# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Zeiss vs. Seiko

## SailorEd

I am going to have to make a choice which company to use for progressive lenses.  Does anyone have experience using one or the other or (preferably) both and which ones would you choose?  Talking only free-form here.  Zeiss Supercede or Surmount vs. Zeiss GT2 3D.  The "why's" as to your answer would also be helpful when I take this to my Doctor for him to make the choice.  

Thanks in Advance

----------


## sjthielen

Both companies designs are going to work well for your patients. You may want to make your decision based on the turn around time of the lab, warranties, service and durability of AR coatings.  I also make my lab decisions based on how I feel the companies global business objectives will impact our practice now and in the future.

----------


## jefe

I use Seiko more for people who are getting progressives for the first time.  Zeiss designs may feel more similar to those who have been wearing other types of PALs.  That said, I know of people on Optiboard who consider the Seiko lenses their favorite line.   It's my opinion Seiko lenses are a better value than those from Zeiss.

----------


## eyemanflying

> I am going to have to make a choice which company to use for progressive lenses. Does anyone have experience using one or the other or (preferably) both and which ones would you choose? Talking only free-form here. Zeiss Supercede or Surmount vs. Zeiss GT2 3D. The "why's" as to your answer would also be helpful when I take this to my Doctor for him to make the choice. 
> 
> Thanks in Advance


Why do you feel you have to limit yourself to one supplier? Too many people make that mistake. Diversity and multiple suppliers is always a good idea. And yes, you still great discounts without having to put all of your eggs in one basket!

----------


## SailorEd

> Why do you feel you have to limit yourself to one supplier? Too many people make that mistake. Diversity and multiple suppliers is always a good idea. And yes, you still great discounts without having to put all of your eggs in one basket!


Eyemanflying:  Doc is considering going into a "Program" (or not) and the program will limit what lens we can use.  If he decides to do it, then only one lens is going to be available and only one lab will be available.  They will "supposedly" save us money.  Right now we are using one of those lenses.  If we move into the program we will only be using the other lens.  I've done my best to keep which lens will be lost and which will be gained as to keep the answers from being influenced.  It's not my decision, it's Docs.  If it were up to me, I'd stay but it isn't up to me.  So, that's why I am asking.  With the answers I get here - if they are definitive - I can take those to him to either back up my position or to tell him it will be a good idea to go with the program.

----------


## Lee Prewitt

Any program that limits your choice to only 1 lens and 1 supplier likely is not worth the purported savings.  There are many of us independant lab reps here that could likely give you a "program" that would be competetive and not limit your choices.  PM me and let's talk.

----------


## WFruit

Why couldn't you have asked an easy question?

Both are very good, and I've seen feedback from our acounts on both that they are well liked.  You'll probably find just about equal numbers here on the boards in favor of each one.  Seiko usually runs less expensive, but I think that will also depend on the lab.  Based on optical preformance, I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Not, I'm sure, the answer you were looking for.  On a purely personal preference note, I prefer Seiko.  I have nothing against Zeiss, and I've always liked their products, I just have more of a personal affinity for Seiko.

This one may come down more to which lab you prefer.  Just remind your Docs that it's a BAD IDEA to sacrifice service and quality for price.

----------


## eyemanflying

> Eyemanflying: Doc is considering going into a "Program" (or not) and the program will limit what lens we can use. If he decides to do it, then only one lens is going to be available and only one lab will be available. They will "supposedly" save us money. Right now we are using one of those lenses. If we move into the program we will only be using the other lens. I've done my best to keep which lens will be lost and which will be gained as to keep the answers from being influenced. It's not my decision, it's Docs. If it were up to me, I'd stay but it isn't up to me. So, that's why I am asking. With the answers I get here - if they are definitive - I can take those to him to either back up my position or to tell him it will be a good idea to go with the program.


Ahh, I see...the 'Program'. A code word for deep rebates.

----------


## icare

Seiko has a wide variety of offerings in nearly all materials.  The Succeed and Succeed WS are fine entry level FreeForms.  The Supercede and Supercede WS are excellent upgrade/premium fits at good price points and the Surmount is positioned well as an ultimate product.  Offering this line provides a full array of options from one brand, if that's your goal.

Like others have said, it makes sense to keep yourself open to a wider variety of brands.  There's no reason to limit your offerings even if it means that alternatives will be priced much differently.  Patients always need choices and you may find them walking in search of those choices if you cannot provide them.

----------


## eyemanflying

It's greed versus patient practicality.  Greed always wins.

----------


## Geirskogul

We sell mainly Zeiss at a much lower price than competitors, but offer Essilor at a similar or slightly higher price.  The option is still there for those who want it at not much more than the competition, but it gets us to sell mainly Zeiss, which is waht we want.

