# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Zeiss GT2 3D 1.74 Progressive

## oxmoon

Has anyone used this new lens yet?  If so, would like to know if it works well with high astigmatism and whether the cylinder recommendation goes out beyond -4.   Also any other feedback you have on this lens.  Is it worth the extra bucks?  Thanks.

----------


## oxmoon

This post has been up for several days and not one reply.  I feel shunned.

----------


## eyemanflying

In my opinion, Zeiss products are over priced and over rated. Perhaps this is the reason for lack of posts?

----------


## oxmoon

Are you putting Zeiss in the same wastebasket as most on this board put Essilor?  What do you use in a  PAL for high astigmats?

----------


## eyemanflying

Who's putting them in the waste basket? Simply stating a fact...there are equivalent products out there at 30-40% less cost. I have fit quite a few GT2 lenses and haven't really achieved that wow factor like one would expect after dishing out a mortgage payment.

As for high astigmats, I wouldn't recommend anyone with over a -4.00D CYL to venture into progressives. I've done it before, however, it's past most manufacturers design limit recommendations and is more or less a crap shoot with 50/50 odds.

----------


## oxmoon

I appreciate what you have to say and will learn from it.  

We recently fitted a woman with Hoya Summit CD who had a -5.25 cylinder. She had said her Physio 360s made her feel like her eyes weren't working together, but was very happy with the Summit.  She likes it for work which is primariily on computer.  I am in still in the learning stage but have observed that some people (mostly women) are very motivated to use a progessive for both looks and convenience.  For them it will work almost always, just because they make it work.  So for them I am trying to learn what is best for high cylinder, since that seems the most difficult aspect if it is present.  Now I think the Summit is good for those needing good intermediate vision, but am still wanting to learn what is best for those looking primarily for distance and near.   This is what prompted me to ask about Zeiss GT2 3D.  I have heard that the short corridor version would provide good distance and near rather than intermediate and wanted to know if anyone had experience with it and what the 3D quality is all about.  I agree it is pricy.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

I just put a woman with 8 bucks of cyl in a Summit CD and she loved 'em.

----------


## oxmoon

Dragonlensman, what do you like and get good results with for high cyl and high add?

----------


## eyemanflying

Of the ones I have done (cyl > 4.00D), I must say if I had to pick one or two, the iD Lifestyle and Summit have worked well.

----------


## oxmoon

Can either of you tell me what the 3D aspect of the new Zeiss lens is about beyond what is mentioned in corporate releases?  Any experience with it?

----------


## Yeap

we have been fitted Zeiss GT2 3D quite a number sometime ago. distance is perfect no complaint even to a first time wearer. but the near zone is disappointing, we shifted the PAL wearer from Hoya FD, ID, summit CD as well as Essilor Physio 360 to GT2 3D and they came back with the same issue, problem with near the reading zone is too narrow.

----------


## oxmoon

Thanks for your information.  Is the Zeiss GT2 3D near area smaller than in the Physio 360?  What do you prefer in a progressive for patients with high cylinder?

----------


## rdcoach5

> I appreciate what you have to say and will learn from it. 
> 
> We recently fitted a woman with Hoya Summit CD who had a -5.25 cylinder. She had said her Physio 360s made her feel like her eyes weren't working together, but was very happy with the Summit. She likes it for work which is primariily on computer. I am in still in the learning stage but have observed that some people (mostly women) are very motivated to use a progessive for both looks and convenience. For them it will work almost always, just because they make it work. So for them I am trying to learn what is best for high cylinder, since that seems the most difficult aspect if it is present. Now I think the Summit is good for those needing good intermediate vision, but am still wanting to learn what is best for those looking primarily for distance and near. This is what prompted me to ask about Zeiss GT2 3D. I have heard that the short corridor version would provide good distance and near rather than intermediate and wanted to know if anyone had experience with it and what the 3D quality is all about. I agree it is pricy.


I am wearing the short version of the Zeiss GT2 3D. I do a lot on the computer and it is no problem for my Rx -9.25+1.25x020 and -9.00+1.00x155  add + 2.50. Distance is where it really shines. Seems like a single vision Rx as far as lack of swim and side distortion. Darryl has stated before it doesn't have the widest intermediate , for that go to the Individual or the Sola One HD, which I personally did not like for lack of distance . Depends on the person what design is most preferred. If you really want a wider int , st-7x28 or 35.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> In my opinion, Zeiss products are over priced


ZEISS progressive lenses are priced comparably to similar premium progressive lenses on the market. At first, I assumed that you were simply over-generalizing the entire premium progressive lens category, but you later go on to plug similarly priced HOYA lenses in this thread.




