# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Essilor "freeform" lenses; Premium product, or just high priced?

## icmor

One week after receiving my new Physio Enhanced lenses with Sapphire coating, my Varilux rep stopped in and asked my opinion.  I told the rep that there was a wow factor difference between regular progressives and any "freeform" lens design, but as far as a noticeable difference between one "freeform" and another; not really.  So my comment to the rep was this, "If I don't see a difference in quality, why would I pay a higher price for the Essilor freeform product?"  I didn't get much response, but the rep was writing it all down on paper.  So here's my question for all ECP's; Do you notice a big difference in quality between one freeform and another?  Is Essilor's "freeform" products worthy of the premium price they charge? I'm not trying to bash Essilor; I have a very low dist Rx, so maybe I'm not the best judge.  What do you think?

----------


## Judy Canty

First you need to understand the difference between freeform designs and digital processing.  Valuation of a lens is much easier when you do.

----------


## uncut

You realize, of course that the E spin on your response will be "Freeform lenses are so superior that even eyecare professionals can't believe the difference!  Order today!"

Freeform----free from noticable differences, just put them on and wear them, no adaption required.

----------


## blinkvelo

icmor, I believe the answer is Both. i noticed you referenced the Phys Enhanced as Essilor. In reality this is a premium "Varilux" product. There is a bunch of cost and value in branding to the consumer. Do you cary sell or promote any brand name frames? Etc. I suggest if you use the support and marketing Varilux offers and promote it as a/the premium brand the cost has a lot of value.
you can certainly offer brands or products that cost less and offer comparable features at a much lower price. I believed offering both is a very good business plan.
In the advent you don't use the Brand, Marketing and support offered then moveing to your favorite premium free-form lens that you can offer at a lower price high margin and satisfaction might be your best course of action. 
How to you market you services and products?

----------


## icmor

As a former wholesale lab manager, I do know all the differences in the "freeform" designs. Hence the quotes around the word, as mfg's throw the term around rather loosely.  The question remains; do you visually notice a difference (better/worse) when you switch from one "freeform" progressive to another?

----------


## Craig

> First you need to understand the difference between freeform designs and digital processing. Valuation of a lens is much easier when you do.


Please explain.  I am sending off to Harry 6 lenses as follows:
Shamir Autograph, Kodak Unique and the Pech Pro to see what the plots like like in basic form and in a tough rx.
i am ordering plano +2.00 add and a +2.00 - 2.50 x 045 2.50 add to see how they compare.

What do you think my results will yield?

Criag

----------


## Judy Canty

In a nutshell, freeform lenses are produced on a SV lens blank with both the design and the Rx created on the back surface with a cnc freeform generator.  Any lens can be digitally processed.  A digitally processed old design is a very accurately produced old design.  A digitally processed bad design is an accurately produced bad design.

----------


## paulcr39

> first you need to understand the difference between freeform designs and digital processing. Valuation of a lens is much easier when you do.





> as a former wholesale lab manager, i do know all the differences in the "freeform" designs. Hence the quotes around the word, as mfg's throw the term around rather loosely. The question remains; do you visually notice a difference (better/worse) when you switch from one "freeform" progressive to another?


:hammer:

icmor: I have FreeForm lenses from Shamir, from the German lens company and from the French "360/freeform" lens company. I wear the Shamir Auto II and keep the other ones as a just-in-case backup. Matter of fact I'm wearing the Auto II Office right now.:bbg:
As an FYI: I'm anisometropic w/+2.00 add if that means anything.

----------


## icmor

I keep getting replies about the designs of the lenses, plot differences, or marketing.  I'm not asking what the difference is in design plots, how they're made, or how we should market them.  I know about all that.  You're not answering my question.  I'll try to be more specific: Do you have personal experience in wearing multiple pairs of glasses utilizing  "freeform", digitally processed progressives from various lens mfgs, and do you notice a quality difference if you switch from one pair to the other?  Do you find one design (brand) is superior to the others?  Or are they all on the same "playing field" (This is my visual perception); equal in visual quality?  If they're pretty much equal in quality (visually), why should I pay more from Company "V" than company "XYZ" for the same visual quality? My take from "cr-39" is that Shamir is noticeably (visually) better, so the other products are used for back up only; correct?

