# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Varilux S Series

## gmc

Coming in July. We had a company meeting last night about Essilor's Visioffice.

They said their latest lens will be introduced in July, the Varilux S Series.

This is from one of their lab's facebook page. What's your take?

"Coming soon!   A revolutionary new progressive lens ,The VARILUX 'S' SERIES !! Featuring limitless vision, stability in motion and edge to edge clarity in all gaze directions! Available mid summer. Call us for more information on the new amazing product!"

----------


## Johns

I've had many patients coming into my office asking when the next Varilux series will be coming out.   Their vision is fine with what they are wearing, but they feel they aren't spending enough on their eyewear to justify how happy they are.


Not.

----------


## gmc

I'm looking forward to edge to edge limitless vision.

----------


## Johns

> I'm looking forward to edge to edge limitless vision.


I'm sorry Gary, I didn't realize you were talking about contact lenses.

----------


## gmc

> I'm sorry Gary, I didn't realize you were talking about contact lenses.


Aha! so that's what they were talking about. I'm getting a little older and senile you know.

----------


## Big V

Doesn't anyone else see how this "limitless" vision stuff from Essilor is marketing? First of all, this PAL is FRONT molded? Where is the digital OR FreeForm in that? Second, optically it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of swim and sway in a PAL. There is a lens with distance, intermediate, and near zones with no swim or sway....its called an executive tri-focal. The steeper base curves needed to refract the light to a tighter focal length makes it impossible to eliminate swim in a PAL. It HAS to be there. There is no other way around it. The get "edge to edge" clarity in a PAL is all marketing and can not be done. Surely, you all can see that. Essilor has been putting out bogus marketing for the last ten years people. They are simply trying to spin there antiquated front molded designs over Hoya's dual-integrated surface and Zeiss's variable corridor complete backside FreeForm surface design. If someone can explain to me how you can completely eliminate swim and sway in a PAL with out producing a ledge I would be glad to hear it. All I have to say is that if it truely were possible we would have it by now.

Big V, ABOC-AC

----------


## Big V

Oh yea, you MUST also have the Visioffice to get the "limitless" vision out of these S lenses. Sounds like a play out of Zeiss' play book. When this all rolls out and you tell your patient's they won't have a corridor get ready for huge backlash. I promise if it truely were possible to make a PAL with zero swim or sway that Zeiss and Hoya would be on this as well and I have not heard, seen, or researched anything out of those camps. It's all Essilor marketing kids, and it's bad for ya. Yey, George Carlin!

----------


## Robert Martellaro

There's a S Fit, a S Design, and a S 4D (taking Free-Form where no lens has gone before?). 

I wonder if the S stands for "States", as in United States, similar to the India Series.

http://varilux.co.in/India_Series.html

However, the US is hardly a nation of homogenous people. Maybe the S stand for something else...

----------


## CHGraves

According to the rep I spoke with today, the S stands for 7, the seventh generation varilux lens.




> There's a S Fit, a S Design, and a S 4D (taking Free-Form where no lens has gone before?). 
> 
> I wonder if the S stands for "States", as in United States, similar to the India Series.
> 
> http://varilux.co.in/India_Series.html
> 
> However, the US is hardly a nation of homogenous people. Maybe the S stand for something else...

----------


## Big V

Ok, all we have here so far is branding. So what it is the seventh gen. Varilux lens. How can you say it will eliminate swim and sway? Come on, this is all Essilor BS! Can anyone explain how Essilor somehow changed the laws of optical physics? I'm tellin' ya people. It's all Essilor marketing, and it's bad for ya!

----------


## EyeCare Rich

Yet another way to market the Comfort.  Gotta use up those millions of blanks.  HAHA.  One can only hope it is actually different this time.

----------


## Johns

> Maybe the S stand for something else...


"something"?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Or maybe just "something else"! As in "Do you recommend the same lens design that I'm presently wearing?" "No sir or madam, you are getting something else." 

This marketing stuff sure can get silly, eh?

----------


## eyemanflying

> Doesn't anyone else see how this "limitless" vision stuff from Essilor is marketing? First of all, this PAL is FRONT molded? Where is the digital OR FreeForm in that? Second, optically it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of swim and sway in a PAL. There is a lens with distance, intermediate, and near zones with no swim or sway....its called an executive tri-focal. The steeper base curves needed to refract the light to a tighter focal length makes it impossible to eliminate swim in a PAL. It HAS to be there. There is no other way around it. The get "edge to edge" clarity in a PAL is all marketing and can not be done. Surely, you all can see that. Essilor has been putting out bogus marketing for the last ten years people. They are simply trying to spin there antiquated front molded designs over Hoya's dual-integrated surface and Zeiss's variable corridor complete backside FreeForm surface design. If someone can explain to me how you can completely eliminate swim and sway in a PAL with out producing a ledge I would be glad to hear it. All I have to say is that if it truely were possible we would have it by now.
> 
> Big V, ABOC-AC


+1 and ECP's continue to support this crap!!

----------


## EyeCare Rich

> +1 and ECP's continue to support this crap!!


Not I!!!! No Way.

----------


## DrHass

And do any of you know anything at all about this new lens that you hate so much?

----------


## Johns

> And do any of you know anything at all about this new lens that you hate so much?


Sorry Doc, I missed the post where they said they hated the lens.

----------


## gmc

> And do any of you know anything at all about this new lens that you hate so much?


I don't hate the lens. I've not seen the lens. As I told the rep, if it does what they say it will do, I will be its biggest fan.

If the question is do I believe it will do what they say it will do, the answer is no.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Nobody's lens does what the marketing department says it will do. But I'll admit that between calling their anti-reflection coating an anti-glare coating, and the above over the top declaration of PAL performance (although maybe we should wait to see the wording in the official marketing piece), it seems that the silly season in advertising has become a year round production. Even the white papers sound more like marketing than visual science at times. So it goes...

----------


## Barry Santini

I think passing such preliminary judgements and conclusions is not befitting the spirit of this board. It'll be out soon enough 7/10/12. 

Let's wait and see. 

I, for one, hope it delivers something tangible. I've all-but-abandoned all the other V products

B

----------


## gmc

> I think passing such preliminary judgements and conclusions is not befitting the spirit of this board. It'll be out soon enough 7/10/12. 
> 
> Let's wait and see. 
> 
> I, for one, hope it delivers something tangible. I've all-but-abandoned all the other V products
> 
> B


If it does offer something new and better, great!

But from what I've learned about progressive lens designs from many sources, including our ophthalmic optics guru Darryl Meister's work, I don't think what they claim is possible.

http://www.opticampus.com/cecourse.p...essive_lenses/

----------


## DrHass

> If it does offer something new and better, great!
> 
> But from what I've learned about progressive lens designs from many sources, including our ophthalmic optics guru Darryl Meister's work, I don't think what they claim is possible.
> 
> http://www.opticampus.com/cecourse.p...essive_lenses/



I have not heard anything from my essilor rep regarding these lenses yet, other then "there are some new progressives coming out in July"   Is Essilor actually claiming there will be zero distortion? Or is this just somthing an overly enthusiastic third party lab wrote on their facebook page?

----------


## Big V

I do think in this particular it is ok to pass judgement on this lens. Essilor is calling all opticians idiots by shoving this garbage down our throats! They are basically saying opticians are just sales people who will say anything we tell them because we are Essilor. I am sorry, after what I have experienced from Essilor in my area this only validates by thinking about Essilor and who I think they are. They hire a rep who doesn't know ANYTHING about the eye care industry and knows NOTHING about lenses. He doesn't even know how to explain them from a marketing stand point. I have spoken to other opticians across the country who have had the same experiences with Essilor. My problem is that Essilor insults my intelligence as an optician by trying to tell me they have garbage product that THEY know is garbage but come into my office with pure propoganda and no technicle literature or even an once of real science behind their lenses and then tell me their lenses are the best simply because Essilor says so. The simply fact is Essilor is playing catch up to Hoya and Zeiss who are making true break throughs in the PAL market. The "S" series is FRONT MOLDED. How on earth can you say you have FreeForm with a FRONT MOLDED lens!? I am going to pass judgement on this lens because I know what to expect. Do we all remember Physio, Physio 360, Physio Enchanced, and Physio DRx? How many times to get it it right? How many times to remake, restart, relaunch, remarket, and respin the SAME product!? Why even have Physio DRx with a backside design if supposedly this "NEW" "S" series is on the FRONT? I am scratching my head at Essilor wondering just why they would go through all this trouble to make a backside design only to go BACKWARDS to a front side design again. Also, they say Physio Enchanced is a variable corridor. How do you have a variable corridor lens when you are using the EXACT same blank as the convention Physio that is FAR from a variable corridor? Does Essilor even know what a variable corridor is? This is what I mean. This is why I feel I can pass judgement. I am tired of Essilor's smoke and mirrors. This all boils down to ONE thing. Essilor does not have the patents that Hoya and Zeiss do. So, they make due with what they have. Essilor is and always will play catch up to everone else in the PAL world these days. The grandioso days of Varilux Comfort are gone but Essilor insists on riding that one out still. It's all Essilor marketing kids, and it's bad for ya!

Big V, ABOC-AC

----------


## gmc

> I have not heard anything from my essilor rep regarding these lenses yet, other then "there are some new progressives coming out in July" Is Essilor actually claiming there will be zero distortion? Or is this just somthing an overly enthusiastic third party lab wrote on their facebook page?


The quote above is from the FB page of Opti-Matrix of Huntsville, Alabama which is an Essilor owned lab.

From Luzerne's website.
_Luzerne Optical is Pleased to Present:_*Varilux-S Series – Limitless Vision Lenses*_Launching July 2012 
__Lens Styles:_*Varilux S 4D
Varilux S Fit
Varilux S Design*

----------


## Now I See

Just got some info on it.  I'm a skeptic, however if it does what they say it will, which is give edge to edge (clear) vision, then hooray for the PAL world....but I have my doubts until I see it for myself (and even then, I wonder if it will be great for some RX's and not for others.)  

The booklet I have says (among other things),... "*The Result:*  Better retinal image matching and improved spatial perception, providing _more expansive vision from edge to edge than ever before_ in a progressive lens."   :Rolleyes:  Sounds like a different "cool, high-tech" way of saying wider field of vision...which is the claim on almost all progressives that I have read about.

----------


## Judy Canty

Deleted.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> I do think in this particular it is ok to pass judgement on this lens.


I'm not an Essilor fanboi, but _fair is fair_. I'll judge the lens performance by wearing it, reading the patents related to the design, if any, read the white papers, and the clinical research/double blind testing.

Speaking of patents...http://www.essilor.com/en/Group/Inte...gyCenters.aspx

Varilux was the first commercially successfully PAL. Comfort was the best selling PAL. I think it would be more accurate to say that other companies have caught up to Essilor. Are they on a black hole business trajectory? I don't see it, yet.

There are sound optical reasons to put the progressive optics on the front, especially for moderate to high plus. If either surface is generated on a free-form manufacturing platform, and the lens is optimized in any way (not just simple spherical and toric curves), it's accurate to call this a free-form lens. 

The Physio Enhanced is a variable corridor. In some materials the Physio Short starts out with a semi-finished Physio blank. IMO, a variable corridor design is a compromise, not a benefit.

----------


## Judy Canty

:Wavespin: Here is more information regarding the new Varilux S Series Lenses. Click: Varilux S Series

----------


## optical24/7

> I'm not an Essilor fanboi, but _fair is fair_. I'll judge the lens performance by wearing it, reading the patents related to the design, if any, read the white papers, and the clinical research/double blind testing.
> 
> Speaking of patents...http://www.essilor.com/en/Group/Inte...gyCenters.aspx
> 
> Varilux was the first commercially successfully PAL. Comfort was the best selling PAL. I think it would be more accurate to say that other companies have caught up to Essilor. Are they on a black hole business trajectory? I don't see it, yet.
> 
> There are sound optical reasons to put the progressive optics on the front, especially for moderate to high plus. If either surface is generated on a free-form manufacturing platform, and the lens is optimized in any way (not just simple spherical and toric curves), it's accurate to call this a free-form lens. 
> 
> The Physio Enhanced is a variable corridor. In some materials the Physio Short starts out with a semi-finished Physio blank. IMO, a variable corridor design is a compromise, not a benefit.


Totally agree. Especially the part about using front side adds on moderate - high plus Rx's. That category doesn't like totally backside PAL's as well. With total backside designs, my thoughts are that you're creating a bi-convex design in the umbilic of the lens that can't follow the center of rotation as well as a concave/convex design for plus distance Rx's. That's my personal experience along with years of try them on patients. Sometimes split designs work best, ( Definity and other E designs, Hoya has one similar, not as good imho..) So E does have some things I won't leave out of my tool box.