> If so, would like to know if it works well with high astigmatism


All ZEISS customized (free-form) lenses are fully optically optimized for the specific prescription requirements of the wearer. This preserves the intended optical performance of the lens design, regardless of the wearer's cylinder power. This article, *Optics of Free-Form Lenses*, will provide additional details.

This type of optical optimization is especially important for astigmats, since residual lens aberrations caused by high prescriptions and prescriptions with significant cylinder power will interact with the unwanted aberrations of the progressive lens optics, causing the viewing zones to shrink and shift.

A recent double-blind, randomized wearer trial conducted by the Clinical Research Center at UC Berkeley's School of Optometry also confirmed the improved performance of Zeiss Individual for these wearers. The results will be published in a couple of months in Optometry and Vision Science.

In fact, contrary to some of the opinions expressed in this thread, you would be doing high astigmats a disservice by not offering them an optically customized lens design, such as Zeiss Individual or GT2 3D, if they are purchasing progressive lenses.




> am wearing the short version of the Zeiss GT2 3D... Darryl has stated before it doesn't have the widest intermediate


Yes, unfortunately, short-corridor progressive lenses must sacrifice some intermediate utility due to the mathematical constraints of progressive lens designs. If you want the near zone closer to the distance zone, you must compress the area in between the two.




> Can either of you tell me what the 3D aspect of the new Zeiss lens is about beyond what is mentioned in corporate releases


Optically, the two lens designs are similar, although the GT2 3D lens design is slightly softer than the Zeiss Individual lens design. This was done to enhance binocularity by reducing the gradients of power over the lens design. Practically speaking, GT2 3D is not customized for the position of wear, either. The optical optimization relies on a set of average fitting values.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## eyemanflying

[QUOTE=Darryl Meister;374831]ZEISS progressive lenses are priced comparably to similar premium progressive lenses on the market. At first, I assumed that you were simply over-generalizing the entire premium progressive lens category, but you later go on to plug similarly priced HOYA lenses in this thread.


It wasn't a plug; more of a success sharing story.  As for pricing, up here in the Northern market it is a fact the Zeiss products are priced 20-30% higher than comparable competitor products.

----------


## xiaowei

> It wasn't a plug; more of a success sharing story.  As for pricing, up here in the Northern market it is a fact the Zeiss products are priced 20-30% higher than comparable competitor products.


However I fear that Zeiss will/can say that those cheaper products simply aren´t comparable!:(

SCNR

----------


## Yeap

> Thanks for your information.  Is the Zeiss GT2 3D near area smaller than in the Physio 360?  What do you prefer in a progressive for patients with high cylinder?


for me any high cyl Rx i will choose nothing but a freeform, personally prefer SolaOne HD for high cyl as i have done once and the patient is happy with it.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> However I fear that Zeiss will/can say that those cheaper products simply aren´t comparable


Are you possibly ordering your progressive lenses through a non-ZEISS distributor, such as a HOYA or Essilor lab? Otherwise, there generally should not be that much of a price difference. I can certainly look into this for you, if you want to e-mail me the name of your laboratory.




> However I fear that Zeiss will/can say that those cheaper products simply aren´t comparable


Actually, unlike some of our competitors, I think you will find that the marketing teams at Carl Zeiss Vision prefer, instead, to present real optical comparisons and numerical results to eyecare professionals, rather than relying on anecdotal claims with no supporting evidence or "smoke and mirrors" marketing stories.

You will find a complete technical description of the product as well as actual ray-traced examples, a summary of early clinical studies, and so on in the *Zeiss Individual white paper*, available online for download.

If you find similar comparisons from companies selling customized lenses for "30-40% less," I would be the first to encourage you to post them. Otherwise, you really don't know whether they are really only selling you a conventional progressive lens design that has simply been directly surfaced, instead of factory molded, offering no real visual benefit to the wearer.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## eyemanflying

> However I fear that Zeiss will/can say that those cheaper products simply aren´t comparable!:(
> 
> SCNR


Naturally...it's called self preservation. Most products on the market these days are very good and very comparable - what bothers me is when companies have this snooty high end, upper echelon approach to the market when their products are simply at par with the other big boys (Es, Nk, Hy, Shm, Rdn). Then bring out the smoke and mirrors to justify the 30% premium - certainly not enticing in my books.

----------


## rdcoach5

> Naturally...it's called self preservation. Most products on the market these days are very good and very comparable - what bothers me is when companies have this snooty high end, upper echelon approach to the market when their products are simply at par with the other big boys (Es, Nk, Hy, Shm, Rdn). Then bring out the smoke and mirrors to justify the 30% premium - certainly not enticing in my books.