----------


## RT

> In a nutshell, freeform lenses are produced on a SV lens blank with both the design and the Rx created on the back surface with a cnc freeform generator.


That's not entirely true.

There are some Free Form designs that do NOT use SV front.  HOYALUX ID, for example, is produced by using Free Form techniques on both the front and the back.

Other lenses use Free Form processing of complex atoric/aspheric surfaces to optimize the optics of a conventional progressive.  That is something significantly more than just using digital CNC surface generators for greater accuracy (which have been in use since 1987 and are hardly a new phenomenon).

----------


## NCspecs

I may be jinxing myself but I'll say that, so far, I've had no non-adapts since I've started to use the Physio Enhanced. The Dr. I work for is pretty gung-ho on the design and so I really don't fit any of my progressive wearing pts in much else. I have noticed that my first-time wearers are adjusting better to the lenses than other pts in the past have with older designs. I'm not usually of the school of thought that "newer is better"  but it seems to be working well and I'm seeing high pt satisfaction. I'm not a presbyope just yet so I can't personally comment on the design differences.

----------


## paulcr39

> I keep getting replies about the designs of the lenses, plot differences, or marketing. I'm not asking what the difference is in design plots, how they're made, or how we should market them. I know about all that. You're not answering my question. I'll try to be more specific: Do you have personal experience in wearing multiple pairs of glasses utilizing "freeform", digitally processed progressives from various lens mfgs, and do you notice a quality difference if you switch from one pair to the other? Do you find one design (brand) is superior to the others? Or are they all on the same "playing field" (This is my visual perception); equal in visual quality? If they're pretty much equal in quality (visually), why should I pay more from Company "V" than company "XYZ" for the same visual quality? *My take* *from "cr-39" is that Shamir is noticeably (visually) better, so the other products are used for back up only; correct?*


Word or is it church? Dang young kids and their hipster jargon.....

You are correct; to my eyes the Shamir Auto II is noticeably better than the others hence their constant use and the back up role for the others. If *you* find the quality of the lenses are pretty much the same whether from company 'V' or 'XYZ', than you shouldn't pay more....unless you like to support your rep's golf game or his company's acquisition conquests. (Yes, I DID go there!)

----------


## Craig

We use 3 free form brands and the patients can get all 3 and have never said they can tell the difference.  Any free form lens should do a good job and we have yet to see one do a great job when compared to the other brands.  I use the least expensive first and have no problems with the Pech Pro as a value lens.  We have done thousands of free form progressives and the only ones we had problems with were the Sola HDV and Opthonix- Are they still in business?
Just don't do a free form lens in poly, use a clear material to maximize the benefits.
Craig

----------


## MasterCrafter

Essilor freeforms are kind of lame. They use the same blanks i surface conventionaly. 

Take for instance the Accolade freedom. I pick the blank and surface the backside on conventional surfacing equipment.  When Essilor does the Accolade Freedom. They would take that same lens i use and digitize the backside. :finger:

To me the lenses that are the best are spherical front progressives or even better yet the Hoyalux ID and Gradal individual which combines digital fronts and backs.

Digital mold fronts =  :cry:

----------


## WFruit

Essilor's ONLY Free Form lens (currently) is the Ideal.  The Enhanced and Freedom lines are merely conventional blanks run through Essilor's "special" software and surfaced on a digital generator.  I could surface a VIP on our digital generator and call it a Digitally Surfaced lens.

The best lens feedback I've seen is for the Seiko and Zeiss lenses.  The Hoya lenses seem to be well liked also, but I've heard less about them.  Shamir's lenses are also very good, but much more expensive.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

I have identical pairs in Shamir Auto II, Hoya Amplitude HD, and Hoya ID LIfestyle. My favorite ones are the Lifestyle out of the three because they have a much nicer intermediate and is an easily noticeable difference. Other than that, they all do well in the distance and near (+3.00 add)

----------


## Uncle Fester

I'm in the Enhanced. I also have worn the Auto 2, Seiko Prefas, Comfort 360, Illumina, Sola one and a couple others.