My rule of thumb on who won't get a totally backside PAL; No hyperopic's and if they aren't myopic enough that their distance power is 1/2 equal to their add power. (Their spherical equivalent.) YMMV.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *There's a S Fit, a S Design, and a S 4D................................
> I wonder if the S stands for "States", as in United States, similar to the India Series.
> 
> **Maybe the S stand for something else.....................................
> 
> *


*Maybe the S stands for something else---------------------------> = STUPID

**There is absolutely no possibility to make or have have a progressive reading addition without major distortions unless you believe in Saint Essilor's marketing towards the consumer and optical retail of......................re-making...........re-naming ..........re-packaging.........re-hashing..........re-inventing................re-birthing...............re-believing,........................... so the S must be standing for what it says above.

another example, read my latest post and give some comment at: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...a-lens-cleaner
*

----------


## lind2020

I wonder why anyone would say anything is impossible..

Pdersonally I seldom sell any essilor lenses, but they are good lenses as a whole. If this lens was far & away better I would consider selling it as I would any lens. I, for one, don't hype lenses to my patients so I couldn't care less what the pre-release ad hype is.

----------


## gmc

We received a marketing piece from E today about the S series that said absolutely nothing.

----------


## chip anderson

Gee This post has enough vim, vigor and vitrol to the point where I don't have say anything.

Chip

----------


## Robert_S

There are a lot of things I dislike about Essilor. The quality of their progressive designs is not one of them.

----------


## sharpstick777

Welcome to Optiboard Big V

I agree, its marketing poohy.  One of the reps here is billing the lens as having NO distortion.  Impossible even in SV as even SV creates distortion.
Any lens with a variable power will inherently create some kind of distortion.  

Although Edge to Edge clarity is possible in one zone, its not possible in all 3, especially as the add power increases.

My early guess is that its some combination of the Definity and Shamir designs, and will be a very soft design.  It may have usable focus in a large amount of area, but it either compromise by a loss of straight on VA or a lot of geometric distortions.

I don't consider the Exec to be distortion free either, that ledge renders a large area of the lens unusable.  As well, the image jump is huge.




> Doesn't anyone else see how this "limitless" vision stuff from Essilor is marketing? First of all, this PAL is FRONT molded? Where is the digital OR FreeForm in that? Second, optically it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of swim and sway in a PAL. There is a lens with distance, intermediate, and near zones with no swim or sway....its called an executive tri-focal. 
> Big V, ABOC-AC

----------


## sharpstick777

> I wonder why anyone would say anything is impossible..


Its impossible to have an add power and eliminate distortion.  With Free-form I can reduce distortion, I can move it, and I can choose whether it appears as geometric or off-focus areas, but in every lens there is inherent distortion, even Single Vision.  Any lens that has an add power will inherently have some kind of distortion where the power varies, even if the zone is clear, it will still contribute to geometric or spacial changes.

----------


## sharpstick777

There is a benefit to moving some of the add to the front on high plus powers, as a Backside FF lens had to drift farther from an ideal base curve with the add on the back in power over a +3-4.  However, any concave curve on a convex surface (front side add) increases distortion at a relatively higher rate than a convex curve next to another convex curve on the back.  You do lose some center of rotation on a backside add in a myope, but you also lose an enormous amount of distortion over the alternative, a concave curve on a convex front.  In most cases the trade off of backside add reduces distortion significantly for myopes and low power hyperopes even with a loss of central rotation.





> Totally agree. Especially the part about using front side adds on moderate - high plus Rx's. That category doesn't like totally backside PAL's as well. With total backside designs, my thoughts are that you're creating a bi-convex design in the umbilic of the lens that can't follow the center of rotation as well as a concave/convex design for plus distance Rx's. That's my personal experience along with years of try them on patients. Sometimes split designs work best, ( Definity and other E designs, Hoya has one similar, not as good imho..) So E does have some things I won't leave out of my tool box.
> 
> My rule of thumb on who won't get a totally backside PAL; No hyperopic's and if they aren't myopic enough that their distance power is 1/2 equal to their add power. (Their spherical equivalent.) YMMV.

----------


## sharpstick777

> IMO, a variable corridor design is a compromise, not a benefit.


A variable corridor works best in higher adds in shorter corridors, it enables the design to maximize every step of the intermediate in relation to OC, both in power and ensuring the declination angle is ideal.

----------


## sharpstick777

I don't think anyone hates the lens DrHass, its the marketing of a progressive as "distortion free" that we find objectionable.  I hope its a good lens personally, most of the last few Essilor launches have been disappointing.  I do know it can't live up to the hype, since we haven't made a SV vision lens that's distortion free, its hard to imagine that Essilor has somehow made the jump to distortion free progressives.




> And do any of you know anything at all about this new lens that you hate so much?

----------


## jspayneii

Doesn't Hoya also market their new digital lenses as "Distortion Free Optics"?

----------


## NCspecs

My frustration with Essilor and also with the new Unity lens from VSP is that NO ONE can articulate to me why these lenses are so awesome. My Hoya rep can tell me about the science behind his product, he knows about my lab background. So does my Shamir Rep and my Zeiss Rep. They all talk to me like I am an Optician, not a sales person. I pressed the Unity Rep for more information regarding the design and the fabrication of his product and he ended up having a actual hissy fit (I kid you not!) and stormed out of my lab in a huff saying, "Well if you don't want to fit it, then fine! Don't!"

Really? REALLY?

I don't have a particular beef with Essilor, per se, but I get tired of being fed marketing instead of actual fact and science. I end up doing the research on my own only to find that I will be just as well served to keep fitting my patients in the product I fully understand like the Individual, The Autograph II, or the iD Lifestyle, and many others. We understand technical product here- even if we do wear skirts!

----------


## Judy Canty

> We understand technical product here- even if we do wear skirts!


Deleted.

----------


## KITT

Im surprised they still havn't launched this lens yet, first saw it quite a while ago. For anyone in a lab you'll see it's called the Gx or G7 as a trade name. No engravings on the lens except for 2 'x' marks at the very edge either side. Quite an odd lens I have to say, definately not a normal pal that's for sure.

----------


## sharpstick777

> I don't have a particular beef with Essilor, per se, but I get tired of being fed marketing instead of actual fact and science. I end up doing the research on my own only to find that I will be just as well served to keep fitting my patients in the product I fully understand like the Individual, The Autograph II, or the iD Lifestyle, and many others. We understand technical product here- even if we do wear skirts!


You and me both.  Just an FYI, we found a way to create lens maps for Free-form last fall for the first time.

----------


## sharpstick777

> Really? REALLY?
> 
> I don't have a particular beef with Essilor, per se, but I get tired of being fed marketing instead of actual fact and science. I end up doing the research on my own only to find that I will be just as well served to keep fitting my patients in the product I fully understand like the Individual, The Autograph II, or the iD Lifestyle, and many others. We understand technical product here- even if we do wear skirts!



You and me both.... except for the skirt part.  
 Just an FYI, we found a way to create lens maps for Free-form last fall for the first time.  Its been a great help.

----------


## sharpstick777

> My frustration with Essilor and also with the new Unity lens from VSP is that NO ONE can articulate to me why these lenses are so awesome. My Hoya rep can tell me about the science behind his product, he knows about my lab background. So does my Shamir Rep and my Zeiss Rep. They all talk to me like I am an Optician, not a sales person. I pressed the Unity Rep for more information regarding the design and the fabrication of his product and he ended up having a actual hissy fit (I kid you not!) and stormed out of my lab in a huff saying, "Well if you don't want to fit it, then fine! Don't!"
> 
> Really? REALLY?


Actually from what I see across the US, you are quite fortunate to have 3 reps that can explain their own products.

----------


## jmchapman

My rep just told me yesterday that they stand by this technology so much that if the patient isn't fully satisfied and feels like the lens doesn't stand up to what we tell the patient, they'll get a refund from Varilux. Those are pretty big words! 

I can't wait for this series to come out.

----------


## sharpstick777

It is impossible to have a progressive with zero distoriton.  However, they may try a VERY soft design combined with a steeper base curve and the result would be that a lens that was _usable_ in large areas in low adds and low myopes, however, there would be a lot of geometric distortion and people would feel like the lens was hunting for focus, it would feel strange.  Everything would be slightly blurry, just slightly blurry by the same amount.  It would result in a thousand zones all with a slightly different focal point or range.

QUOTE=gmc;425308] But from what I've learned about progressive lens designs from many sources, including our ophthalmic optics guru Darryl Meister's work, I don't think what they claim is possible.
[/QUOTE]

----------


## obiwan

But it uses advanced nanotechnology! I think that's something to do with the crystal that built Superman's Fortress of Solitude. But hey I'm looking forward to trying it. Bet we won't get it in Oz for a a year or 3 though.

----------


## HarryChiling

Chris Ryser calls the S in the design STUPID and this is considered professional.  Many of the Shamir designs have a 0.5 to 1 level of optical distortion which was considered a new generation.  E bought Shamir so they may have built on, improved, or saw a new direction to half that level of optical distortion which seems well witin a realistic scenario.

So if they created a design that offers a 0.25 to 1.0 optical distortion then for a 2.00 add the lens would experience a 0.50 D of optical distortion.  According to mapping stadards that 0.5 defines regions. So any add below a 2 add could cocieveably be defined as having no distorted regions.  

Thats just me thinking, not to mention they are providing a more custom horizontal optical modulation by taking into account the effects of both lenses as a pair.  Let the professionals here chew on those thoughts for a while.

----------


## Fezz

> Chris Ryser calls the S in the design STUPID and this is considered professional.  Many of the Shamir designs have a 0.5 to 1 level of optical distortion which was considered a new generation.  E bought Shamir so they may have built on, improved, or saw a new direction to half that level of optical distortion which seems well witin a realistic scenario.
> 
> So if they created a design that offers a 0.25 to 1.0 optical distortion then for a 2.00 add the lens would experience a 0.50 D of optical distortion.  According to mapping stadards that 0.5 defines regions. So any add below a 2 add could cocieveably be defined as having no distorted regions.  
> 
> Thats just me thinking, not to mention they are providing a more custom horizontal optical modulation by taking into account the effects of both lenses as a pair.  Let the professionals here chew on those thoughts for a while.


I just spoke with some folks from Shamir yesterday that discussed this very same thing.

I was intrigued...................until the techno-babble, market speak, kicked in and then I suggested that they leave my office. What you mention makes sense and it is worth investigating further.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Many of the Shamir designs have a 0.5 to 1 level of optical distortion which was considered a new generation.


The ratio of unwanted astigmatism to add power? I didn't know it was that low, thinking somewhere around  .75 : 1.00 was the state of the art.

"The fundamental relation appears to be between power rate and zone width, each of which is highly related to sizes of the intermediate and near viewing zones. The maximum amount of astigmatism is related to zone width, but not to maximum power rate. The amount of astigmatism is unrelated to the size of the near zone. The pattern of correlations between the optical and viewing zone parameters help identify the underlying optical relations of PALs." (Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:350361)

One guess is that the zone widths (near/intermediate) will be lessened to decrease the unwanted astigmatism, with the assumption that their premium lens will be fit by the more experienced and accurate fitters. 

Some of us will do our own blind testing- let's meet in a couple months in the 'Eyecare Professionals Only' forum and discuss the results?

----------


## musicvirtuoso

> Actually from what I see across the US, you are quite fortunate to have 3 reps that can explain their own products.


Amen to that... I'm pulling my hair out just trying to find a SINGLE rep that can explain anything to me. I am literally speaking to "order-takers" simply trained to enter information into forms/computer programs. Sorry for going off on a tangent here, but it's frustrating.

----------


## Ghee

Do you put salt on your food before tasting it? 




> Ok, all we have here so far is branding. So what it is the seventh gen. Varilux lens. How can you say it will eliminate swim and sway? Come on, this is all Essilor BS! Can anyone explain how Essilor somehow changed the laws of optical physics? I'm tellin' ya people. It's all Essilor marketing, and it's bad for ya!

----------


## newboy

[QUOTE=Robert Martellaro;425356]I'm not an Essilor fanboi, but _fair is fair_. I'll judge the lens performance by wearing it, reading the patents related to the design, if any, read the white papers, and the clinical research/double blind testing.

Finally someone with sense. Essilor brought the worlds first true PAL. They invest more money in lens development then any other lens caster. 

The big E as they get called a lot, have dodgy marketing BS that could well get customers coming into your shops asking the buy the new Valilux lens. How awful. Get over yourselves !

----------


## sharpstick777

Robert, I am with you on this one.  Although we can reduce distortion on the curves 90 degrees to the umbilic, its inherant that we can't reduce distortion even in free-form along the umbilic curve to the degree that they claim, which is zero.  We still have asymetrical curves in any progressive that simply don't have a single focal point.  




> The ratio of unwanted astigmatism to add power? I didn't know it was that low, thinking somewhere around  .75 : 1.00 was the state of the art.
> 
> One guess is that the zone widths (near/intermediate) will be lessened to decrease the unwanted astigmatism, with the assumption that their premium lens will be fit by the more experienced and accurate fitters. 
> ....
> Some of us will do our own blind testing- let's meet in a couple months in the 'Eyecare Professionals Only' forum and discuss the results?