I agree with Darryl on the pricing. Zeiss lenses, especially my go to lens, the GT2 are priced less than Shamir or Essilor from my lab.

----------


## Rob Brown

The Zeiss coatings are quite nice.

----------


## oxmoon

Darryl, would you please explain this sentence in terms for the novice.

_This was done to enhance binocularity by reducing the gradients of power over the lens design_

----------


## WFruit

> Darryl, would you please explain this sentence in terms for the novice.
> 
> _This was done to enhance binocularity by reducing the gradients of power over the lens design_


Page 5 of this http://www.opticampus.com/files/fund...ive_lenses.pdf (written by Darryl) has a good explaination of binocularity in progressive lens design.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> what bothers me is when companies have this snooty high end, upper echelon approach to the market when their products are simply at par with the other big boys (Es, Nk, Hy, Shm, Rdn).


You obviously have some sort of personal bias against Carl Zeiss Vision, since you have, again, singled them out, this time as implying that the products are "snooty high end" among a list of competitors that are arguably in the very same price category when purchased from authorized distributors. I am sorry to hear that.

Unless, by "upper echelon approach to market," you are suggesting that you actually resent the product performance comparisons, clinical studies, and technical details that Carl Zeiss Vision, unlike several companies out there, makes available to eyecare professionals. Since it would be contrary to good clinical judgment, I assume that this is not the case.




> Darryl, would you please explain this sentence in terms for the novice.


The article that WFruit linked to is a good start. From a lens design perspective, softer lens designs are generally less sensitive to binocular differences in power between the right and left lenses, because the power changes more gradually over the design. So as the two eyes look through corresponding points through each lens, a softer design is more likely to produce smaller differences in power, prism, and magnification.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> Who's putting them in the waste basket? Simply stating a fact...there are equivalent products out there at 30-40% less cost. I have fit quite a few GT2 lenses and haven't really achieved that wow factor like one would expect after dishing out a mortgage payment.
> 
> As for high astigmats, I wouldn't recommend anyone with over a -4.00D CYL to venture into progressives. I've done it before, however, it's past most manufacturers design limit recommendations and is more or less a crap shoot with 50/50 odds.


Really?  Who is your supplier?  GT2 (or GT2 3D) is easily 25% the cost of any offerings by essilor in the (chuckle) equivalent "category."  Even going with the Zeiss Individual is less expensive than an id lifestyle.  While there are a few offerings that are less expensive, they are only a few dollars less, and frankly perform significantly worse.

If you want the GT2 to give a patient "wow," you have to point it out to them.  The design is so comfortable and natural that they don't realize how much they like it unless you tell them.  Then they realize they can read without lifting their head, they can see comfortably when they look around the room, etc.

Put them in an individual and it only gets better.

----------


## eyemanflying

Not the same North of the border.

----------


## The Goose

Hi Guys, Interesting discussion about FF lenses with Darryl obviously backing Zeiss as he works for them, I would expect nothing less, but can't argue with some of his points.
My opinion on FF is they are ALL very similar and Im sure some are actually rebranded just like a lot of the conventional lenses are and whether they make a huge difference compared to the price difference with conventional front surface progressive is debatable. I certainly wouldn't use them for everybody, because in my opinion, for a lot of patients Rx and needs they are not worth the extra cost. For high astigmatism, oblique astigmatism, problem or perfectionist patients and patients who want to pay more for no reason I would recommend. You could also debate that a lot of frames are not fitted properly so it wouldnt matter if it is FF or not as a poor fitting frame will defeat the purpose anyway. In a lot of countries around the world a lot of the employees are not even qualified to spell "astigmatism", never mind dispense complex Rx (not here of course :), so again the basics are not properly followed anyway.
For a lot of the cost associated with FF lenses, a lot of it is clever marketing and hype that fool many novices and unqualified employees, by fancy sales rep talk. Behind a lot of closed doors in the big brand lens marketing departments, I think they are rubbing there hands and clinking their glasses ! 
The problem is with a lot of the (supposely) research lens comapnies do, is very hard to prove them wrong, so they can say the NV area is 10% wider but to us how can we prove that ? They can show you charts etc, but how can you prove that wrong either ? I think qualified employess need to be more sceptical about what they here, but maybe Im wrong and we should have evrybody in FF, right ?

