# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Varilux X

## Happylady

Anyone have any personal experience with this lens? Is it really noticeably different? It's sounds really great and I was thinking about getting a pair for my husband.

----------


## Uilleann

No personal experience as yet.  But every pt we've fit so far has raved about it.  Granted, we've dispensed fewer than 20 so far, but they were all positive.

----------


## Tallboy

I have chronicled a few of my fittings in the other thread.  I'm switching a +4.25 OU +2.25 add to a physio W3 to see if she does better with a different design.  She had been wearing tradional poly comforts, complains of peripheral vision distortion.  At first she liked them.  Maybe a patient thing, but the doc wanted to try a different design, because the RX wasn't changed very much.

We (though not I) also dispensed a -7.00 or so with cyl, she never came back so I expect she likes them.

I am about to do a double blind wearer trial with my partner doctor.  Two of the same frames (in different colors of course)  one with my favorite higher end house design and one with the Varliux X.

I will be interested in what she says, is one better than the other, and if so is it so much better that she would pay an extra 250 dollars for it.

She is about a -4.00 in each eye with about -1.75 cyl @ 178    give or take. +1.75 add, standard fit.

I will report back with her experience.  I'm still waiting on getting in the Xs.  I will be edging both, but will not be in the room when she tries them, neither her nor the dispenser will know which is which (I told them NO CHEATING!)

----------


## Happylady

Tallboy, I will be be interested in her experience with these lenses. 

Personally, I can wear wear almost any progressive easily. There have just been a couple I didn't like. So for myself I just get cheap progressives(unless I cam score a free expensive one) but I get good AR.

----------


## Tallboy

> Tallboy, I will be be interested in her experience with these lenses. 
> 
> Personally, I can wear wear almost any progressive easily. There have just been a couple I didn't like. So for myself I just get cheap progressives(unless I cam score a free expensive one) but I get good AR.


I've finished the double blind portion of  of my Doctor's wearer trial.  I'm letting her wear them one more week knowing what they are now.  I have a few other people who will be picking up, once I get a few more together I will post my results in this or  the other thread.

----------


## iaxbbcp

Tallboy, I did a very similar test with one of my doctors. She is a -5.75 -0.75 x 46, and a -6.00 -1.00 x 85 with a +1.00 Add.  Being a Vision Source Practice, did one pair in the newest Vision source branded lens the Truclear XD2, the other was the Varilux X fit.  Did POW measurements on both pairs.  I really wanted her feed back since they are pushing us to use the XD2 because of profit margins.... 1.74 hi index transitions gry in both pairs.

She wore one pair for a week, not knowing which one it was, then wore the other pair for a week. She overwhelmingly preferred the Varilux X.  She saw well out of the Truclear XD2 but her eyes were more comfortable in the X, at least that is the way she described it.  She felt her intermediate was much wider in the X as well.

We have dispensed a number of the X now, and I have only had one patient that I ended switching back to a different lens.  Mostly because he really preferred a much harder design with more corridors.  We have had a very positive response over all.

----------


## Tallboy

Okay so she is a:

OD
-3.75 -1.50 154
OS
-4.25 -1.50 020  

Add +1.50

Same frame in both, very standard fit, 1.67 clear with Crizal Avance

One lens was my favorite house design, which is an IOT design that the lab chooses corridors based on their own software's choice, the other was a Varilux X.

Her initial reaction was she liked my house design more, crisper vision.  After about 10 minutes she said maybe there was a bit more reading area in the X, but she wasn't sure.  I wasn't the one who dispensed them because I didn't want to influence her in anyway since I knew which was which.

She wore them for the next few days and eventually said she wasn't more Wowed by one than the other.

For the price of what I could put someone in a 1.67 with Avance in my house lens they could have an X in CR39 scratch coated.

I am restyling someone from the X who was a +4.25 OU with +2.00 add back into a Physio W3 because she feels peripheral distortion, I will see if the restyle fixes it.