----------


## sharpstick777

Physics.




> I wonder why anyone would say anything is impossible..
> Pdersonally I seldom sell any essilor lenses, but they are good lenses as a whole. If this lens was far & away better I would consider selling it as I would any lens. I, for one, don't hype lenses to my patients so I couldn't care less what the pre-release ad hype is.

----------


## sharpstick777

I have found more distortion than that in my mapping of the Autograph II.  What I have found is that the Auto II puts a small amount of distortion everywhere, so I imagine at some points it disapears from detection because some areas fall below the threshold.  We take away the threshold though and the total distortion is good, but not perfect.  

In my Auto II's I see just a tiny bit fuzzy everywhere, and still have low end unusable areas to the left and right of the reading.  




> Many of the Shamir designs have a 0.5 to 1 level of optical distortion which was considered a new generation.

----------


## sharpstick777

Fitting.




> We received a marketing piece from E today about the S series that said absolutely nothing.

----------


## Ghee

I have fitted every Varilux PAL that has been made. I have worn all of them starting with the Infinity and each new lens has been better than one before. I now wear the Eyecode which is the clearest lens and the best clarity of any. I have also worn many of the others but get the best and sharpest vision out of the Eyecode and waiting for the Varilux 4D. Yes over the years E and I have made a lot of money together.

----------


## braheem24

Panamic was better then Comfort?

----------


## Ghee

I wore the Panamic and had not problems nor did my patients.

----------


## sharpstick777

I have over 25 Free-form lenses in my most recent RX and among the 3 Varilux lenses I have, they are all near the very bottom of the list if I had to rank them.  I have not tried the Eyecode yet, but after the terrible lenses I have worn I have almost given up on buying another pair of Varilux to try.  I hope the S is good, it will be the first decent Varilux lens in a long time.  What other lenses have you specifically tried?




> I have fitted every Varilux PAL that has been made. I have worn all of them starting with the Infinity and each new lens has been better than one before. I now wear the Eyecode which is the clearest lens and the best clarity of any. I have also worn many of the others but get the best and sharpest vision out of the Eyecode and waiting for the Varilux 4D. Yes over the years E and I have made a lot of money together.

----------


## Ghee

I have worn the Gradal Individual, Autogragh, Physio 360 and now the Enhanced Eyecode. I have found the Varilux lenses to be better than the others.

----------


## sharpstick777

I am not being negative or provoking you.  Just my opinions of course, but in what zones and uses do you find each Essilor lens good?  

But I have yet to wear a Essilor lens that is clear edge to edge in the distance, like the Auto II, Seiko Succeed or Supercede, or Ziess GT2-3D.   I have never seen a lens with less Geometric distortion than the Auto II, but I get a little bit of fuzziness every where.  I have found all the Essilor lenses intermediate zones to be narrower than average, but slightly wider than the Auto II, but about 1/6 the width of the Seiko Surmount.

Good is such a general word, what does it really mean in progressives?




> I have worn the Gradal Individual, Autogragh, Physio 360 and now the Enhanced Eyecode. I have found the Varilux lenses to be better than the others.

----------


## Ghee

I have great distance vision, wide intermediate, and greater reading than any progressive that I have worn. Of course this is the first lens that I have worn using the Visioffice, and after the upgrade I think that it will even better.

----------


## Uilleann

If the patient wears the lens, and indeed feels as though there is no perception of distorted vision - particularly if they're comparing against an older PAL design, then that is indeed _zero distortion_.  No amount of tech talk will convince a patient that their lens is swim free.  Ultimately it's what the patient sees and feels that matters - not the ability of rep X, Y or Z to convince me of the tech prowess of this or that lens design, or their new whiz-bang free form generators, or X-generation lens tech.  Essilor understands the importance of branding and has done an excellent job worldwide of becoming relatively well known in terms of optical products.  Of course, if all their products we're half as bad as many posters on these boards make out, they obviously wouldn't be where they are.  If Essilor has been able to complete even half of their stated goals  with the S design, it will be a revolutionary change to the PAL market...and one that others will fall over each other to try and duplicate.

Time, and patients perceptions will tell.

----------


## Judy Canty

> Doesn't Hoya also market their new digital lenses as "Distortion Free Optics"?


Deleted.

----------


## EyeManFla

I wear my old Naturals and see fine,thank you!

----------


## DrHass

> I have over 25 Free-form lenses in my most recent RX


woah... uh. perhaps a tad bit excessive? :)

----------


## Ghee

Thanks Uilleann well said,

----------


## newboy

> I have great distance vision, wide intermediate, and greater reading than any progressive that I have worn. Of course this is the first lens that I have worn using the Visioffice, and after the upgrade I think that it will even better.


I am waiting for sharpstick's comment to tell you you're wrong. He seems to be the world knowledge on Essilor lenses. 

Sounds like an ex employee with a grudge. 

25 pairs of Progressive lenses ? You are clearly a person who cannot make their mind up. 

Please, please , please accept the fact that some people ( actually a few million over many years ) like Varilux lenses. They find the offer good wide areas of distortion free vision. 

You are entitled to your opinion , but so are others. Or is anyone with a different opinion to yours, wrong ?

----------


## Jubilee

Maybe some of us like to try out all our options. I know I appreciate both when I can speak from experience, and hear someone else's experience. While I have had decent luck, and in my career fit many a varilux lens with success.. However I have had more success in both patient satisfaction with turn around and with actual viewing in many other lenses. Didn't matter which lab I used (and I tried several ELOA/NON ELOA/Partners), I had the worst luck in getting things back in a timely fashion and right. 

I personally love my Auto II's, but looking forward to the pair of Individuals I have on order, and the Digital 5.0 mod..

----------


## sharpstick777

Actually, companies sometimes ask me to test their progressive lenses, and ask me to make comments during the refinement stage.   I also end up trouble shooting different problems with different companies when they ask, and sometimes receive their PAL in my power as part of the process.  I end up with a few lenses.  In a few cases where I don't get them gratis, I will try out as many lenses as I can to make sure they offer something to my customers.

I have no grudge against Essilor, and have only consulted for them, I have never been an employee, and will tell you the same thing I have told them: Their products the last few years have been disappointing.      

I hope they come out with something good, but when you start wearing other lenses, a lot of other lenses, you find Essilor is frankly now behind.   

I don't care how many they have sold, that is a function of marketing and business strategy, not lens quality.  

People can have their own opinion, but I question how large of lens sample they are drawing from.  If you have only worn a few products its not a broad base to have an educated opinion.  Simple statistical analysis.   





> I am waiting for sharpstick's comment to tell you you're wrong. He seems to be the world knowledge on Essilor lenses. 
> 
> Sounds like an ex employee with a grudge. 
> 
> 25 pairs of Progressive lenses ? You are clearly a person who cannot make their mind up. 
> 
> Please, please , please accept the fact that some people ( actually a few million over many years ) like Varilux lenses. They find the offer good wide areas of distortion free vision. 
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion , but so are others. Or is anyone with a different opinion to yours, wrong ?

----------


## optical24/7

I've had my S 4D for 2 days now..Improved design? (Compared to Ipseo) Slightly. Particularly Distance, off axis. Very clear edge to edge. The lower, outer peripheral area is within .25 - .50 D of my distance power along the 180, but has almost +1.5D of astigmatic overage along the 90 (remember, this is the temporal, lower area). Basically very little swim effect.

Itermed. and near functional, not necessarily wider.

Yes, there is distortion, but it's mostly isolated to the left and right of the umbilic (outer/inner, lower periphery).

Bottom line: Very good lens, but only a slight improvement over Ipseo, and no, it's not revolutionary.

Rx; +.25 +1.00 x 80  +2.50 add

----------


## sharpstick777

thanks!  Great review and valuable input.  How was the intermediate?   Was the distance clear edge to edge?  I will try mine out next week or two and post my impression too.




> I've had my S 4D for 2 days now..Improved design? (Compared to Ipseo) Slightly. Particularly Distance, off axis. Very clear edge to edge. The lower, outer peripheral area is within .25 - .50 D of my distance power along the 180, but has almost +1.5D of astigmatic overage along the 90 (remember, this is the temporal, lower area). Basically very little swim effect.
> 
> Itermed. and near functional, not necessarily wider.
> 
> Yes, there is distortion, but it's mostly isolated to the left and right of the umbilic (outer/inner, lower periphery).
> 
> Bottom line: Very good lens, but only a slight improvement over Ipseo, and no, it's not revolutionary.
> 
> Rx; +.25 +1.00 x 80  +2.50 add

----------


## Jennilou12

I fit a pt who was +1.00 OD and -2.00 with some cyl OS as a first time wearer, 2.25 add. She picked up saturday, and other than some double vision from the 3 diopter imbalance, she loved it. She saw no distortion at all. So, I am thus far pretty pleased with the lens. I have enjoyed Varilux products, and, yeah, of course they have marketing hype. Everyone who is trying to sell something does. What matters is how our patients see. :)

----------


## jspayneii

Jennilou,  Just out of curiosity, which version did you sell?  The Design, Fit, or 4D?

----------


## MakeOptics

> Their products the last few years have been disappointing.      
> 
> I hope they come out with something good, but when you start wearing other lenses, a lot of other lenses, you find Essilor is frankly now behind.


The ipseo was actually a revolutionary design incorporating patients specific "gain" values into the lens design.  The Ipseo used a ratio dubbed the gain which was the proportion of the eye rotation to head rotation to customize the design for the way that particular patient woud use his/her PALs.  The HOYA mystyle now incorporates this type of data into their design as well, but uses a type of questionaire rather than a scientifically calculated value to accomplish the same thing.

I'm not a big E fan but I have to give credit where credit is due, they took a left when everyone else took a right.  With great risk comes great reward and they have benefitted with many rewards over the years.

Also using a more customized horizontal optical modulation is a step ahead of other designs, we'll see that creeping into designs in the future and all of a sudden you won't be able to order a single lens without providing the other prescription.  Currently we provide our labs with an Rx for the other eye when ordering one pair and that data is so that they can choose the proper base curves and incorporate the proper prism thinning.  




> Bottom line: Very good lens, but only a slight improvement over Ipseo, and no, it's not revolutionary.


Interesting analysis, thank you.

----------


## Jennilou12

> Jennilou,  Just out of curiosity, which version did you sell?  The Design, Fit, or 4D?


I sold the 4D. I haven't heard from the other few that I sold, to see what they thought.

----------


## Peter J Shaw OD

So I guess that the image matching doesn't work if she is seeing double.

----------


## Jennilou12

I'm not an OD, but I would blame that on the 3 diopter imbalance. Esp since it was getting better as she wore them

----------


## Peter J Shaw OD

For sure its the imbalance, even a 0.75D imbalance in the vertical meridian can lead to discomfort, My question is how can she read in the presence of diplopia? Does she close an eye? Take them off? And how long does it take to regain single vision. At least my initial fears that they have duplicated my work and patent pending method have been lessened (because it is possible to reduce the dynamic magnification (prismatic effect) without slab off prism and mitigate the diplopia.)

----------


## Psychobablr7

> I pressed the Unity Rep for more information regarding the design and the fabrication of his product and he ended up having a actual hissy fit (I kid you not!) and stormed out of my lab in a huff saying, "Well if you don't want to fit it, then fine! Don't!"


+1 We must have the same rep-that exact same thing happened to us!

----------


## Peter J Shaw OD

> Just got some info on it.  I'm a skeptic, however if it does what they say it will, which is give edge to edge (clear) vision, then hooray for the PAL world....but I have my doubts until I see it for myself (and even then, I wonder if it will be great for some RX's and not for others.)  
> 
> The booklet I have says (among other things),... "*The Result:*  Better retinal image matching and improved spatial perception, providing _more expansive vision from edge to edge than ever before_ in a progressive lens."   Sounds like a different "cool, high-tech" way of saying wider field of vision...which is the claim on almost all progressives that I have read about.


Its a lofty claim, I can attest that the only lens company actually doing this is SHAW lens, we create iseikonic (equal image size) and isophoric (reduced prismatic effect) lenses for the mitigation of image difference with anisometropia. Souns like Essilor copied our marketing material.

----------


## Fezz

> Its a lofty claim, I can attest that the only lens company actually doing this is SHAW lens, we create iseikonic (equal image size) and isophoric (reduced prismatic effect) lenses for the mitigation of image difference with anisometropia. Souns like Essilor copied our marketing material.





 :Rolleyes: :poop: :Rolleyes:

----------


## Uilleann

We've dispensed a few of them so far, and patient response has been positive across the board - if not astounded.  All were relatively low myopes, low adds and no large edge to edge demands from work environment or day to day use that were alluded to in lifestyle questioning.  We haven't had any super wow moments with the first ones so far, but I believe it's far too early to draw any definitive conclusions yet.