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Hi Guys, Interesting discussion about FF lenses with Darryl obviously backing Zeiss as he works for them


More so because I have the luxury of analyzing the optics of free-form lenses all day and working with actual free-form optical design engines. Unfortunately, this category of lenses is probably the most misunderstood technology in the industry.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> Hi Guys, Interesting discussion about FF lenses with Darryl obviously backing Zeiss as he works for them, I would expect nothing less, but can't argue with some of his points.
> My opinion on FF is they are ALL very similar and Im sure some are actually rebranded just like a lot of the conventional lenses are and whether they make a huge difference compared to the price difference with conventional front surface progressive is debatable. I certainly wouldn't use them for everybody, because in my opinion, for a lot of patients Rx and needs they are not worth the extra cost. For high astigmatism, oblique astigmatism, problem or perfectionist patients and patients who want to pay more for no reason I would recommend. You could also debate that a lot of frames are not fitted properly so it wouldnt matter if it is FF or not as a poor fitting frame will defeat the purpose anyway. In a lot of countries around the world a lot of the employees are not even qualified to spell "astigmatism", never mind dispense complex Rx (not here of course :), so again the basics are not properly followed anyway.
> For a lot of the cost associated with FF lenses, a lot of it is clever marketing and hype that fool many novices and unqualified employees, by fancy sales rep talk. Behind a lot of closed doors in the big brand lens marketing departments, I think they are rubbing there hands and clinking their glasses ! 
> The problem is with a lot of the (supposely) research lens comapnies do, is very hard to prove them wrong, so they can say the NV area is 10% wider but to us how can we prove that ? They can show you charts etc, but how can you prove that wrong either ? I think qualified employess need to be more sceptical about what they here, but maybe Im wrong and we should have evrybody in FF, right ?


I'd vote for 100% ff.  I just got traditional lenses in my safety pair and can't believe how poor the peripheral regions vision is.  I think you couldn't be further from the truth about the lenses all being the same, though, as even ordering a duplicate Rx yields a different product as the manufacturers are constantly tweaking their calculations.

The research that companies perform is legitimate, but the problem is that many companies are researching optics for different reasons.  When a company comes before you saying "I make lenses," find out what they also make, or their parent company makes.  A company that makes computer displays might have great color integrity, while a company who makes advanced medical diagnostics equipment might produce a more optically pure image, though the differences aren't obvious until critically analyzed (though they will both perform obviously better than traditional lenses).

The same points of interest when discussing what lens will work better for your patients applies when finding a free form product as when choosing a traditional product.  If you think one aspect of lens design is more important, you should go with the company that caters to that design need.  You are the professional, entitled to your professional opinion.  

My professional opinion in regards to the OP's question is that while I haven't fit the 1.74, I trust the GT2 3D will perform well, depending on what your overall objective is.  I tend to favor Individual's design over GT2 3D, though.

----------


## oxmoon

You have convinced me that FF are the best for high astigmatism.  But what exactly is "high astigmatism"?  I took this job after retiring from another career, and to my dismay find that OJT is very limited.  I'm the kind of person who must learn my job well in order to feel confident doing it, so that is why I ask so many question.  In the various things I've read, that term is defined anywhere from 2.50 and over, to 4.00 and over.  So how do you all define what you are talking about when you refer to high astigmatism?  Do all the manufacturers of FF lenses make a cylinder over 4.00?  There are not many choices in conventional lenses for cylinder over 4.00.  For those with cylinder Rx less than 2.50, are FF really best when cost is taken into consideration?

----------


## ThatOneGuy

> For those with cylinder Rx less than 2.50, are FF really best when cost is taken into consideration?


 You will get a wide array of opinions about this.  To answer your question really, I think it helps to think about car shopping.

If you know you like a Ford Taurus, and it is what you want and need, you are then faced with the question of options.  "Smart" cruise control (car automatically maintains a preset distance to the car in front of you) could be considered a luxury option, and yet it will help you have a better experience driving, and could almost be considered a necessity if you drive a lot.  Cross traffic awareness will help you avoid an accident backing out of a car space...of course people have been avoiding accidents for years by simply looking.

It is the same with ff lenses, regardless of Rx.  A patient might not notice the difference if they are -.50 sph ou initially, but when they go back to a traditional lens, I'll bet they notice it instantly.

It is the patient's choice if they want leather seats or not, but to not give them the option makes you look like you were just pushing another product (patient perception...I'm not accusing) when they discover from a friend or other office that ff exists.

I've been naughty when it comes to sv ff, but for 2010 I sold 92% ff of my progressive lens sales, and never felt like I was over charging.  Besides the improved optics, some companies have legitimate improvements in lens design as well.

----------