The X is a fine lens, but so is my IOT house design.  The other two people I fit in Xs were higher myopes -7 to -8 or so, neither one has returned so I assume they like them.

The Physio W3 has been the best progressive for Hyperopes I have ever dispensed, with the Auto III right behind it.  The S crashed and burned for hyperopes in my office.  I'll let you know what the +4.25 woman says after I remake her into the Physio W3, she wore the X and really liked it for reading but said she had a lot of peripheral blur that she didn't feel in her Poly Comfort2

----------


## Happylady

Thanks for the input. I'm thinking a truer test of the lens claim to be able to see intermediate then the near area and near thru the intermediate area would be with higher adds. Adds of 1.75 or less almost don't need the intermediate area-at least not like adds of 2.25 and above do.

----------


## Happylady

On the Optical Jedi blog site he says his new X lenses have a superior near and midrange area but the distance area seems narrower. Anyone else have experience with this?

----------


## jefe

> Okay so she is a:
> 
> OD
> -3.75 -1.50 154
> OS
> -4.25 -1.50 020  
> 
> Add +1.50
> 
> ...



1.50 Adds might not constitute a good test.  How does it compare with a 2.50 to 3.00 Add?

----------


## Tallboy

> 1.50 Adds might not constitute a good test.  How does it compare with a 2.50 to 3.00 Add?


You tell me? I'd love to hear.  The +4.25 OU with a +2.00 Add likes the Physio W3's I restyled her in better than the X, claims to experience much less peripheral distortion.

----------


## FANCYEYE

> Anyone have any personal experience with this lens? Is it really noticeably different? It's sounds really great and I was thinking about getting a pair for my husband.


Yes!!  I have, and I LOVE them!!  Super clear and HD - the intermediate is such that I don't have to rely on my Workspace lenses at work!!!

----------


## Tallboy

> Yes!!  I have, and I LOVE them!!  Super clear and HD - the intermediate is such that I don't have to rely on my Workspace lenses at work!!!


That's great to hear! What is your RX and relative fitting measurements? (you can be lazy like me and just say normal, or a jerk like me and ask for me to post the decentration and segs, I've been way too busy to post) 

Also what was the last RX you were coming from / comparing to and what design were they in? Were they also fit as well as the previous one? 

The more data the better, data like this is anecdotal of course but extremely valuable!

----------


## Happylady

I'm making a pair for my husband right now and will keep you posted. He's a mild hyperope with astigmatism and a +2.50 add. I might try a pair myself if I can find a frame I like.  I'm a lowish myope with some astigmatism and I also have a +2.50 add.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I'm making a pair for my husband right now and will keep you posted. He's a mild hyperope with astigmatism* *and a +2.50 add**. I might try a pair myself if I can find a frame I like.  I'm a lowish myope with some astigmatism and* *I also have a +2.50 add**.*



I get *Goosebumps* when I see statements that one can be happy, wearing any progressive lens at an add of 2.50, whatever the name or manufacturer is X, Y or Z !

----------


## Happylady

Chris- I get the impression that you think Im being less then truthful when I say I have NO issues wearing progressives with my add. I have many many friends that also have +2.25/2.50 adds and are very happy with their progressive lenses. 

I also fit many people with these adds in them with no problems. 

Just because you are in the the small minority that dont like them really doesnt mean those of us who do are just fooling ourselves!

----------


## Tallboy

> I get *Goosebumps* when I see statements that one can be happy, wearing any progressive lens at an add of 2.50, whatever the name or manufacturer is X, Y or Z !


How do you feel about a mild hyperope wearing a regressive workplace design with variable inset?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Presbyopia correction is like human life, requiring a series of compromises.

----------


## Lee H

> I'm making a pair for my husband right now and will keep you posted. He's a mild hyperope with astigmatism and a +2.50 add. I might try a pair myself if I can find a frame I like.  I'm a lowish myope with some astigmatism and I also have a +2.50 add.



im curious as to how your husband liked his X lenses?

----------


## Happylady

> im curious as to how your husband liked his X lenses?