Enhanced and Auto have the least swim but these emmetropic eyes can adjust to any of them in a few minutes. Then again I'm not a fussy guy.

----------


## jcamp

Everyone has different "visual sensitivity" and many can wear a variety of the PAL designs. I've fit a lot of patients with freeform and don't see the "wow" factor. They certainly don't look any better in the lensometer. It just doesn't seem that great of an improvement for the cost. Just my opinion.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> Everyone has different "visual sensitivity" and many can wear a variety of the PAL designs. I've fit a lot of patients with freeform and don't see the "wow" factor. They certainly don't look any better in the lensometer. It just doesn't seem that great of an improvement for the cost. Just my opinion.


I've seen alot of "wow" factor people. Especially with Myopic people. The Hyperops do not see as much of a "wow" factor.

But either way digital progs are the best thing to happen to lenses in a long time, and on the plus side the cost keeps dropping :bbg:

----------


## icmor

That's where I'm coming from.  With a low dist correction, I don't see a great difference, where as, someone with a higher script, and or high cyl, may definitely see a greater improvement from one style to another.  I'm hoping some of those wearers will post their experience.

----------


## Happylady

I got a free pair of Physio Enhanced at a seminar. They're nice but I'm not getting a wow. I like my Physio Short better. I would love to try the Hoya ID.

----------


## KStraker

> icmor, I believe the answer is Both. i noticed you referenced the Phys Enhanced as Essilor. In reality this is a premium "Varilux" product. There is a bunch of cost and value in branding to the consumer. Do you cary sell or promote any brand name frames? Etc. I suggest if you use the support and marketing Varilux offers and promote it as a/the premium brand the cost has a lot of value.


So you really believe that the designs for Varilux lenses are completely different than the other lenses Essilor offers? Are you saying that all the hype and POP Varilux uses makes the lens a better value? I disagree. I'd say that if I can produce the same or better result for the patient, and use a cheaper lens, then I have a very real increase in value.(not a perceived value) The rest is a warm fuzzy feeling brought on by the cheerleaders at Varilux.(who do an excellent job)

----------


## LAGUNAEYEDESIGNER

> I've seen alot of "wow" factor people. Especially with Myopic people. The Hyperops do not see as much of a "wow" factor.
> 
> But either way digital progs are the best thing to happen to lenses in a long time, and on the plus side the cost keeps dropping :bbg:


MasterCrafter,

Seiko just got a new free form progressive-SURMOUNT and they claim will "WOW" hyperops.  Have you tried them?  Or anyone have tried Surmont (seiko lens)?  
How are they?  Please share your views.  Thanks.

Laguna.

----------


## HarryChiling

> MasterCrafter,
> 
> Seiko just got a new free form progressive-SURMOUNT and they claim will "WOW" hyperops.  Have you tried them?  Or anyone have tried Surmont (seiko lens)?  
> How are they?  Please share your views.  Thanks.
> 
> Laguna.


The thickness or the lack of it is amazing, especially for hyperopes.  I haven't received any feedback yet on the optics, but so far the lenses look better than anything on the market.

----------


## Jubilee

Shamir more expensive?

Hmm.. in our area the Shamir Free Forms are less expensive the Varilux, or Zeiss. The labs I am working with aren't advertising Seiko, though it the local lab putting in the FF generator might be using one of their designs for their inhouse branded FF.

----------


## Judy Canty

> The thickness or the lack of it is amazing, especially for hyperopes. I haven't received any feedback yet on the optics, but so far the lenses look better than anything on the market.


I sent my frame in yesterday.  I'm a +2.00/+2.50 add.  They're going in an Acuity FF round 47 eye zyl.  I'll keep you posted.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> I sent my frame in yesterday.  I'm a +2.00/+2.50 add.  They're going in an Acuity FF round 47 eye zyl.  I'll keep you posted.


Are you getting those put in the old Oscar de la Renta?

----------


## Judy Canty

> Are you getting those put in the old Oscar de la Renta?


Ummm...no. I'm saving them for something really special.  :bbg:

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> Ummm...no. I'm saving them for something really special.  :bbg:


Polarized lenses with blue mirror?