----------


## CCGREEN

> For sure its the imbalance, even a 0.75D imbalance in the vertical meridian can lead to discomfort, My question is how can she read in the presence of diplopia? Does she close an eye? Take them off? And how long does it take to regain single vision. At least my initial fears that they have duplicated my work and patent pending method have been lessened (because it is possible to reduce the dynamic magnification (prismatic effect) without slab off prism and mitigate the diplopia.)


Slab? did you say slab? Oh my such old technology. I have one slab in process right now and that is because it belongs to the husband of our OD. (dont want to rock the boat there)

Cannot remember the last slab I ordered. Something like that comes up I simply request the lab to reverse the base curves of the lens. If Rx power calles for a 4 base on the right and a 6 base on the left reverse them. Use the 6 base on the power for the right and the 4 base on the left lens power. Have yet to see it NOT work for the patient.

You then have no added expense of a slab and no slab line. But the boys in the lab lose bragging rights as to how pretty the slab would look if they did it.

----------


## Fezz

> We've dispensed a few of them so far, and patient response has been positive across the board - if not astounded.  All were relatively low myopes, low adds and no large edge to edge demands from work environment or day to day use that were alluded to in lifestyle questioning.  We haven't had any super wow moments with the first ones so far, but I believe it's far too early to draw any definitive conclusions yet.



Were they all in polycarbonate?

 :Dance:  :Skip:  :Dance:

----------


## Uilleann

> Were they all in polycarbonate?



Yep.  Triple thick too!  With extra CA added for good measure in the peripheries!  Cause that's how optical ninjas roll... :Ninja:  :Ninja:  :Ninja:

----------


## AngeHamm

> We've dispensed a few of them so far, and patient response has been positive across the board - if not astounded.  All were relatively low myopes, low adds and no large edge to edge demands from work environment or day to day use that were alluded to in lifestyle questioning.  We haven't had any super wow moments with the first ones so far, but I believe it's far too early to draw any definitive conclusions yet.


We've had a couple big wows--one from our Dr./owner--and one almost immediate non-adapt from our most persnickety patient.

----------


## Nikki

Marketing!  Said it for years.  Essilors the one laughing all the way to the Bank.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> We've had a couple big wows--one from our Dr./owner--and one almost immediate non-adapt from our most persnickety patient.


Curious- What were the rx's?

----------


## Happylady

> We've dispensed a few of them so far, and patient response has been positive across the board - if not astounded.  All were relatively low myopes, low adds and no large edge to edge demands from work environment or day to day use that were alluded to in lifestyle questioning.  We haven't had any super wow moments with the first ones so far, but I believe it's far too early to draw any definitive conclusions yet.


Which ones have you used? The regular S or the S fit or the S 4D?

----------


## Uilleann

> Which ones have you used? The regular S or the S fit or the S 4D?


All three were the fit as we don't have the camera/computer in office currently.  I heard back from our second patient yesterday after a couple weeks in her lenses.  She's an active outdoor type who's all over the mountain and canyons in both summer and winter.  She says she's noticed a "smoother" field of vision overall, and her periphery is noticeably more comfortable than two previous PALs.  One was a first generation Physio, the other was a local chains 'house' brand.  At any rate, the feedback continues to be positive so far.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Curious- What were the rx's?


A very wide variety.

----------


## Barry Santini

> We've had a couple big wows--one from our Dr./owner--and one almost immediate non-adapt from our most persnickety patient.


What kind of lens/Rx change were they coming from?

B

----------


## Verunica

Our Essilor regional rep-guy came in this week to show me the new Varilux S lenses. Like a lot of you on this forum, I was VERY skeptical, and assumed much of the lens would be "marketing based". I have to say I AM IMPRESSED. I was shown an uncut lens blank, 4 base, (lens was not surfaced yet). There is LITTLE to NO swim AT ALL- the lens is seamless down through the reading area at the bottom, as well. 

I am eager to actually fit one of our patients in this lens and see what they think. It is true that the 4D version is only compatible for use with the VISIOFFICE tool, but the other styles can be fitted by taking panto/wrap/vertex measurements like many of the enhanced-fit digital progressives. Varilux S is also TRUE DIGITAL- both sides of the lens are digitally generated to precisely match PD, etc. 

I cannot tell you how impressive I found this technology. I began my Optical career as a lab technician, and I am familiar with many different brands and styles of PAL lenses out there... nothing I have see thus far has EVER come close to how CRISPY CLEAR these Varilux S fancy pants lenses are!! I am anxious to hear what other dispensing Opticians think after they have actually fitted someone in this new Essilor product. We will see how much of this is HYPE and how much of what Essilor claims is really true!

=D

----------


## Verunica

I could not agree more, thanks for the realistic viewpoint.  :Bounce: 

Oops, did not reply with quote- apologies. I appreciate the feedback from those of you who listen to their patient's feedback, rather than getting stuck on marketing, technical details, etc.

Thank you!

----------


## SailorEd

Tried a comparison between the Varilux S Design series lens and the Seiko Surmount for myself.  Both the same Rx.  I did not see too much of a difference between the two although the "S" was a little clearer in the extreme periphery.  Seeing that I have been dispensing free form lenses for about 2 1/2 years, I cannot take the chance that I would have a patient pay $150 more for this lens and not see a true benefit from it going into this from a good free form lens.  Now, the "4D" may be better but, with my location, I need to wait for the price to come down.

Rx:  +0.25 -1.00 x50
        -0.50 -1.25 x125
Add:  +2.25

----------


## optical24/7

> I've had my S 4D for 2 days now..Improved design? (Compared to Ipseo) Slightly. Particularly Distance, off axis. Very clear edge to edge. The lower, outer peripheral area is within .25 - .50 D of my distance power along the 180, but has almost +1.5D of astigmatic overage along the 90 (remember, this is the temporal, lower area). Basically very little swim effect.
> 
> Itermed. and near functional, not necessarily wider.
> 
> Yes, there is distortion, but it's mostly isolated to the left and right of the umbilic (outer/inner, lower periphery).
> 
> Bottom line: Very good lens, but only a slight improvement over Ipseo, and no, it's not revolutionary.
> 
> Rx; +.25 +1.00 x 80 +2.50 add


I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but there is distortion in the 4D. As I said earlier, this lens is only slightly improved over an Ipseo.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Our Essilor regional rep-guy came in this week to show me the new Varilux S lenses. Like a lot of you on this forum, I was VERY skeptical, and assumed much of the lens would be "marketing based". I have to say I AM IMPRESSED. I was shown an uncut lens blank, 4 base, (lens was not surfaced yet). There is LITTLE to NO swim AT ALL- the lens is seamless down through the reading area at the bottom, as well. 
> 
> I am eager to actually fit one of our patients in this lens and see what they think. It is true that the 4D version is only compatible for use with the VISIOFFICE tool, but the other styles can be fitted by taking panto/wrap/vertex measurements like many of the enhanced-fit digital progressives. Varilux S is also TRUE DIGITAL- both sides of the lens are digitally generated to precisely match PD, etc. 
> 
> I cannot tell you how impressive I found this technology. I began my Optical career as a lab technician, and I am familiar with many different brands and styles of PAL lenses out there... nothing I have see thus far has EVER come close to how CRISPY CLEAR these Varilux S fancy pants lenses are!! I am anxious to hear what other dispensing Opticians think after they have actually fitted someone in this new Essilor product. We will see how much of this is HYPE and how much of what Essilor claims is really true!
> 
> =D


Our patients and staff who have tried it have been similarly impressed.

----------


## RT

> I was shown an uncut lens blank, 4 base, (lens was not surfaced yet).  There is LITTLE to NO swim AT ALL...





> Varilux S is also TRUE DIGITAL- both sides of the lens are digitally generated to precisely match PD, etc.


These two statements conflict with each other.  If the lens is truly generated on both sides, then the raw uncut blank will not have any meaningful features on it.  And if the backside of the lens is digitally surfaced to put the progressive elements into the final lens, then perhaps they still have the opportunity to put the "swim" back in.  Ultimately, some measurable data from the finished product would be helpful.

----------


## Judy Canty

Deleted.

----------


## optical24/7

I can absolutely guarantee it is not *surfaced* on the front side. *Any* lens that comes in Transitions is not front surfaced. (It would remove the transition layer).

----------


## DanLiv

It is not surfaced front side, the blanks are digitally molded with part of the progressive design on the front like the rest of the Enhanced lenses, and the remaining complimentary portion of the Rx and design is digitally surfaced backside. Still their "dual-add" philosophy.

----------


## optical24/7

I agree Dan, There's nothing wrong with dual add designs, for some patients, it may be the best. But Essilor (Varilux) does not have any design front surfaced. This is word of a second rep for them claiming *total* front and back side *freeform*. ( Mine being the 1st, I heard..) Just ask them this if yours says this.." How do they offer Transitions with both sides surfaced?"

 They are not sending them off to Transitions to have it added after fabrication after each individual lens is made (which would be a must). Bottom line: Transitions = no front side *grinding*.

----------


## optical24/7

I want add, I still think this is a very well and designed PAL. It just doesn't live up to the hype of " Limitless Vision". There are lenses similar in design at a much lower cost to practitioner and patient.

----------


## Craig

i love the IOT lenses for (wholesale pricing removed) less per pair!! I have not seen the price difference justified between Super S and no name that lets you pick the base curve.  The no name wins out big time in our world.
Craig

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> I've had my S 4D for 2 days now..Improved design? (Compared to Ipseo) Slightly. Particularly Distance, off axis. Very clear edge to edge. The lower, outer peripheral area is within .25 - .50 D of my distance power along the 180, but has almost +1.5D of astigmatic overage along the 90 (remember, this is the temporal, lower area). Basically very little swim effect.
> 
> Itermed. and near functional, not necessarily wider.
> 
> Yes, there is distortion, but it's mostly isolated to the left and right of the umbilic (outer/inner, lower periphery).
> 
> Bottom line: Very good lens, but only a slight improvement over Ipseo, and no, it's not revolutionary.
> 
> Rx; +.25 +1.00 x 80 +2.50 add





> Tried a comparison between the Varilux S Design series lens and the Seiko Surmount for myself. Both the same Rx. I did not see too much of a difference between the two although the "S" was a little clearer in the extreme periphery. Seeing that I have been dispensing free form lenses for about 2 1/2 years, I cannot take the chance that I would have a patient pay $150 more for this lens and not see a true benefit from it going into this from a good free form lens. Now, the "4D" may be better but, with my location, I need to wait for the price to come down.
> 
> Rx: +0.25 -1.00 x50
> -0.50 -1.25 x125
> Add: +2.25


And this, my friends, is how you determine the functionality of PALs- wear them. If you're too young to do so, use a test subject (guinea pig) who wears an add above +1.75 @40cm. Frames and Rx must be identical for a realistic evaluation.

I'll do a review when I can source this lens from an independant lab (another month or two). Until then, thank you both for sharing.

----------


## sharpstick777

Great input, is the intermediate inthe Surmount wider than the "S"?  I would expect it to be.  Great RX to test with.




> Tried a comparison between the Varilux S Design series lens and the Seiko Surmount for myself.  Both the same Rx.  I did not see too much of a difference between the two although the "S" was a little clearer in the extreme periphery.  Seeing that I have been dispensing free form lenses for about 2 1/2 years, I cannot take the chance that I would have a patient pay $150 more for this lens and not see a true benefit from it going into this from a good free form lens.  Now, the "4D" may be better but, with my location, I need to wait for the price to come down.
> 
> Rx:  +0.25 -1.00 x50
>         -0.50 -1.25 x125
> Add:  +2.25

----------


## sharpstick777

According to the Essilor exec I spoke to, they say the lens is dual side Free-form.  One speculation I heard is that they are using a reverse asymetrical aspheric design to effectively create some add on the front.  My guess:  They are blending features of the Definity and the Auto II in one lens.

----------


## optical24/7

> According to the Essilor exec I spoke to, they say the lens is dual side Free-form. One speculation I heard is that they are using a reverse asymetrical aspheric design to effectively create some add on the front. My guess: They are blending features of the Definity and the Auto II in one lens.


They can not be surfacing both sides because....




> I can absolutely guarantee it is not *surfaced* on the front side. *Any* lens that comes in Transitions is not front surfaced. (It would remove the transition layer).

----------


## Wes

An essilor rep I talked to last month says the front is molded and the back freeform surfaced.

----------


## Judy Canty

Deleted.

----------


## Wes

Yep, they said that too.

----------


## Judy Canty

Deleted.

----------


## Wes

Someone was doing an online CE about "freeform" the other day and was asking me to explain some of the terminology regarding the subject.  My response was that the technology is so new that the industry hasn't settled on definitive terminology to date, therefore we don't have simple tools (words) to explain the variety of complex iterations yet.  "Freeform" and "digital lens" can mean just about anything. Front standard mold, digital freeform back; Front digital mold, standard surfaced back; Front and back digital freeform;  Front sphere, Back digital freeform progressive; etc...