He likes them fine. No issues but he doesn't notice a huge difference between them and his Physio W3 lenses.

I also got a pair, my correction is a -.75 -1.00 and a -1.50-1.00 with a 2.50 add. I do notice some improvement versus my previous glasses but it's subtle. I find the distance excellent, even off to the very edge I notice only a very slight decrease in acuity. But my frame is a 52 eye, so perhaps the Optical Jedi's frame is wider. I don't feel the intermediate is extremely wide (my 2.50 add could be part of the reason) but it's very well placed and comfortable to use.

So far I have not had any redo's with the X for adaption issues.

----------


## opticalsource

Can anyone tell me the retail pricing on Varilux Pal lenses.

----------


## Kwill212

> Can anyone tell me the retail pricing on Varilux Pal lenses.


about $0-$1000.00

----------


## IJustOpenedMyCase

Is anybody else having problems with progression length and add power compensation for hypers?

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Is anybody else having problems with progression length and add power compensation for hypers?


Here's a few feet of thread talking about hyperopes and progressives...

https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...ecommendation?

Welcome to OptiBoard!!!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris- I get the impression that you think Im being less then truthful when I say I have NO issues wearing progressives with my add. I have many many friends that also have +2.25/2.50 adds and are very happy with their progressive lenses. 
> 
> I also fit many people with these adds in them with no problems. 
> 
> Just because you are in the the small minority that dont like them really doesnt mean those of us who do are just fooling ourselves!*




Happylady.....................I would never think your not truthful. I know for many years that you are happy with them and so are your customers and family.

My father received a pair of Varilux about 2 years before they hit the market from his good family friend the President of the then ESSEL. He loved them and sold them in his optical business ever since they came officially on the market in Switzerland.

In my optical lab in Montreal we surfaced the Hoya version, a copy  of Varilux from 1965 to about 1970 and made good profits doing so, long before Essilor was established in Canada.

I have a few pairs of them but prefer my wide segmented straight tops, because I want, and need as much clear and visible desk space desk space, at the blink of an eye. It is as simple as that.

----------


## drk

Word.  

If this new Shamir/essilor thing is going to be a boon, it's going to be on patients with high adds.

----------


## drk

> 1.50 Adds might not constitute a good test.  How does it compare with a 2.50 to 3.00 Add?


I meant, "word" to this.

----------


## Tallboy

> I meant, "word" to this.


Are you going to try one?

----------


## mervinek

Anyone have a comparison of a Varilux X vs a Camber lens?

----------


## Kwill212

> Anyone have a comparison of a Varilux X vs a Camber lens?


Not really a direct comparison, but I fit a few willing test patients with the X a couple month ago, did not go over well. Much like when the S series came out, the complaints from my testers consisted of vision that was OK all around but not as clear as it should be anywhere in the lens. Width of the near/intermediate didn't seem to be a problem but they all said it seemed higher than they were used to. Distance didn't have a lot of distortion side to side but also wasn't as crisp as they thought it should be. Sounds like a very soft design. 

I fit tons of patients in Camber based lenses with no issues, regardless of previous lens design. Bear in mind Camber is not a lens design, just a lens blank which multiple designs can be made on.

----------


## drk

My experience with the X (and Auto III that uses this same concept) is limited.  

It makes sense that some might not like it.  It seems to trade clarity for depth of focus, not unlike an aspheric SCL multifocal.  

I do think head tilt reduction and any improvement possible for desktop viewing with a general purpose PAL is a worthy goal, however.   I hope it works.

----------


## mervinek

Thanks for the information!  I have one of those educated patients who knows everything about all progressives.  Just wanted a few opinions.

----------


## IJustOpenedMyCase

> Here's a few feet of thread talking about hyperopes and progressives...
> 
> https://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...ecommendation?
> 
> Welcome to OptiBoard!!!


Thanks for the welcome, although I've had a login before, but years ago!

Anyway, I've read that thread before.  I'm a latent hyperope, myself, so I understand the mechanics.