----------


## Judy Canty

You read my mind!!

----------


## anastacia81

I'm having similar problems trying to decide which brand of progressive to put my patients in. I'm more familiar with the Essilor products, having had great success with the Physio 360 and even the new Comfort and Physio short. I have been trying the Zeiss Individual and comparing it with the Autograph II fixed. I've had to send back a few Individuals because the reading got cut off, and one of my Autograph II patients was nauseated when wearing them. 

I guess I'm looking for your feedback for a top of the line "go to" general progressive. Anyone have any thoughts regarding the Essilor 360 products versus the Shamir or Zeiss premium progressives? Cost not being a factor?

----------


## WFruit

> I'm having similar problems trying to decide which brand of progressive to put my patients in. I'm more familiar with the Essilor products, having had great success with the Physio 360 and even the new Comfort and Physio short. I have been trying the Zeiss Individual and comparing it with the Autograph II fixed. I've had to send back a few Individuals because the reading got cut off, and one of my Autograph II patients was nauseated when wearing them. 
> 
> I guess I'm looking for your feedback for a top of the line "go to" general progressive. Anyone have any thoughts regarding the Essilor 360 products versus the Shamir or Zeiss premium progressives? Cost not being a factor?


Well, cost not being a factor, I would go with the Seiko Free Form.  We sell A LOT of them, and I don't think we've had a remake yet.  Despite the fact that we sell Shamir and not Zeiss, I would say go with the Zeiss between the two.  I've heard fewer complaints about their Free Form.  I honestly think Shamir has "over-thought" theirs.  However, with the Spectrum release in the US, I'm interested to see how that does.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> MasterCrafter,
> 
> Seiko just got a new free form progressive-SURMOUNT and they claim will "WOW" hyperops. Have you tried them? Or anyone have tried Surmont (seiko lens)? 
> How are they? Please share your views. Thanks.
> 
> Laguna.


WOW... lol

No i have not tried them... very intresting.. i wonder why the rep has not been bragging about them yet.

Thanks for the heads up :D

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> I'm having similar problems trying to decide which brand of progressive to put my patients in. I'm more familiar with the Essilor products, having had great success with the Physio 360 and even the new Comfort and Physio short. I have been trying the Zeiss Individual and comparing it with the Autograph II fixed. I've had to send back a few Individuals because the reading got cut off, and one of my Autograph II patients was nauseated when wearing them. 
> 
> I guess I'm looking for your feedback for a top of the line "go to" general progressive. Anyone have any thoughts regarding the Essilor 360 products versus the Shamir or Zeiss premium progressives? Cost not being a factor?


My go-to digital progressive is the Hoya ID Lifestyle, though we've been using the Seiko some lately too.

----------


## Judy Canty

> WOW... lol
> 
> No i have not tried them... very intresting.. i wonder why the rep has not been bragging about them yet.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up :D


Their reps are primarily frame reps, so look to your independent wholesale lab rep for the best information.  Seiko does not sell to the "big 3", so they can't help you.

----------


## sharpstick777

> ...I'll try to be more specific: Do you have personal experience in wearing multiple pairs of glasses utilizing "freeform", digitally processed progressives from various lens mfgs, and do you notice a quality difference if you switch from one pair to the other? Do you find one design (brand) is superior to the others? Or are they all on the same "playing field" (This is my visual perception); equal in visual quality? If they're pretty much equal in quality (visually), why should I pay more from Company "V" than company "XYZ" for the same visual quality? My take from "cr-39" is that Shamir is noticeably (visually) better, so the other products are used for back up only; correct?


Its hard to say that Lens A is better than lens B without discussing the patients needs.  Some Digital free-form lenses emphasis different areas and will be better for some patients lifestyles.  There is no single lens that will be the "best" lens for every patient, even in digital/free-form.  I think this why some people are missing the "Wow" factor.  Each digital lens I have tried has its plus' and minus in certain areas or respects, the key is discovering those strengths and weakness and then matching those with your patients needs.  I have posted many reviews in other posts, as have others, that should give you a head start.  The best way is try them for yourself.

