.  Now 9 months later we are starting to see more Trivex fails.
> 
> We have been assured everything was fixed by July 13, but how to know?  I feel like we are in a news blackout.  I know not many optical shops ordered their lenses directly from Seiko (formerly Pentax), but we can't be the only ones in this situation.  Anyone else?  
> 
> We gave up on Seiko PALs in July and have moved most of our business to Shamir through Luzerne, but, wow, we sold a lot of Seiko product this year and I fear a never-ending re-do scenario.
> 
> Thanks for reading my rant.  Let me know if you have any insights or similar situations.


Although this rant has not been vetted, the same cannot be said for the Canadian market.  Seiko coatings are still being done by a distributor and are ok at best in quality.  Hoya however still has the best quality coatings in Canada.  May take a day or so longer to receive, but worth the wait!

Note: Seiko products are not available through Hoya in Canada.

----------


## jefe

> I feel like our shop is under siege because of the AR failures with Seiko lenses since the Hoya takeover.  Are we the only ones experiencing this?  We have for years ordered our lenses direct from Seiko in Hopkins, Minnesota or New Jersey (Prominent, Prestige II, etc).  Hoya, as you know took over their labs earlier this year, closed them down, and moved everything to Dallas.  ALL the CR-39 jobs with AR failed within the first four months.  We are on the second round of do-overs with many patients.  Now 9 months later we are starting to see more Trivex fails.
> 
> We have been assured everything was fixed by July 13, but how to know?  I feel like we are in a news blackout.  I know not many optical shops ordered their lenses directly from Seiko (formerly Pentax), but we can't be the only ones in this situation.  Anyone else?  
> 
> We gave up on Seiko PALs in July and have moved most of our business to Shamir through Luzerne, but, wow, we sold a lot of Seiko product this year and I fear a never-ending re-do scenario.
> 
> Thanks for reading my rant.  Let me know if you have any insights or similar situations.


Why don't you get Seiko from Luzerne?

----------


## huladude456

Here is what I know; please correct me if I am wrong.  The direct retail product from Seiko/Pentax is called PERFAS.  The lenses available through Hopkins, Minnesota were called Prominent, Prestige, and Premiere.  I believe these lenses to be very similar to the Seiko offerings of Supercede, Supernal and Surmount that you can order from many labs.  The prices on the Perfas product was very good and was processed by the lab in Minnesota.  That lab is now closed and Hoya Dallas is processing the Perfas product.  Something odd happened early on in the move to Dallas with the CR-39 AR jobs.  Hard coat mis-match?  I don't know.  But I've got a 3-page print out of every CR-39 AR Perfas job between January and July 14 and we are working through replacing each and every one.  Because the problem was not identified or fixed until July 14, I have replaced these lenses more than once for some of my customers.  Can you feel my frustration?  I don't have any more facts at my disposal because none are given to me by Hoya or Seiko, except they have fixed the problem.  We haven't ordered a single job from Hoya/Seiko/Pentax since July.  We are done.  I have been pleased with Luzerne and the Shamir Autograph II lenses we have been dispensing since then.

----------


## huladude456

I find it hard to believe that no one on this chat board ever used Seiko PERFAS product direct from Hopkins, Minnesota during this time period.  They always seemed busy when I called in an order!

----------


## jefe

Premier II = Supercede II
Prominent = Supernal
Prestige = Surmount

Same lenses, different names

----------


## jefe

BTW, Superior = Superior   They ran out of acceptable names starting with "Pr"

----------


## huladude456

I always wondered if the Perfas lenses were the exact same product in Seiko.

----------


## stedel

I thought that Prestige and Surmount were the same design, but Prestige  was backside surfaced while Surmount was dual surfaced? Is that wrong?

----------


## jefe

> I thought that Prestige and Surmount were the same design, but Prestige  was backside surfaced while Surmount was dual surfaced? Is that wrong?


Yes, that's wrong -- same lens

----------


## stedel

> Yes, that's wrong -- same lens


The thing is... I know a lab that does Prestige lenses, but I know for a fact that they don't do any dual surfacing whatsoever. But I was told by another lab that does Surmount that they always surface both sides of any + RX in a Surmount. So... what's going on?

----------


## Lab Insight

> The thing is... I know a lab that does Prestige lenses, but I know for a fact that they don't do any dual surfacing whatsoever. But I was told by another lab that does Surmount that they always surface both sides of any + RX in a Surmount. So... what's going on?


No other lens company other than Hoya is processing any double surface processing designs.  No Seiko design contains double surface processing.

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> No other lens company other than Hoya is processing any double surface processing designs.  No Seiko design contains double surface processing.


That is false, when talking about 1.74. I think Seiko does on 1.74, and I know zeiss does on 1.74. For Zeiss it has to be done out of country.

----------


## Lab Insight

> That is false, when talking about 1.74. I think Seiko does on 1.74, and I know zeiss does on 1.74. For Zeiss it has to be done out of country.


No sir, it is true.  They all play into the BS marketing jargon.  Are those you referring to available in Transitions?

----------


## EyeCare Rich

> No sir, it is true.  They all play into the BS marketing jargon.  Are those you referring to available in Transitions?


Nope, only available in clear, because it is being surfaced on both sides.  Zeiss does it on the Individual2 in 1.74 and a couple other designs.  The old European Zeiss Gradal Individual was dual sided as well if I recall correctly.

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> No sir, it is true.  They all play into the BS marketing jargon.  Are those you referring to available in Transitions?


No marketing jargon involved. That's why when I order a 1.74 Individual 2, it takes 3+ weeks to receive it most of the time. Also, very little of Hoya's product is dual surfaced. Most of it is molded front design with freeform back surface.

I once sat in a class taught by a lab rep who said lenses were being surfaced with lasers. When I told them they were wrong, they tried to shut me down in front of the class by saying I am not in the know. I got a phone call the next day apologizing for that error. The only question I had was if they ever called the other people in the class to apologize and set the record straight.

People are very distrusting of lens manufacturers right now, and with good reason. But there really are neat technologies available right now, and they do actually perform as advertised.

----------