----------


## Judy Canty

Deleted.

----------


## jefe

> i love the IOT lenses for xxx less per pair!! I have not seen the price difference justified between Super S and no name that lets you pick the base curve.  The no name wins out big time in our world.
> Craig


Please edit out the wholesale price.

----------


## Fezz

> Please edit out the wholesale price.



Taken care of!

----------


## SailorEd

> Great input, is the intermediate inthe Surmount wider than the "S"?  I would expect it to be.  Great RX to test with.


They are both about the same, maybe a little wider on the S Design but not so much of difference.  I just tried them both on while I am typing here.  Again, a good lens, maybe better, but to pay $150 more for, I'd lose patients.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

http://sseries.variluxusa.com/Techni...Nano-FINnb.pdf

----------


## Scooter224

Finally... I got my S4D last week. They are ok, but far from perfekt. What I can say is that there is a little less swim effect than in my Ipseo. But with the Ipseo the view is really sharp. With the S4D it feels a bit blurry. Reading with the Ipseo is way better than with the S4D.
So overall I can say that the Marketing is much better than the glass.

----------


## Uilleann

Received mine yesterday (4D), so haven't had a great deal of time behind the lenses, but when compared against two previous in-house digital/FF styles from a couple different labs, the S is vastly superior.  Rx is low myopic, touch of cyl in the OD, add of 1.50.  The first set of lenses were ok OD, but the OS was as swimmy as an Olympic sized pool.  Even after four weeks in, the lenses are not comfortable.  Pair two was slightly better , but felt harder down the corridor making the intermediate quite difficult - even with my low add.  With the S, I have picked up no swim.  Instantly upon putting them on the first time, they literally felt as comfortable as SV from my own subjective viewing impressions.  I honestly didn't expect as dramatic a difference, but for my own personal comparison between these three, the S wins hands down.  Who knows...

----------


## mdeimler

Exact same reaction from a co-worker.  Similar RX, with more cyl.  She is in love...she's also a very skeptical person, a real hard sell to every new product.

----------


## JC1111

11

----------


## JC1111

> Our Essilor regional rep-guy came in this week to show me the new Varilux S lenses. Like a lot of you on this forum, I was VERY skeptical, and assumed much of the lens would be "marketing based". I have to say I AM IMPRESSED. I was shown an uncut lens blank, 4 base, (lens was not surfaced yet). There is LITTLE to NO swim AT ALL- the lens is seamless down through the reading area at the bottom, as well. 
> 
> I am eager to actually fit one of our patients in this lens and see what they think. It is true that the 4D version is only compatible for use with the VISIOFFICE tool, but the other styles can be fitted by taking panto/wrap/vertex measurements like many of the enhanced-fit digital progressives. Varilux S is also TRUE DIGITAL- both sides of the lens are digitally generated to precisely match PD, etc. 
> 
> I cannot tell you how impressive I found this technology. I began my Optical career as a lab technician, and I am familiar with many different brands and styles of PAL lenses out there... nothing I have see thus far has EVER come close to how CRISPY CLEAR these Varilux S fancy pants lenses are!! I am anxious to hear what other dispensing Opticians think after they have actually fitted someone in this new Essilor product. We will see how much of this is HYPE and how much of what Essilor claims is really true!
> 
> =D




I am pretty sure like most digital lenses this is surfaced using a single vision blank. That would explain the clarity you saw on the unsurfaced uncut he showed you....

----------


## jspayneii

I do not believe it is a single vision lens.  From all the information Essilor provided to us, it utilizes dual optix technology, meaning they are utilizing both sides of the blank.

----------


## Uilleann

I ordered a second pair of S-4D yesterday in a different frame (slightly shorter B) and bumped the add a quarter for the extra small stuff on the phone that's getting harder and harder to see these days.  :)  Not expecting much difference of course, but will see if the 'redesign' of the new frame measures and add translate into any discernible visual difference between pair A and B here.

----------


## optical24/7

> I am pretty sure like most digital lenses this is surfaced using a single vision blank. That would explain the clarity you saw on the unsurfaced uncut he showed you....





> I do not believe it is a single vision lens. From all the information Essilor provided to us, it utilizes dual optix technology, meaning they are utilizing both sides of the blank.


It is not dual *surfaced*. It's a cast front/digital back design. As stated earlier, you can't have Transitions on a dual surfaced design. (fronts surfaced also.)

----------


## Wes

> It is not dual *surfaced*. It's a cast front/digital back design. As stated earlier, you can't have Transitions on a dual surfaced design. (fronts surfaced also.)


Right.

----------


## jspayneii

> It is not dual *surfaced*. It's a cast front/digital back design. As stated earlier, you can't have Transitions on a dual surfaced design. (fronts surfaced also.)


Very well described.

----------


## optimensch

> It is not dual *surfaced*. It's a cast front/digital back design. As stated earlier, you can't have Transitions on a dual surfaced design. (fronts surfaced also.)


So which progressive is NOT offered in transitions on account of true front and back cnc milling?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> So which progressive is NOT offered in transitions on account of true front and back cnc milling?


The original Hoya iD, and the present day 1.74 index of refraction Zeiss Individual (PAL & SV?), in the higher powers.

----------


## optimensch

Thank you Robert, that is very informative, I didnt know that. The lens reps seem to imply that the front surfaces are milled as well and I guess it makes sense that if the product is available in Transitions (which is a front surface-applied coating I think) than it cannot be front-surfaced. I notice that a "sun sensor" treatment is available where transitions isnt (Hoya My Id lifestyle) isn't= I guess this is an in-the-mass treatment? Great to learn new things, thanks.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

I probably missed a few, but your most welcome. There are advantages, economically and performance-wise, to placing the progressive optics on the front (better for some Rxs), or on the back. In either case, 99% of the time it will be the back surface that is worked on a free-form manufacturing platform, with results that will vary greatly by the complexity and quality of the software and manufacturing know-how, and not by where the progressive optics are placed.

----------


## optical24/7

> . There are advantages, economically and performance-wise, to placing the progressive optics on the front (*better for some Rxs*), or on the back.  .



I agree with this 100% Robert. My rule of thumb is that I won't use total back side PAL designs when the patient is hyperopic or doesn't have enough minus Rx to overcome the add power. ( In these cases you are creating a bi-convex reading area)

----------


## burke110

Anyone else getting back some odd compensated rx's with the S4d?  Anyone having great success with this lens?  So far I have dispensed around a dozen and have only had one "Wow", a few "Meh's" and the rest not enjoying them as much.  The latest compensated RX I have received from the lab today is ;
RX ordered  +1.00 -0.25 x 96  +2.00 Add
                  PL  -0.25 x 117      +2.00 Add
Compensated RX from the lab
                  +1.02 - 0.23 x97  +1.05 Add
                   -0.07 -0.22 x 118 +1.23 Add
I know they take into consideration vertex, panto and all of those measurements, but with that little RX could it change the add that much (almost cut in half?)  If someone can give me more information on how they calculate the compensation RX and what might change the add this much it would be greatly appreciated.  So far the only answers I can get from Essilor is that is what the computer spits out.  Do we just trust these compensations?  Thanks for your time and replies.

----------


## jspayneii

burke110,

I cannot come up with a reason for that kind of compensation on the add power with that low of a prescription.  Do you have the vertex/faceform/panto that you sent in to have the 4Ds produced?

Ultimately it is up to you if you are willing to trust the compensations without having a better understanding of why it is doing this.  For me, the answer is no.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> I agree with this 100% Robert. My rule of thumb is that I won't use total back side PAL designs when the patient is hyperopic or doesn't have enough minus Rx to overcome the add power. ( In these cases you are creating a bi-convex reading area)


It seems that the only way to keep the back concave on these high plus backside PALs is to use a really steep base curve, not very desirable cosmetically (or optically), considering it's probably a premium product. 




> Anyone else getting back some odd compensated rx's with the S4d?  Anyone having great success with this lens?  So far I have dispensed around a dozen and have only had one "Wow", a few "Meh's" and the rest not enjoying them as much.  The latest compensated RX I have received from the lab today is ;
> RX ordered  +1.00 -0.25 x 96  +2.00 Add
>                   PL  -0.25 x 117      +2.00 Add
> Compensated RX from the lab
>                   +1.02 - 0.23 x97  +1.05 Add
>                    -0.07 -0.22 x 118 +1.23 Add
> I know they take into consideration vertex, panto and all of those measurements, but with that little RX could it change the add that much (almost cut in half?)  If someone can give me more information on how they calculate the compensation RX and what might change the add this much it would be greatly appreciated.  So far the only answers I can get from Essilor is that is what the computer spits out.  Do we just trust these compensations?  Thanks for your time and replies.


One possibility is that there are only two add powers, I'm guessing a +.75, and a +1.75, with the rest on the back. That way they only have to produce 16 semifinished blank configurations (two adds and eight or so base curves).

----------


## jspayneii

> It seems that the only way to keep the back concave on these high plus backside PALs is to use a really steep base curve, not very desirable cosmetically (or optically), considering it's probably a premium product. 
> 
> One possibility is that there are only two add powers, I'm guessing a +.75, and a +1.75, with the rest on the back. That way they only have to produce 16 semifinished blank configurations (two adds and eight or so base curves).


I thought about that too.  Essilor has always put the total add in the compensated add, and don't normally split.

----------


## sharpstick777

> I agree with this 100% Robert. My rule of thumb is that I won't use total back side PAL designs when the patient is hyperopic or doesn't have enough minus Rx to overcome the add power. ( In these cases you are creating a bi-convex reading area)


Only in the higher plus powers, about +6-7 total by my math.  Its why Zeiss chooses that number to move some of the add to the front as the back gets flatter.  Using Minkwitz, you reach a point of diminshing returns as plus powers increase.  Backside Add works better in most cases to reduce TPD.  The key factor is that a front side add creates a concave curve against a convex lens, which sky rockets distortion.  Only until the ability to compensate on the back reaches that distortion point will a front side add make sense.

----------


## sharpstick777

I just got my first pair of Varilux S lenses mounted, so this is my initial report.  I have to admit, this is the most unusual lens I have ever worn.  It’s both brilliant and confusing, and it has the remote possibly of being even dangerous.

Initial impressions are awesome.  When I put the lens on it was the first progressive that did completely feel like single vision.  There are very low geometric distortions and the “soft focus” areas have been moved very far away from the foveal cone to appear almost invisible when looking through the center.  The corridors _seem_ very wide and looking around the room, the entire lens _seems_ mostly usable.  If I didn’t give the lens a deeper look I would be convinced it’s the best lens made.  

But…

The first issue that when I turned my head, the lens feels like it has negative face form.  I don’t know if you remember CRT tube TVs as we went Flat Screen.  If you went back and forth between the 2 technologies everything seems bent.  The Varilux S bends everything just a little bit like an old CRT screen does.  Although in most lenses in my low RX = (-1.25  -.50  x80 /-1.00 -.50 x81/ +1.50) I actually see better without Point of Wear measurements, this is the first lens that is much better with them.   I would not order this lens without the vertex and face-form measurements in any RX.  It feels like my BC is off by 2D.  The S Fit reduces this to 1D, but doesn’t eliminate it entirely.  It still feels weird.

As a result, it’s the first progressive I have ever worn that ever gave me a headache, and I had to take off after less than 2 hours.   The second day I could only wear it for 6 hours before I got uncomfortable and fatigued.  I have never once had to remove a progressive lens before.

The second issue is the reading zone.  Although it feels huge at first when not focusing on anything small, when I go to the fine print it’s only perfectly clear in the very center.  Reading a pill bottle clearly required bringing the object very close and low in the lens.  The zone left to right of the reading was OK for a long distance, but there was a slight fuzziness that caused my eyes to tire quickly.   If you’re not focused on text it looks completely clear for a very long way, but when you get down to the fine print I could read much better without my glasses on.  The effective reading zone was very low in the corridor; I had to tilt my head up farther to get it than any other progressive I have ever worn.  

The intermediate is wide, and more usable for text.   The declination angle of the intermediate definitely favors a laptop/tablet/cel over a PC.   On a PC Monitor it was slightly fuzzy although wide, and I would find eyestrain sooner.  Strangely, reading through the intermediate was clearer than the reading zone.  Over all text looks slightly strange, there is a very slight glow on one side that makes it look like chromatic aberrations or contrast is too high or my monitor is dying.
Distance Vision:  But here is the real deal killer for this lens in my RX, the S lens induces a large amount of unwanted vertical cylinder/prism in the top portion of the lens, and it increases toward the peripheral.  It’s enough that at night it’s almost like the old ghosting you get with VHF television antennas.  As a result Freeway signs were only readable at about 140 feet away at night, 180 in day.  With my Seiko lenses, I can make out small freeway lettering clearly at 240 feet.  My DVA/OU with the Varilux S is 20/20 -1, with the Seiko’s I am 20/15 -2, the loss of a almost full line.   That’s a substantial difference.  I drive about 40K -50K miles a years so for me that extra 100 feet of usable clarity is important.   That’s a large loss in potential reaction time of about 1.2 seconds.