----------


## sharpstick777

> So here's my question for all ECP's; Do you notice a big difference in quality between one freeform and another? Is Essilor's "freeform" products worthy of the premium price they charge? I'm not trying to bash Essilor; I have a very low dist Rx, so maybe I'm not the best judge. What do you think?


It should be noted, that except for the Ipseo and Ideal (discontinued in many places) that all of Essilor lenses, even digital, still use a cast add power.  The Physio, Physio 360 and Physio Enhanced all begin with the same lens blank.  They just receive digital processing for the distance RX (and "improvements" to the reading area).  The problem with this 50% digital approach is that the most important curve on a progressive is the sagital radius between the distance and reading.  When you dont' proccess that digitally, you really limit what you can do design wise and improvement wise.  Many people are disappointed in not getting a "wow" factor with these lenses, but its no wonder why.  I suggest you try and stay with 100% digital designs that include the add power.  You get much better performance.

Essilor has taken the 50% route to keep their profits higher, as they don't have to pay Seiko a licensing fee and they get to use existing blanks improving inventory turn.

----------


## sharpstick777

> Everyone has different "visual sensitivity" and many can wear a variety of the PAL designs. I've fit a lot of patients with freeform and don't see the "wow" factor. They certainly don't look any better in the lensometer. It just doesn't seem that great of an improvement for the cost. Just my opinion.


you still have to match the design to patients lifestyle to get the "Wow" factor.  A Corvette is a great car, but if I put a family of 6 into one they will be dissappointed.  I would need to put them into a mini-van or SUV.

----------


## sharpstick777

> MasterCrafter,
> Seiko just got a new free form progressive-SURMOUNT and they claim will "WOW" hyperops. Have you tried them? Or anyone have tried Surmont (seiko lens)? 
> How are they? Please share your views. Thanks.
> Laguna.


We have had very postive feedback with even low powered hyperopes, its truly a great lens.  I am a low powered myope and have a pair on order, I will let you know how they do.  They ARE thinnner, just for fun we ran a pair of +6.25  in Physion 360's and Surmount, in the same material 1.67, and the thickness was 27% less in the Surmount.  
in the Surmount, the equivelent of 2 material jumps.

----------


## HarryChiling

> We have had very postive feedback with even low powered hyperopes, its truly a great lens.  I am a low powered myope and have a pair on order, I will let you know how they do.  They ARE thinnner, just for fun we ran a pair of +6.25  in Physion 360's and Surmount, in the same material 1.67, and the thickness was 27% less in the Surmount.  
> in the Surmount, the equivelent of 2 material jumps.


That means no need to sacrifice material clarity for thickness anymore.  Trivex, 1.60 are going to be the new go to materials and when your trying to really impress 1.67 and 1.74.  I can't wait for them to start using that 1.74 transitions blank for PALs that's going to be a game changer.  Seiko has really stepped up their game.




> Well, cost not being a factor, I would go with the Seiko Free Form.  We  sell A LOT of them, and I don't think we've had a remake yet.  Despite  the fact that we sell Shamir and not Zeiss, I would say go with the  Zeiss between the two.  I've heard fewer complaints about their Free  Form.  I honestly think Shamir has "over-thought" theirs.  However, with  the Spectrum release in the US, I'm interested to see how that does.


I like shamir for the lower adds but once we get into the +2.00 and above Zeiss Individual just out performs.

----------


## Craig

> . I honestly think Shamir has "over-thought" theirs. However, with the Spectrum release in the US, I'm interested to see how that does.


THAT IS THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE DAY!!!  The compensation on the Shamir products are wacky at best; they are not consistent nor will they tell you what parameters will have the most pronounced effect.

I know that the US technical reps are very frustrated with the non-chalant attiitude the Shamir has taken to address the thickness, prism and goofy compensation issues.  If they just put in a little BI prism, the patient and the dispenser would have greater success with less problems.

Craig

----------


## Fezz

I am glad to see that I am not the only one having bad Shamir vibes. I have really eased up on using them. I have found that I don't really enjoy over paying for their over thinking.

My "Free-Form" dollars are better spent with other companies.