----------


## Chris Ryser

*There is no such thing as a perfect progressive lens. Selection involves multiple trade offs among near, mid, and far vision quality and in factors which empirically affect visual ease-of-use.*

Boiling it down to one Lab, one make and one lens is not the ideal solution as there are too many factors involved to sell the perfect lens for the use of somebody who is different to his next door neighbor. You do need other solutions in PALS to cover it all.

Yes you will get a better deal but not a better solution.

----------


## eyemanflying

> *There is no such thing as a perfect progressive lens. Selection involves multiple trade offs among near, mid, and far vision quality and in factors which empirically affect visual ease-of-use.*
> 
> Boiling it down to one Lab, one make and one lens is not the ideal solution as there are too many factors involved to sell the perfect lens for the use of somebody who is different to his next door neighbor. You do need other solutions in PALS to cover it all.
> 
> Yes you will get a better deal but not a better solution.


I couldn't agree more Chris...selection and choices are king to properly service a consumer. Like I said earlier, we have gone full circle back to the days of prohibition where 'kickbacks' and 'bought votes' were the norm. As corrupt as it is, in present day the big companies that desperately want to purchase market share call it a 'rebate' or 'co-op funding'. And this apparently makes it ok. Call it what you may; it's simply 'greed' on behalf of both the manufacturer and ECP.

----------


## Link

Personally speaking I prefer Seiko. Although both are good quality.

----------


## rdcoach5

We deal with 1 lab because they give us great service and convenience. If we need a job done on a rush the same day, they can do it and have many times hand delivered it if their normal twice a day delivery was already gone. This service is priceless. From this lab, the best price for a Zeiss GT2 beats comparable Seiko, Shamir and Essilor products. So that is primarily what we use.

----------


## Darryl Meister

I could get into a rather lengthy optical comparison between the two brands, extolling the visual benefits of the award-winning, fully-customized lenses by ZEISS and SOLA compared to free-form lenses by SEIKO and similar competitors.

But, given the context of this conversation, I will instead refer you guys to the banner ad atop this forum in order to remind you that sponsors like Carl Zeiss Vision make OptiBoard possible. Not many of our free-form competitors can claim the same.

Nevertheless, for those of you interested in a detailed technical discussion of the technology behind Zeiss Individual, I would recommend reviewing the *Zeiss Individual White Paper*.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## rdcoach5

Nice White Paper, Darryl !

----------


## Darryl Meister

Thanks!

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## SailorEd

> I could get into a rather lengthy optical comparison between the two brands, extolling the visual benefits of the award-winning, fully-customized lenses by ZEISS and SOLA compared to free-form lenses by SEIKO and similar competitors.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Ok, here's what if. Tell me why I should choose the Zeiss GT2 3D over the Seiko Supercede - or should I/ - Don't refer me to the banner. I've used the GT2 (Regular) before - excellent lens but the other full service labs in the area could also get it and produce it for much less then we could. I went to something else (in this case Varilux, since the other full service labs in the area couldn't get it to surface and that gave the advantage in pricing to us (small independent)). The other full service labs in the area cannot do free form either, and that is where we have moved in totality (we just have a small finishing lab). I just need to know how these two lenses compare. I haven't used the GT2 3D before and this forum is a great way to get honest opinions (unless some go off in a disappointing tangent and don't really answer the question therefore negating any relevant discussion of the subject at hand). I have absolutely nothing against the GT2 3D, just was looking for some info on it.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Ok, here's what if. Tell me why I should choose the Zeiss GT2 3D over the Seiko Supercede... Don't refer me to the banner... I've used the GT2 (Regular) before - excellent lens but the other full service labs in the area could also get it and produce it for much less then we could


I'm suggesting that other factors are equally important when selecting a lens brand or supplier, which you've confirmed by stating that you chose to use a different lens brand over a ZEISS lens that you admitted was "excellent," simply because of a slightly lower cost.

You are unlikely to get truly objective comparisons between two lenses on the Internet. Brand loyalty runs deep among many OptiBoarders, and SEIKO has historically made very few technical details (in the form of actual numerical comparisons or contour plots) available regarding their lens designs.

Nevertheless, I am happy to answer any questions you have regarding GT2 3D, although I'm afraid that my opinions regarding SEIKO products would be perceived as biased, either way.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## star

> Why couldn't you have asked an easy question?
> 
> Both are very good, and I've seen feedback from our acounts on both that they are well liked.  You'll probably find just about equal numbers here on the boards in favor of each one.  Seiko usually runs less expensive, but I think that will also depend on the lab.  Based on optical preformance, I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Not, I'm sure, the answer you were looking for.  On a purely personal preference note, I prefer Seiko.  I have nothing against Zeiss, and I've always liked their products, I just have more of a personal affinity for Seiko.
> 
> This one may come down more to which lab you prefer.  Just remind your Docs that it's a BAD IDEA to sacrifice service and quality for price.


your comparison of seiko with zeiss ;is to  the most updated one /pure coat and foundation hardcoat ?

----------

