# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Comparable Zeiss lenses to Essilor product from the Experts

## 2020idock

Curious as to the thoughts of OB on what Zeiss lens compares to the main Varilux/Essilor lenses.  Especially those that have recent experience with both products from a dispensing or manufacturing perspective.

Physio
Comfort Enhanced
Physio Enhanced
Definity
Physio 360

Also curious as the coatings from Zeiss in comparison to the Crizal family?  My office has not used a Zeiss coating that I am aware of since the days of Super ET/Gold ET/etc.

Sapphire
Avance w/ SGP
Alize

----------


## MasterCrafter

First off , lets talk about the freeform lenses. The Gradal individual is one of two lenses on the market that uses a digitally surfaced front and backside. The Hoyalux ID is the other one. 

Varilux uses Digital mold fronts. Meaning they use the same lens i would surface conventionaly, then digitally surfacing only the backside. :finger: So i think thats why they are calling them "enhanced" now days.

Even the Zeiss individual is better because it has a spherical front while putting the whole script on the backside.

As far as regular progs i would put the GT2 against any Varilux brand.

AR coatings : 

Alize - Teflon
Alize SGP - Teflon Elite

----------


## 2020idock

> As far as regular progs i would put the GT2 against any Varilux brand.


Thank you for the reply.  Are you referring to the regular GT2 and not the 3D or 3DV when stating this?

Without having used the Individual from Zeiss but comparing the response in my office between AutographII and anything else we have tried I would expect that the Zeiss Individual would be a great lens to work with.  I would expect the optimization of the Individual to be superior to most given the Zeiss AG control over these formulas and years of experience with freeform technology.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> Thank you for the reply. Are you referring to the regular GT2 and not the 3D or 3DV when stating this?


Yes i was .. i should have stated that :hammer:

----------


## KellyR

Our store uses mainly Essilor/Varilux products. When an Optom prescribes a Zeiss Individual, I have been using the Physio 360 for basic Rx's, and Physio f-360 for higher adds, higher spheres or high cyls. I will also start out with the Physio 360 and offer the patient an upgrade to the f-360 within 2 months if they are not totally satisfied. So far, my customers have been very happy with not only the Physio lenses but also the less expensive prive of the Essilor product versus the Zeiss product. As for the AR coatings, I have always found Zeiss coating to be inferior to any Essilor or Nikon coating - keep in mind my suppliers are in Canada.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> Our store uses mainly Essilor/Varilux products. When an Optom prescribes a Zeiss Individual, I have been using the Physio 360 for basic Rx's, and Physio f-360 for higher adds,


Thats too bad... your giving them a halfway digital lens instead of a true freeform :(




> As for the AR coatings, I have always found Zeiss coating to be inferior to any Essilor or Nikon coating - keep in mind my suppliers are in Canada.


I've always had better results with Teflon over Crizal and Zeiss is not as expensive... so i feel im doing my patient and me justice :bbg:

----------


## Craig

> Our store uses mainly Essilor/Varilux products. When an Optom prescribes a Zeiss Individual, I have been using the Physio 360 for basic Rx's, and Physio f-360 for higher adds, higher spheres or high cyls. I will also start out with the Physio 360 and offer the patient an upgrade to the f-360 within 2 months if they are not totally satisfied. So far, my customers have been very happy with not only the Physio lenses but also the less expensive prive of the Essilor product versus the Zeiss product. As for the AR coatings, I have always found Zeiss coating to be inferior to any Essilor or Nikon coating - keep in mind my suppliers are in Canada.


If you ask any lab that carries both the Essilor coatings and the Zeiss coatings i dare to find one who would rather use the Zeiss process.  The Essilor system is far superior to that Zeiss and ensures much more consistent yields and results.  I used to use 100% Zeiss and now we do none; we use a no name coating that goes thru the Essilor machines at 1/3 the price and we love it.  
We do 100% non glare so we have some experience and I introduced Mirage (before Crizal) to the market as a rep for them 15 years ago.

Try to find a no name that uses the Essilor process and you will not be able to tell the differnce unless you look at the invoice price.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> If you ask any lab that carries both the Essilor coatings and the Zeiss coatings i dare to find one who would rather use the Zeiss process. The Essilor system is far superior to that Zeiss and ensures much more consistent yields and results. I used to use 100% Zeiss and now we do none; we use a no name coating that goes thru the Essilor machines at 1/3 the price and we love it. 
> We do 100% non glare so we have some experience and I introduced Mirage (before Crizal) to the market as a rep for them 15 years ago.
> 
> Try to find a no name that uses the Essilor process and you will not be able to tell the differnce unless you look at the invoice price.


So your saying you used Teflon coatings?  I have had no problem with Teflon coatings. 