I meant, specifically, have people had problems with the X?  I done numerous remakes on hypers, but the myopes love it.  I didn't use the S at my previous practice, but it seems the experience is similar.  Lately, unless their asking for the ULP, I keep them in the W3+Fit, which I've never had problems with.

I'm +.50 OU, +1.50 add, although I upped it to +1.75, since I've had problems with progressives in the past.  Distance, great!  Mid range, not bad for driving, everyday use.  Mid range for computer, not so much.  Reading, terrible.  21 seg ht, I don't read +2.00 until 6mm below the bottom edge.  I've changed corridor lengths (don't recommend!) and my reading power moved up 2-3 mm.  Still unusable, IMHO, for work.

Don't know.  I've stuck with RORX for years for this reason.

I will say, the X is the best I've seen for peripheral clarity at distance.

Your thoughts, please.

----------


## D.W.

Can anyone say these lenses are really superior to free-forms?
The idea is interesting, but we don't do business with Essilor.

Are they really the "best", or has anyone found something else that's clearly as good, or better?

----------


## Kwill212

What is your definition of free-form?

----------


## rdcoach5

> What is your definition of free-form?


Seriously ?

----------


## Kwill212

> Seriously ?



Yes, quite seriously. Oh wait, damn, I bet I missed the memo where the optical community came to a consensus decision on  terms to describe lenses. Could you forward me that memo please? I'd also like a cover sheet on your TPS reports from now on, as well. As far as I knew we were just kind of throwing out whatever terms we wanted willy nilly, free form, digital, HD, etc. Don't even get me started on "NO-Glare" lenses. 

By my definitions I would say the Varilux X is a free-form design. I think, but am not positive, the S and X series have to be made on special blanks(please correct me if I'm wrong). So maybe they aren't a FBS design, but I would still call them a free-form lens. 

D.W. asked if what I would call a free-form lens is superior to a free-from lens. So yes, seriously. Thanks for contributing such a helpful post there, really contributed to the topic.

----------


## optical24/7

The industry has done a poor job of "labeling" lens designs and processes. So, because I'm always right, I'm going to now give the final word on progressive lens definitions, right here!  :Giggle: 



Tradition designs; Molded PAL design on front, round diamond wheeled distance Rx generated on the back.

Free Form; The entire PAL design is fabricated (almost always) on the back surface of a spherical SV blank with CNC equipment.

Digital hybrid; A molded PAL design on the front, ( or require a particular blank with certain front surface pre-molding, aka Camber), back side surfaced using CNC equipment. Some "DH" lenses also have part of the add put on the back surface ( among these are the X and S series, Accolade freedom and certain Hoya designs. ( I'm not as familiar with Zeiss though, I've heard they have some designs done in Germany that are FF on both front and back.)

Digital lens; This is not a design definition, but a processing definition using the CNC process.


Note; If a lens is available in Transitions brand it is not Digitally processed on the front, (but the molds used to cast the front surface design most probably were). If you were to surface the front of any Transition lens, it would remove the Transitions layer. Don't let a rep confuse you if they tell you other wise. They know not what they speak (or are shady at best claiming such.)...

----------


## Judy Canty

> The industry has done a poor job of "labeling" lens designs and processes. So, because I'm always right, I'm going to now give the final word on progressive lens definitions, right here! 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition designs; Molded PAL design on front, round diamond wheeled distance Rx generated on the back.
> 
> Free Form; The entire PAL design is fabricated (almost always) on the back surface of a spherical SV blank with CNC equipment.
> 
> Digital hybrid; A molded PAL design on the front, ( or require a particular blank with certain front surface pre-molding, aka Camber), back side surfaced using CNC equipment. Some "DH" lenses also have part of the add put on the back surface ( among these are the X and S series, Accolade freedom and certain Hoya designs. ( I'm not as familiar with Zeiss though, I've heard they have some designs done in Germany that are FF on both front and back.)
> ...