The biggest problem with this is the potential to push the cyl only a tiny amount my DVA would drop dramatically, I am right on the edge.  What if some of these lenses come off the line with a tiny bit more of unwanted cyl?  This lens could very easily become unsafe simply because of normal power variations in a few extreme cases.  We are right at the edge of what most people could tolerate, dropping DVA to 20/30 quickly.

I think that Essilor is on to something significant with the S lens series.  In many uses and walking around it functions beautifully.  It really is a lens that feels like SV with little perceptible distortion or geometric distortions.  Text and fine detail is another matter.  Heavy readers, computer users, and people who drive a lot with definitely notice the slight degradation that occurs in almost all zones, but especially the loss in reading freeway signs.   The goal of the S is to keep the foveal cone clear, counter-balance spacial distortion so its less noticeable, and push out the crud so it can be cut off.  In most things it’s successful, but for me I cannot consider this a truly great lens since it reduces both my distance and near VA so substantially.  

Some guesses on the Technology (Essilor is being very tight lipped, so I could be completely wacked).   The front uses a reverse aspheric design that varies across differing axis to balance parallax deviations in the lower zones.  The transitional curves are incredibly soft enabling large areas to appear more clear.  Where most progressives can be delineated as a 4 zone lens, this is really an 8 zone lens.  The gentler delinations allow for an appearance of reduced total distortion.  In realty TDP is spread all over the lens a little, resulting in it looking better than it really is.  The power at 90 to the umbilic through the corridor bends down and out, not up and in like most progressives.  The result is that the distorted transitional zones are moved farther way from central fields of view, the downside is that the peripheral reading starts to become the intermediate zone quickly, reducing effective reading area.  It also allows that transitional zone between reading and distance to be longer, and softer, creating a perception of usefulness.   It also reduces unwanted prism and cyl in the near zone.  Combined they create the perception of less distortion to the wearer.  Anytime we can move distortion out we can at some point cut more of it off. 

Fitting tips:   This lens will work best for general purpose non-demanding wearers who don’t depend on the sharpest vision near or distance.    It will also work best on type B personalities.  This lens will not work well for engineers, perfectionists, lawyers, type A people, photographers or those who use the computer, read or drive more than 2 hours a day; there are better lenses for those people for a lot less money.   You will gain an advantage offering the S Fit to EVERY patient over the S Design using the Panto, Face-form and Vertex.  It’s ungainly without them.  I would be very hesitant to fit the lens on a patient who has base curve sensitivities.  If a rock star pops into your practice though, it would be a perfect choice as long as someone else is driving the tour bus.

Because of the acuity issues in mine, I would verify your patients DVA before you allowed them to leave your practice with the .  There is a chance acuity could be low enough in some rare cases/powers to make driving unsafe.   

This is very close to being a great lens, and it’s by far the first decent Essilor Free-form lens.  Frankly, after so many mediocre Essilor lenses lately I was hoping for more.   I am hopeful that Essilor will improve the VA far and near, most lenses undergo improvements after launch even if their never announced.  Until then, I cannot recommend this lens yet because I put a greater weight on patient safety than I do comfort, and comfort is everything the S is about.  It’s strangely a progressive lens for people who don’t really need a progressive lens.   It has great potential, but with the loss in clarity in multiple zones it steps away from being the best in everything except reducing spacial or geometric distortions.  There it still excels.

----------


## sharpstick777

I posted my review here, i had a big MEH as well.  Pls let me know if my experience parralells yours at all.




> Anyone else getting back some odd compensated rx's with the S4d?  Anyone having great success with this lens?  So far I have dispensed around a dozen and have only had one "Wow", a few "Meh's" and the rest not enjoying them as much.  The latest compensated RX I have received from the lab today is ;
> RX ordered  +1.00 -0.25 x 96  +2.00 Add
>                   PL  -0.25 x 117      +2.00 Add
> Compensated RX from the lab
>                   +1.02 - 0.23 x97  +1.05 Add
>                    -0.07 -0.22 x 118 +1.23 Add
> I know they take into consideration vertex, panto and all of those measurements, but with that little RX could it change the add that much (almost cut in half?)  If someone can give me more information on how they calculate the compensation RX and what might change the add this much it would be greatly appreciated.  So far the only answers I can get from Essilor is that is what the computer spits out.  Do we just trust these compensations?  Thanks for your time and replies.

----------


## sharpstick777

> I probably missed a few, but your most welcome. There are advantages, economically and performance-wise, to placing the progressive optics on the front (better for some Rxs), or on the back. In either case, 99% of the time it will be the back surface that is worked on a free-form manufacturing platform, with results that will vary greatly by the complexity and quality of the software and manufacturing know-how, and not by where the progressive optics are placed.


When we put an add on the front, the Progressive transitional curve moves through from the front distance curve, which is convex, to the transtional curve, which is steep concave, back to the add, which is again, steep convex.  So we go >Convex (dist)> Steep Concave > Steep Convex (reading) > Steep Concave > Convex (distance).  Back and forth.

In a backside add lens, it runs:  Steep concave (distance) > Moderate Concave (transitional) > Flat Concave (reading) > Moderat Concave > Steep Concave.  Inherantly, the curves diverge less in a backside add power reducing Total Potential Distortion about about 40% in reality.   All Concave to varying degrees.  This is the curve at 90 deg to the umbilic.  We cant optomize the umbilic as effectively so their is still some inherant distortion.

The add power location has an enormous affect on distortion.  Its why most FF lenses have the add on the back.

In higher plus powers the gap narrows, so we get a decreasing rate of return as the back gets too flat to compensate effectively.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Using Minkwitz, you reach a point of diminshing returns as plus powers increase.


I'm pretty sure that's related to corrected curve theory, not the Minkwitz theorem.




> My DVA/OU with the Varilux S is 20/20 -1, with the Seiko’s I am 20/15 -2, the loss of a almost full line.


There's a grievous flaw in the design, fit, or the manufacturing. My guess is the latter since this has not been reported elsewhere. 




> Fitting tips: This lens will work best for general purpose non-demanding wearers who don’t depend on the sharpest vision near or distance.


Distance _and_ near? That's a pretty small market!




> When we put an add on the front, the Progressive transitional curve moves through from the front distance curve, which is convex, to the transtional curve, which is steep concave, back to the add, which is again, steep convex. So we go >Convex (dist)> Steep Concave > Steep Convex (reading) > Steep Concave > Convex (distance). Back and forth.
> 
> In a backside add lens, it runs: Steep concave (distance) > Moderate Concave (transitional) > Flat Concave (reading) > Moderat Concave > Steep Concave. Inherantly, the curves diverge less in a backside add power reducing Total Potential Distortion about about 40% in reality. All Concave to varying degrees. This is the curve at 90 deg to the umbilic. We cant optomize the umbilic as effectively so their is still some inherant distortion.


I'm not sure that I follow you. I would agree that a high plus, high add backside PAL can have a S shaped geometry on the back surface, unless the base curve is very steep.




> The add power location has an enormous affect on distortion. Its why most FF lenses have the add on the back.


From what I've read, the CW seems to be only slight optical advantages with the backside placement of the progressive optics; i.e. 10% increase in field of vision, slight reduction in skew distortion. Probably insignificant from the wearer's perspective. There are disadvantges. The only significant advantage is reduced cost due to reduced inventory requirements.

----------


## Happylady

My office is a big Varilux office and we have the machine for the 4D S lens. 

Am I understanding this right- there is very low level distortion over the whole lens? And that this allows the lens to have clearer periphery vision but slightly less clear straight ahead vision?

----------


## MakeOptics

The issue I see is in the Nanoptix Technology.  Nanoptix is like taking a bunch of paper toilet rolls and putting them together side by side to create a honeycomb structure, except with nanoptix this is done on a microscopic level and this mesh is filled in with different refractive materials, with the walls of each tube/pixel having a coating that absorbs visible light.  If you were to take a tube and tilt it slightly while looking down the middle you will start to notice that you see more of tube walls.  The advantage is they have discretized the optics of a lens surface to be comprised of multiple cells that theoretically are optimized for their position.  This means that each point can have a consistent merit function applied across the surface of the lens (distortion in this case).  The problem is that these cell walls/tubes introduce a known defect, they cause diffraction which scatters light and the absorption of the walls also means reduced transmittance.  They reduce this effect by making the walls super thin and by making the mesh work thin as well but I still believe that the lens experiences some loss of contrast and clarity as an expense of reduced distortion.

I would share the patents but I made a promise.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> For add power prescriptions below +3.00D, the invention typically keeps the unwanted astigmatism to a maximum of approximately 1.00D or less. For certain high add power prescriptions such as +3.00D, +3.25D, and +3.50D, the invention typically keeps the unwanted astigmatism to a maximum of approximately 1.50D.


http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...ux+AND+essilor

I assume that this is the only way to significantly reduce unwanted astigmatism and swim, a low add PAL combined with electro-active elements. The "Varilux S" probably has low levels of astigmatism, but can it be less than 1.50 DC on a +2.00 add PAL? 

Where's the beef?

----------


## sharpstick777

> There's a grievous flaw in the design, fit, or the manufacturing. My guess is the latter since this has not been reported elsewhere.


Robert, ordered another pair just to make sure I didn't receive a bad lens, but I have the same problem.  DVA has improved... but only very slightly.  Still get headaches.  My friend/partner/boss ordered a pair, he's a hyperope, and I did NOT tell him what my impressions were.  He had the exact same experience except his reading was even worse than mine, he couldnt read  J5 at all.

Either Essilor has a quality control issue, or a design issue.

Overall, in both myope and hyperopes there is a clarity issue in the 4S for the fine print, and a slight loss of DVA, with all 4 of the pairs we have tried.  I experience eyestrain and headaches, the first of any lens for me.  And I am now at about 51 progressives worn (I think, I haven't counted in a while).

I threw my DRx's on for fun, they are better than the 4S for DVA but I still get a slight amount of verticle unwanted cyl in those as well.  Still not as clear as other brands or lenses.  Less eyestrain though than the 4S.

----------


## sharpstick777

> I ordered a second pair of S-4D yesterday in a different frame (slightly shorter B) and bumped the add a quarter for the extra small stuff on the phone that's getting harder and harder to see these days.  :)  Not expecting much difference of course, but will see if the 'redesign' of the new frame measures and add translate into any discernible visual difference between pair A and B here.


Uilleann, my reading in my 4S was very, veray small for the fine print.  If you are not having reading issues in another lens, it may not be your RX thats the problem.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Robert, ordered another pair just to make sure I didn't receive a bad lens, but I have the same problem. DVA has improved... but only very slightly. Still get headaches. My friend/partner/boss ordered a pair, he's a hyperope, and I did NOT tell him what my impressions were. He had the exact same experience except his reading was even worse than mine, he couldnt read J5 at all.
> 
> Either Essilor has a quality control issue, or a design issue.
> 
> Overall, in both myope and hyperopes there is a clarity issue in the 4S for the fine print, and a slight loss of DVA, with all 4 of the pairs we have tried. I experience eyestrain and headaches, the first of any lens for me. And I am now at about 51 progressives worn (I think, I haven't counted in a while).
> 
> I threw my DRx's on for fun, they are better than the 4S for DVA but I still get a slight amount of verticle unwanted cyl in those as well. Still not as clear as other brands or lenses. Less eyestrain though than the 4S.




1. Varilux
2. Varilux II
3. Varilux Infinity
4. Varilux Comfort
5. Varilux Panamac
6. Varilux Physio
7. Varilux 4S

Maybe it's like the Star Trek movies- even numbers good, odd numbers bad.

----------


## Barry Santini

> 1. Varilux
> 2. Varilux II
> 3. Varilux Infinity
> 4. Varilux Comfort
> 5. Varilux Panamac
> 6. Varilux Physio
> 7. Varilux 4S
> 
> Maybe it's like the Star Trek movies- even numbers good, odd numbers bad.



Ha ha!  I used to draw out a sine wave, and pictured the same peak/trough relationship.

B

----------


## Uilleann

> Uilleann, my reading in my 4S was very, veray small for the fine print.  If you are not having reading issues in another lens, it may not be your RX thats the problem.


Got the second pair about a week back now.  Vision is just as solid for me as the first pair in all zones.  Frankly I have zero issues with this lens - either in personal wear or in any we've dispensed so far.  We had two earlier this week: one was a high myope -9ish if I remember correctly and a +2.50 down below.  Second pair was a light anisometrope (about a buck either way) with a +2.25.  Both were happy at dispense, and got a wow from our myope.  Now I know we're not looking at double blind study results here, but the short of it for us is a lens that has presented with zero issues to date.  Sorry to hear your experiences haven't been as positive.