----------


## erehwon optical

I have a new comfort enhanced it feels the same as the "old comfort" 
However I also have what at the time of the order was billed as a "comfort 360" really like this progressive 
low distortion wide mid can't be the same as the enhanced as the wholesaler insists.
I would like a strait answer too, why is it so difficult?

----------


## manoj_verma

> Just don't do a free form lens in poly, use a clear material to maximize the benefits.
> Craig


 any perticular reason Craig ?

----------


## Craig

Optics are far better in trivex than poly.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> I have a new comfort enhanced it feels the same as the "old comfort" 
> However I also have what at the time of the order was billed as a "comfort 360" really like this progressive 
> low distortion wide mid can't be the same as the enhanced as the wholesaler insists.
> I would like a strait answer too, why is it so difficult?


There is rarely a simple straight answer!   :Smile: 

Some eyes respond more readily to one design over another. I don't know about you but more than once I've changed someone to a newer design only to have the patient insist the old one was better with all the parameters the same. Makes me want to say to them "Who are you going to believe? Your eyes or what the lens designers say is better?"   :Wink: 

Also- All molds wear out so it could be that the molds used to create the convex surface which has the add powers in these Comforts could have been at the early or late part of their production life.

----------


## cwinma

> I have a new comfort enhanced it feels the same as the "old comfort" 
> However I also have what at the time of the order was billed as a "comfort 360" really like this progressive 
> low distortion wide mid can't be the same as the enhanced as the wholesaler insists.
> I would like a strait answer too, why is it so difficult?


Just saw that on the Essilor site:
The *Varilux Comfort 360 New Edition*, also known as *“Enhanced”*  in some countries, is a sophisticated version of the Varilux Comfort  New Edition. Using the latest technologies ensures all wearers a maximum  level of performance for a *unique and comfortable vision*, whatever the distance, in particular by a wider field of vision, *even in complex prescriptions*. 
http://www.varilux.com/en/products/V...teristics.aspx

----------


## uncut

> Just saw that on the Essilor site:
> The *Varilux Comfort 360 New Edition*, also known as *“Enhanced”* in some countries, is a sophisticated version of the Varilux Comfort New Edition. Using the latest technologies ensures all wearers a maximum level of performance for a *unique and comfortable vision*, whatever the distance, in particular by a wider field of vision, *even in complex prescriptions*. 
> http://www.varilux.com/en/products/V...teristics.aspx


in uncut-speake:

Translation from the floral/french to english translation..........We're gonna make them in umpteen different base curves, and we promise not to make them as "flat" as we used to.   Heck....we might even call them "corrected curve" lenses.

----------


## cheshire1970

I have worn and tried many different lenses. In this order are my favorites, some DST/others traditional. I am one of those lucky few than can jump around. That being said I do have my top 
Digital Lens
#1  Zeiss Individiual 2 
#2  Shamir auto II fixed 18

Traditional Technogy
#3 Varilux Physo 360
#4 The Ovation

I consider this varilux not truly digital because this lens is only DST on back surface.  Consider this as well, because now DST lenses are easy to do now tha the labs have the equipment, many labs will use the same software on traditional lenses because it is easy and less work. Many of us are actually receiving back Digital surfacing and that could be why we don't always pick up on it.

----------


## sharpstick777

> That's not entirely true.
> 
> There are some Free Form designs that do NOT use SV front.  HOYALUX ID, for example, is produced by using Free Form techniques on both the front and the back.
> 
> Other lenses use Free Form processing of complex atoric/aspheric surfaces to optimize the optics of a conventional progressive.  That is something significantly more than just using digital CNC surface generators for greater accuracy (which have been in use since 1987 and are hardly a new phenomenon).


There is no inherent advantage in surfacing both sides until we reach mid-higher hyperopes with mid to high adds.   We can address some forms of higher order aberration on the front but that will always create a cost to the lens somewhere else...

----------


## sharpstick777

It should be noted that the Physio Enhanced, and 360 series are not fully Free-form they are hybrid, some (or all) of the add remains cast on the front.  The primary driver for this is not optical performance, but hybrid lenses can bypass some patent/licensing fee restrictions.   That is their primary appeal.

----------