Not the industry itself, but rather lens vendors who bank on no one asking for more information and just relying on slick marketing.  Real ECPs, in my opinion, ask for more factual information not just a lens voucher alone.

----------


## D.W.

> The industry has done a poor job of "labeling" lens designs and processes. So, because I'm always right, I'm going to now give the final word on progressive lens definitions, right here! 
> 
> Tradition designs; Molded PAL design on front, round diamond wheeled distance Rx generated on the back.
> 
> Free Form; The entire PAL design is fabricated (almost always) on the back surface of a spherical SV blank with CNC equipment.
> 
> Digital hybrid; A molded PAL design on the front, ( or require a particular blank with certain front surface pre-molding, aka Camber), back side surfaced using CNC equipment. Some "DH" lenses also have part of the add put on the back surface ( among these are the X and S series, Accolade freedom and certain Hoya designs. ( I'm not as familiar with Zeiss though, I've heard they have some designs done in Germany that are FF on both front and back.)
> 
> Digital lens; This is not a design definition, but a processing definition using the CNC process.
> ...


This is pretty close to what would say, but not all of it has to be on  the back. In fact the first thing that comes to mind for me, when I hear "free form", are lenses digitally surfaced on both sides, from a  flat puck.

----------


## optical24/7

> This is pretty close to what would say, but not all of it has to be on  the back. In fact the first thing that comes to mind for me, when I hear "free form", are lenses digitally surfaced on both sides, from a  flat puck.


Which designs would those be?

----------


## drk

Varipux

----------


## Sledzinator

> Which designs would those be?


Google search intensifies.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

When I see a free-form lens, I think...free-form generator.  




> Varipux


Nice wordplay. 




> Google search intensifies.


Lights dim ever so slightly in cities near server farms for just the smallest fraction of a second. My Magic 8-Ball says "Outlook not so good"

Best regards,

Robert Martellaro

----------


## Sledzinator

> When I see a free-form lens, I think...free-form generator.  
> 
> Nice wordplay. 
> 
> Lights dim ever so slightly in cities near server farms for just the smallest fraction of a second. My Magic 8-Ball says "Outlook not so good"
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Robert Martellaro


Lol!

----------


## Happylady

> Not really a direct comparison, but I fit a few willing test patients with the X a couple month ago, did not go over well. Much like when the S series came out, the complaints from my testers consisted of vision that was OK all around but not as clear as it should be anywhere in the lens. Width of the near/intermediate didn't seem to be a problem but they all said it seemed higher than they were used to. Distance didn't have a lot of distortion side to side but also wasn't as crisp as they thought it should be. Sounds like a very soft design.


Interesting. I’ve had no issues with this lens yet. Personally I don’t notice my vision is less clear at all. I’ve sat and compared various progressives side by side and it’s as sharp as any. I just can’t see a difference. 

I do notice the intermediate seems higher which makes it my favorite lens for my desktop work computer. Even though the intermediate clarity is better at a higher point in the lens, it doesn’t seem to effect using the distance or get in the way when I use the distance area.

I’m about a -1.50 myope with a diopter of astigmatism and a 2.50 add.

----------


## Tallboy

Checking back in, I've mostly had a good experience with these, a few (2) people went back to the Physio W3, both hyperopes with cyl, but mostly people have liked it.  One person who didn't like it turned out they needed surgery on their brain, so it wasn't the lens after all.  Now they like it a lot.

----------


## D.W.

> Checking back in, I've mostly had a good experience with these, a few (2) people went back to the Physio W3, both hyperopes with cyl, but mostly people have liked it.  One person who didn't like it turned out they needed surgery on their brain, so it wasn't the lens after all.  Now they like it a lot.


How many hyperopes have you put in Varilux X, and have you noticed a difference with the design, fit and 4d versions?

----------


## PJCURLER

Yes there is a significant difference. It is truly flat in the reading and really noticeable for Plus Rx's. Truly easy to get use to and I have had -0- non adapts or problems in 3 yrs using it.  PJ

----------