I have also used those so called no name brands that use the Essilor process. I have one word for those. JUNK

Essilor is a huge marketing company. That is all... they are all hype and soon will consume us all

----------


## Craig

> So your saying you used Teflon coatings? I have had no problem with Teflon coatings. 
> 
> I have also used those so called no name brands that use the Essilor process. I have one word for those. JUNK
> 
> Essilor is a huge marketing company. That is all... they are all hype and soon will consume us all


I am not an Essilor fan, but have you actually ever been to a lab that processes both coatings?  I have and in speaking to those who run the equipment, it is not even close.
Why are you so hostile towards my comments?  What is your AR usage that makes you such an expert?

Craig

----------


## MasterCrafter

> I am not an Essilor fan, but have you actually ever been to a lab that processes both coatings? I have and in speaking to those who run the equipment, it is not even close.
> Why are you so hostile towards my comments? What is your AR usage that makes you such an expert?
> 
> Craig


Sorry do not mean to sound hostile :)

I worked in wholesale/AR coating labs before, and have used both in retail settings. 

But the process does not matter to me. Its the end result that matters.

----------


## Craig

> Sorry do not mean to sound hostile :)
> 
> I worked in wholesale/AR coating labs before, and have used both in retail settings. 
> 
> But the process does not matter to me. Its the end result that matters.


The results are all that matters; we have less than 1% returns for defects.  They are almost all on transition product for what it is worth.  
Make it a great day!

----------


## DanLiv

> Thats too bad... your giving them a halfway digital lens 
>     instead of a true freeform :(


 


> Varilux uses Digital mold fronts. Meaning they use the same 
>     lens i would surface conventionaly, then digitally surfacing only the backside. So i think 
>     thats why they are calling them "enhanced" now days.
> 
>   Even the Zeiss individual is better because it has a spherical front while putting the 
>     whole script on the backside.


  The molded digital vs. "freeform" full back side (FBS) are competing technology and design philosophies between Varilux and other companies, not market comparisons. "True freeform" is only better if you buy Zeiss', Shamir's, et al philosophy, molds + digital customization is better if you buy Varilux's. You can't translate technology between the two because they are totally different. But you can translate features, market positioning, and which lenses are designed to compete with each other.

  Physio = GT2 (traditional advanced progressives)
  Comfort Enhanced = maybe SOLAOne HD? (customized older progressive design)
  Physio Enhanced = GT2 3DV (customized progressive with variable corridor)
  Definity = need help here. The dual add and "ground view" are unique.
  Physio 360 = GT2 3D (customized progressive with fixed corridor)

  Sapphire = Purecoat (most premium, lowest reflectance, blue hue)
  Avance w/ SGP = Teflon Infinity (next best, SRC, hydro, oleo, anti-static, very low reflectance)
  Alize = Carat Advantage (SRC, hydro, oleo)




> Essilor is a huge marketing company. That is all... they are all hype and soon will consume us all


  You might hate the company and their practices, but their are a lot of experienced opticians out there who are very happy with their products, I among them. Dismissing everything Essilor as hype without substance is by extension implying those of us who use their products are blinded by hype and ignorantly providing inferior quality to our patients, and that isn't true. The hate need not interfere with objective comparison.

----------


## Judy Canty

However, dismissing any product out of hand, as I see done on a regular basis regardless of manufacturer, is short sighted and in the long run a disservice to patients.

----------


## MasterCrafter

> The molded digital vs. "freeform" full back side (FBS) are competing technology and design philosophies between Varilux and other companies, not market comparisons. "True freeform" is only better if you buy Zeiss', Shamir's, et al philosophy, molds + digital customization is better if you buy Varilux's. You can't translate technology between the two because they are totally different. But you can translate features, market positioning, and which lenses are designed to compete with each other.


Yea those are two different philsophies. One is inferior to the other. Merly putting a conventional progressive on a digital generator , then calling it a digital free form lens... is inferior





> You might hate the company and their practices, but their are a lot of experienced opticians out there who are very happy with their products, I among them. Dismissing everything Essilor as hype without substance is by extension implying those of us who use their products are blinded by hype and ignorantly providing inferior quality to our patients, and that isn't true. The hate need not interfere with objective comparison.


I've used Essilor products for a long time. I find them over hyped and over priced. If your happy paying extra.... more power to you.

----------


## Wang Jeff

We are talking about products not Companys. I work for both companys and I think both are good at there field. If you want me to compare there product I would say Essilor is better at their high-end product and the coating technologies. Zeiss is better at other levels and consistant quality standard.

----------


## racethe1320

> If you ask any lab that carries both the Essilor coatings and the Zeiss coatings i dare to find one who would rather use the Zeiss process.  The Essilor system is far superior to that Zeiss and ensures much more consistent yields and results.  I used to use 100% Zeiss and now we do none; we use a no name coating that goes thru the Essilor machines at 1/3 the price and we love it.


^^ I agree with Craig.

In follow up to my other thread about lenses, I just ordered two pairs of digital progressives.  CZV with their AR and Shamir with a house branded AR run on an Essilor machine.  The house brand is Unity Elite.  I've used it before and it's great.  The CZV Teflon is okay. Folks in my dispensary don't care for the hue, but I deem that more their personal choice.  I like the Essilor product better overall but will have both side by side on my own Rx to compare. Hopefully yet this week.

----------