----------


## Fezz

How can you be old enough to wear a progressive?

I had you pegged for early 30's at most!

----------


## sharpstick777

> Got the second pair about a week back now.  Vision is just as solid for me as the first pair in all zones.  Frankly I have zero issues with this lens - .


You had mentioned that you had to bump the add for the lens.

----------


## sharpstick777

> 3. Varilux Infinity


I don't even remember the Infinity...  what was it like?  I can see the tag line though "To Infinity and Beyond!"

----------


## jefe

> Got the second pair about a week back now.  Vision is just as solid for me as the first pair in all zones.  Frankly I have zero issues with this lens - either in personal wear or in any we've dispensed so far.  We had two earlier this week: one was a high myope -9ish if I remember correctly and a +2.50 down below.  Second pair was a light anisometrope (about a buck either way) with a +2.25.  Both were happy at dispense, and got a wow from our myope.  Now I know we're not looking at double blind study results here, but the short of it for us is a lens that has presented with zero issues to date.  Sorry to hear your experiences haven't been as positive.


Made in polycarbonate?

----------


## optical24/7

I too am a little surprised by your experience sharp. Though not revolutionary, my dispensing and personal experience with the 4D has all been positive. We must have very different visual systems. I've tried every Seiko and others total backside PAL's and find them all inferior to either Hoya or Essilor split designs (for me personally).

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Ha ha!  I used to draw out a sine wave, and pictured the same peak/trough relationship.


I only steal from the best! You were the first to spell out their successes and failures chronologically. I just threw in the Star Trek analogy.




> I don't even remember the Infinity...  what was it like?  I can see the tag line though "To Infinity and Beyond!"


Softer, long corridor. Good for emerging prebyopes, bad for most folks who were wearing the V2.




> I too am a little surprised by your experience sharp. Though not revolutionary, my dispensing and personal experience with the 4D has all been positive. We must have very different visual systems. I've tried every Seiko and others total backside PAL's and find them all inferior to either Hoya or Essilor split designs (for me personally).


I would suggest that everyone try to evaluate the lens by using identical frames so that you don't know which lens design you're wearing. I would also recommend a fitting height of 20mm, which for most designs, rules out software manipulation of the corridor length.

----------


## optical24/7

That's exactly how I evaluate a lens Robert. Exact same Rx/frame/PD/SH/panto/ect. (SH 24 by the way) I always try to wear them for a 48 hr. min. (Some I can't get through the 1st hour though!)

----------


## Uilleann

> How can you be old enough to wear a progressive?
> 
> I had you pegged for early 30's at most!


 :Wink:  Yeah, Mikey was kind enough to give me a full buck and a half.  Guess it's his slave driving tendencies at the computer all day long.  And I make this early 30's thing look GOOD!  (I WISH!...both the looking good and the _early_ thirties bit!)




> You had mentioned that you had to bump the add for the lens.


No, I actually _decreased_ my full prescribed add on the first pair by a quarter, but after the initial positive experience, decided to go ahead with the full 1.50 the second round.  No visual difference to my eyes between either pair concerning swim, distortion, or sharpness.  Who knows...maybe I just have overly easy going eyes??  *shrug*




> Made in polycarbonate?


Myope pair was 1.67, Aniso was Airwear.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Maybe it's like the Star Trek movies- even numbers good, odd numbers bad.


I protest. _Star Trek III_ is excellent.

----------


## Uilleann

I forget if a link to the white papers on the 'S' were listed before.  Just in case:  http://sseries.variluxusa.com/Techni...itePapers.aspx

----------


## lcgordon

you are right judy, it's the drill less frames from Avantek (makers of flexon) that hoya is marketing as distortion free optics b/c the frame connects on the tabs cut into the lens therefore you are not compromising the material by drilling through it.  It makes the optics better b/c of the lack of stress on the lens.  They are also the lightest frame/lens that I've ever worn.
Watch out Silhouette!!

----------


## Fezz

> you are right judy, it's the drill less frames from Avantek (makers of flexon) that hoya is marketing as distortion free optics b/c the frame connects on the tabs cut into the lens therefore you are not compromising the material by drilling through it.  It makes the optics better b/c of the lack of stress on the lens.  They are also the lightest frame/lens that I've ever worn.
> Watch out Silhouette!!



You wouldn't happen to work for Hoya would you?

----------


## sharpstick777

Do you have any data that shows improved Visual Accuity in those frames, over a Shilhoutte?  You can drill and mount without stress on the lens.




> you are right judy, it's the drill less frames from Avantek (makers of flexon) that hoya is marketing as distortion free optics b/c the frame connects on the tabs cut into the lens therefore you are not compromising the material by drilling through it.  It makes the optics better b/c of the lack of stress on the lens.  They are also the lightest frame/lens that I've ever worn.
> Watch out Silhouette!!

----------


## sharpstick777

We have shipped about 20 so far for customers, 5 have come back as non-adapts and into another lens (not counting our inhouse testing).  8 love them, 7 can't see the difference, good or bad.  I am a type A person so personality makes a difference,  I am also very aware of ANY loss of clarity.  It may depend on someones priorities, I like sharp vision and thus harder designs over softer designs and less spacial distortion.   I don't do as well in most soft designs even in free-form.  I also do best in "lightly" compensated lenses, for example, I see better in the Spectrum than the Auto II based on DVA.

Just for fun I tried on my Physio DRx's, and I get higher DVA through those than the 4S Fit and Design (I have not tried the 4D).  But the DRx's are not clear edge to edge.  They also have a small amount of unwanted astigmatism, and took me much longer to adapt to than most other progressives. 

Wearing the Shamir InTouch today, that is a good lens in low adds.  I wouldn't want to fit a 2.50 add in it though, the reading is narrow.




> I too am a little surprised by your experience sharp. Though not revolutionary, my dispensing and personal experience with the 4D has all been positive. We must have very different visual systems. I've tried every Seiko and others total backside PAL's and find them all inferior to either Hoya or Essilor split designs (for me personally).

----------


## Golfnorth

> you are right judy, it's the drill less frames from Avantek (makers of flexon) that hoya is marketing as distortion free optics b/c the frame connects on the tabs cut into the lens therefore you are not compromising the material by drilling through it.  It makes the optics better b/c of the lack of stress on the lens.  They are also the lightest frame/lens that I've ever worn.
> Watch out Silhouette!!


lol@ Watch out Silhouette!

----------


## eyehunt2

I am wearing the S series fit, and dislike the reading area, much smaller than my superceeds.
My 2 cents.

----------


## SoopaTroopa

I've fit and dispensed at least 5 of the S series thus far and haven't had a single complaint. Patients seem to have wider ranges and sharper vision. I'm usually not one to buy into the marketing hype but these lenses seem to do the trick for the people I've fit.

----------


## mahmoud.hamza

The only way to reduce the swim effect is by reducing the prism thinning value and with a double aspheric lens design.
Sure E is using a lot of marketing Pressure, and this pressure will make the Professionnal with no many choices.

on the other hand, i think that progressive wearer feeling depends at 20% on his psychological situation, if he is well prepared (by marketing aproche) he will accept easier the lens, what ever it is very good lens or just normal lens, but he will reconnise the real defference between one lens and another only by testing OBJECTIVELY lenses, then he will be able to juge well if the lens is Ok or not.

I tryed one time to fit a bad quality lens to a wearer, an say that the lens is XYZ Brand.... I was really surprised, because the man told me that the lens is  good and that he feels conftible with it, but it was a bad lens quality if you compare its Cylinder Map to another one........

Sorry for my english I tried my best :)
 :Nerd:

----------


## kentmitchell1961

We use visioffice to measure and still have a 60% remake with the S4D.  We actually are not activly using it at the moment.

----------


## sharpstick777

> We use visioffice to measure and still have a 60% remake with the S4D.  We actually are not activly using it at the moment.


Yikes.  That is the highest we have heard of, I have few accounts with a 30% redo rate on the S and thought that was bad.   Will Essilor refund the Visioffice?  

Just for fun, I have redo numbers on the all the lenses we sell (everything but Hoya) and the Seiko Surmount has the lowest non-adapt rate, at 1%.  Succeed, Shamir Spectrum and InTouch are less than 2%.  Interestingly, the Auto II has the second highest.  The Comfort is the 3rd worse.  The "S" series is the only Free-form that beats all the grinders for non-adapts, its the worst lens (in terms of redos) we have ever sold.

----------


## sharpstick777

Good observation Mahmoud, I think the S is using asymetrical asphericicty on dual inverted axis, personally, but I have had time to test that out.  




> The only way to reduce the swim effect is by reducing the prism thinning value and with a double aspheric lens design.
> Sure E is using a lot of marketing Pressure, and this pressure will make the Professionnal with no many choices.
> 
> on the other hand, i think that progressive wearer feeling depends at 20% on his psychological situation, if he is well prepared (by marketing aproche) he will accept easier the lens, what ever it is very good lens or just normal lens, but he will reconnise the real defference between one lens and another only by testing OBJECTIVELY lenses, then he will be able to juge well if the lens is Ok or not.
> 
> I tryed one time to fit a bad quality lens to a wearer, an say that the lens is XYZ Brand.... I was really surprised, because the man told me that the lens is  good and that he feels conftible with it, but it was a bad lens quality if you compare its Cylinder Map to another one........
> 
> Sorry for my english I tried my best :)

----------


## sharpstick777

> I am wearing the S series fit, and dislike the reading area, much smaller than my superceeds.
> My 2 cents.


Same here.  Its even smaller than my GT2-3D s.

----------


## Scooter224

What i recognized is, that the add power is lower (0.25-0.50) as we ordered. Essilor says, thats ok. No redos so far, but some customers complain about the reading area.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Just for fun, I have redo numbers on the all the lenses we sell (everything but Hoya) and the Seiko Surmount has the lowest non-adapt rate, at 1%. Succeed, Shamir Spectrum and InTouch are less than 2%. Interestingly, the Auto II has the second highest. The Comfort is the 3rd worse. The "S" series is the only Free-form that beats all the grinders for non-adapts, its the worst lens (in terms of redos) we have ever sold.


The Auto 2 and the Varilux 4S (see below), have narrow intermedate and near zones, with an aggressive rate of add power change in their corridors _(I discovered after I wrote this that the 4S that I sampled was the short corridor version- saying that the power rate of change is aggressive in the 4S applies only to the short)_ that requires the upmost in precision when fitting these lenses, a level of precision that I don't see very often in my neck of the woods. I suspect that the Surmount might be more tolerant of less than optimal positioning, resulting in less remakes from amateurish fittings. 




> Good observation Mahmoud, I think the S is using asymetrical asphericicty on dual inverted axis, personally, but I have had time to test that out.


I finally have a pair of Poly 4S'- I've been too busy to do a complete evaluation, but a quick review shows similar performance to my Autograph fixed 18mm (1.60), especially at near (roughly -5.00 +2.00 x 180 add +2.25 in both). I'll post an in depth review, probably in the eyecare professionals forum, when I have a few more PALs updated to my latest Rx. 

WRT the asphericity, I measured a base curve of +4.25 at the distance reference point, which flattened to +3.00 off-axis, measured horizontally. The back curve had a 1.5 D drop. Something is going on here for my lens clock to show any drop at all!

----------


## optical24/7

Robert, if you don't mind, could you PM me your review, I'm currently not on the Pro forum.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

Will do!

Robert

----------


## burke110

Robert I would be interested in hearing your review, please PM me it as well
Thanks

----------


## Robert Martellaro

burke110,

I'll try to post a mini review here, and a more critical review in the professionals forum. 

I've discovered that the lenses I received are the S Design _Short._ This might explain the better than expected near performance that I mentioned above. I'm in the process of having that error corrected as I write this. I also need to acquire at least two or three more designs, one of those being a control, or baseline design, probably a standard Physio. This may take 2 to 3 months or longer, depending on how long it stays _crazy_ busy.

----------


## brucejackson

I just got my pair of Varilux S Fit lenses in trivex.  Previously I wore a 2.5 year old pair of Varilux Physio Enhanced in poly.   I liked my frames and they held up well so I had new lenses put in my old frames.  I was happy with my old lenses except now I need a little more add to read fine print.  The first thing I noticed was everything looked very crisp.  Since I changed 2 variables, model and material, I don't know if I should attribute the added crispness to the new model or upgrading from poly to trivex.  Going through my day I found them very different from my previous lenses.  In the past staying in the Physio family I was immediately comfortable with my new lenses but with the Fit S lenses I found myself moving my head around a lot at first trying to find the best area of the lens.  The distance area of my new lenses seem larger and the intermediate area smaller and lower on the lens but the close focus area still seems good.  When asking about my use I explained that I sit in front of a computer monitor 8+ hours/day so if the lenses were customized I'd expect them to increase the intermediate area rather than shrink it.  I sat about 18" away from my 24" monitor with my old lenses but with my new lenses I find I have to sit at least 24" away to have big enough area in focus.   I'm not sure what to think of my new lenses.  I see fine and like the way the world looks through them.  Now that I'm used to them I no longer have to hunt for the right area of the lens but the smaller intermediate focus area seems like a step backward.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> I just got my pair of Varilux S Fit lenses in trivex.  Previously I wore a 2.5 year old pair of Varilux Physio Enhanced in poly.   I liked my frames and they held up well so I had new lenses put in my old frames.  I was happy with my old lenses except now I need a little more add to read fine print.  The first thing I noticed was everything looked very crisp.  Since I changed 2 variables, model and material, I don't know if I should attribute the added crispness to the new model or upgrading from poly to trivex.  Going through my day I found them very different from my previous lenses.  In the past staying in the Physio family I was immediately comfortable with my new lenses but with the Fit S lenses I found myself moving my head around a lot at first trying to find the best area of the lens.  The distance area of my new lenses seem larger and the intermediate area smaller and lower on the lens but the close focus area still seems good.  When asking about my use I explained that I sit in front of a computer monitor 8+ hours/day so if the lenses were customized I'd expect them to increase the intermediate area rather than shrink it.  I sat about 18" away from my 24" monitor with my old lenses but with my new lenses I find I have to sit at least 24" away to have big enough area in focus.   I'm not sure what to think of my new lenses.  I see fine and like the way the world looks through them.  Now that I'm used to them I no longer have to hunt for the right area of the lens but the smaller intermediate focus area seems like a step backward.


So would you say to someone not in the business that they are worth a $150+ upcharge?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> I just got my pair of Varilux S Fit lenses in trivex. Previously I wore a 2.5 year old pair of Varilux Physio Enhanced in poly. I liked my frames and they held up well so I had new lenses put in my old frames. I was happy with my old lenses except now I need a little more add to read fine print. The first thing I noticed was everything looked very crisp. Since I changed 2 variables, model and material, I don't know if I should attribute the added crispness to the new model or upgrading from poly to trivex. Going through my day I found them very different from my previous lenses. In the past staying in the Physio family I was immediately comfortable with my new lenses but with the Fit S lenses I found myself moving my head around a lot at first trying to find the best area of the lens. The distance area of my new lenses seem larger and the intermediate area smaller and lower on the lens but the close focus area still seems good. When asking about my use I explained that I sit in front of a computer monitor 8+ hours/day so if the lenses were customized I'd expect them to increase the intermediate area rather than shrink it. I sat about 18" away from my 24" monitor with my old lenses but with my new lenses I find I have to sit at least 24" away to have big enough area in focus. I'm not sure what to think of my new lenses. I see fine and like the way the world looks through them. Now that I'm used to them I no longer have to hunt for the right area of the lens but the smaller intermediate focus area seems like a step backward.


Thanks for contributing to Optiboard's knowledge base.

The next step is to make an identical pair using a different, but similar PAL design, and then make short and long term comparisons. Posting your Rx helps also.

----------


## brucejackson

> So would you say to someone not in the business that they are worth a $150+ upcharge?


I haven't been "in the business" for 20 years so I pay full price.  For me they weren't worth a $150 premium mainly because I feel like I lost too much intermediate area real estate.  Someone who doesn't rely on the intermediate area as much as I do might like them more.

----------


## Uilleann

I'm curious why they're so much more for some of you?  Our office currently offers the S fit for a $25 premium over the Enhanced fit.  While I think that's a bit low myself, I can't see where you would need more than a Benjamin and a half additional between the two.  Even against the regular Enhanced, the difference is only $50 to the patient.  Maybe we're just really backwards here...

----------


## sharpstick777

> I'm curious why they're so much more for some of you?  Our office currently offers the S fit for a $25 premium over the Enhanced fit.  While I think that's a bit low myself, I can't see where you would need more than a Benjamin and a half additional between the two.  Even against the regular Enhanced, the difference is only $50 to the patient.  Maybe we're just really backwards here...


On a cost basis, the S lenses are running almost double the DRx series.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> For me they weren't worth a $150 premium mainly because I feel like I lost too much intermediate area real estate.  Someone who doesn't rely on the intermediate area as much as I do might like them more.





> I was happy with my old lenses except now I need a little more add to read fine print.


But the increase in add power will reduce the real and/or perceived zone widths, making the comparison invalid!

Valid comparisons require the same Rx, fitting parameters, especially the vertex distance, and identically fitted frames. Try to get a comp or discount from your primary lab on another design. In return, share the results with them- they'll appreciate the feedback from a reasonably well controlled test.

----------


## Uilleann

> On a cost basis, the S lenses are running almost double the DRx series.


Wow, not from our labs...I guess we're either really lucky, or really smart in our pricing negotiations.  While anything in the Variluz portfolio isn't the cheapest prog. style  out there, we're not seeing _that_ much of a markup at the lab level that would justify such a big jump to our patients.  Still, I thought we  were comparing the Physio Enhanced fit vs the S fit.  The DRx would of  course be a little less...but even then, we're not _that_ far apart in our  practice.

----------


## Happylady

I got my S series 4D lenses yesterday and I have been comparing them to the Physio Advance, Physio Short, and the Image. My correction is OD -1.00 -1.00. OS -1.50 -.75 with a 2.25 or 2.50 add. 

First, these are very nice lenses, comfortable to wear, no swim. The distance area compared to the other lenses is slightly wider. But to notice it I have to look out of the upper corner of the lenses, it's almost as clear as straight ahead. The other 3 lenses are not quite as clear. This has not been an issue, though. 

Intermediate area- I'm not seeing a difference. All are fine when I look at my desktop computer. I do have the screen set properly so I look down at it. 

Reading seems the same as the other Varilux lenses and slightly wider then the Image. 

All in all, nice lenses but no wow. I wouldn't want to pay an extra $200 over what we charge for the regular Physio.

----------


## Fred Dagg

OK, just bringing back this thread with the hope that I could canvas a few expert opinions now that this lens is a little further down the track.  I recently switched a lot of our work from Hoya to Essilor, not really from dissatisfaction with Hoya lenses.  The specifics of that decision are irrelevant.  My concern is that my remake rate on progs is now much higher, and I wondered how others were going with it?  My former go-to lens of choice was the original iD Lifestyle, we're now using mainly S Fit.  

I do most of my own dispensing, and I've been in the game over 20 years.  Other than taking the extra POW measurements required to order the Fit, my routine is pretty much the same.  I don't think I'm really fouling anything up in particular, but my results with the S Series have been variable.  Plenty have been happy enough, but a surprising number are having problems, probably particularly at near but also some who just didn't like the "feel" of it.  I had one guy today with a 1.6 Trans S Fit that refused to leave the practice with them.  He is a bit of a mental, to be fair, but it was that final straw that led me to post this cry for help.

Other than giving me a slap for switching to Essilor, are there any suggestions?  Tips and tricks that people have found to make this lens work, or conversely things that make it more likely to fail?  Am I in a minority getting mediocre results with this design?  Advice and experiences appreciated, thanks.

----------


## Happylady

We use a lot of Essilor lenses and I'm not finding people any happier with the S lenses then with the Physio ones. Just dispensed a redo a couple of days ago from the S back to the Physio Enhanced.  He didn't like the intermediate area on the S lenses. 

I have a pair of the S 4D and I like them, but not more then many other lenses.

----------


## DanLiv

My dispensing experience is that the S series is designed primarily for less-compromised distance and reduced swim, which to be fair is only what Essilor claims of the design. I use it primarily on new wearers with trepidation of the whole progressive experience, and existing wearers that have never become really comfortable with their existing progressives (which for us is Varilux as well). Satisfied Physio/DRx/Enhanced/Fit wearers I keep in the Physios. Essilor of course would love us to replace all our Physios with S, but the lens is different enough the Physio still plays a huge role. Never thought I would think of a Physio as a "harder" design in relation to anything, lol!

----------


## Jstanfast

thing to remember about the pricing conversation above. I have found all of my labs have the s series at net pricing which is something to remember when pricing.

----------


## Nolpuppy

I know this is a fairly old thread. I know they scrapped the S design because it ended up being garbage, then brought it back recently. I have been selling it to people and everyone seems to like it. I have been noticing hyperops not really liking them too much. I'm thinking about adding some free-form lenses and try that out instead. Has anyone else tried this newly relaunched S Series lens? Have you been having any problems with hyperops...(of course new presbyopic hyperops usually have a little more trouble getting use to a progressive design than myops).

----------


## sharpstick777

> I know they scrapped the S design because it ended up being garbage, then brought it back recently.


The S was never scrapped or brought back... ?




> I have been selling it to people and everyone seems to like it.


   You and 3 others...





> I have been noticing hyperops not really liking them too much. I'm thinking about adding some free-form lenses and try that out instead.  Have you been having any problems with hyperops...(of course new presbyopic hyperops usually have a little more trouble getting use to a progressive design than myops).


That is a very common refrain.  I suggest the Seiko Surmount and Superior for Hyperopes (order with NEAR and distance mono-pds, must fit ON CENTER) that will give you only every possible shape and a corridor aligned for every RX whether myope or hyperope.  Those are the best lenses for Hyperopes by far right now.

The S wasn't really relaunched, Essilor is remarketing the same lens...  same 'ol same 'ol.

----------


## Nolpuppy

I got ya! I've never sold Varilux lenses in the past, but that's what I was told by one of the opticians here. Sounds like Essilor tries its best to manipulate people to buy their lenses. All of that aside, I have had a really nice response from most of my patients about it.

----------


## sharpstick777

> . All of that aside, I have had a really nice response from most of my patients about it.


That is going to depend on 2 things, both outside your control. The amount of RX change they have, and their previous Progressive...  The larger of the first, and the older the second, the better any new lens will appear.

----------


## NickJohnson2008

> That is going to depend on 2 things, both outside your control. The amount of RX change they have, and their previous Progressive...  The larger of the first, and the older the second, the better any new lens will appear.


This may not be the best place to ask this question (please suggest where if not) but I (a consumer) am confused by Essilor's  web site.  They focus a lot on "eye code" lenses and pitch measurements taken by Visioffice that allows them to calculate the center of rotation of each eye but it isn't clear if the S-4D is an "eye code" lens using those measurements.

I want lenses that include allowances for different centers of rotation if possible.  Reason: My opthalmologist (now retired) added a prism to my prescription awhile back but in a later exam discovered I did not need it.  My theory is that mistake "may have" been caused by a difference in the center of rotation of my eyes.  Of course I don't know that, but when I got the Physio lenses I now have (about 6 years ago) they were the first lenses I've ever had (I'm 68 and started wearing progressives in my 40's) where both eyes were in perfect focus.  With previous lenses to achieve perfect focus I'd have to shut one eye and move to the spot of perfect focus and then repeat with the opposite eye and it was a differenet spot for each eye for near vision like a computer monitor which I use about 8 hours a day. 

My current prescription is:
 Distance:
Right:  + 3.25 Sphere, - 1.5 Cylinder, 090 axis
Left:    +4.00  Sphere, -.50 Cylinder, 095 axis

Near:
R and L: +2.25

This prescription hasn't changed much in the past 6 years but when i saw the "eye code" technology on the Essilor website I immediately wanted it (probably because I am an engineer) and I've waited thinking it would be avaialbel but not even practices with the Visioffice system in Columbia, SC are offering any eye-code lenses or S-4D.  The closest is Greenville, SC about 100 miles away and not very convenient. Are "eye code" lenses still available?  Like a Physio 360 "eye code" lens?  Or does the S-4D include replace them and use the eye code data and employ adjustments for center of rotation, etc?

Clearly I am confused and need advice and hope one of you experts will be kind enough to guide me.  A private message is fine if this isn't something you feel should be on the optiboard.

Thanks in advance,
Nick

----------


## Golfnorth

> This may not be the best place to ask this question (please suggest where if not) but I (a consumer) am confused by Essilor's  web site.  They focus a lot on "eye code" lenses and pitch measurements taken by Visioffice that allows them to calculate the center of rotation of each eye but it isn't clear if the S-4D is an "eye code" lens using those measurements.
> 
> I want lenses that include allowances for different centers of rotation if possible.  Reason: My opthalmologist (now retired) added a prism to my prescription awhile back but in a later exam discovered I did not need it.  My theory is that mistake "may have" been caused by a difference in the center of rotation of my eyes.  Of course I don't know that, but when I got the Physio lenses I now have (about 6 years ago) they were the first lenses I've ever had (I'm 68 and started wearing progressives in my 40's) where both eyes were in perfect focus.  With previous lenses to achieve perfect focus I'd have to shut one eye and move to the spot of perfect focus and then repeat with the opposite eye and it was a differenet spot for each eye for near vision like a computer monitor which I use about 8 hours a day. 
> 
> My current prescription is:
>  Distance:
> Right:  + 3.25 Sphere, - 1.5 Cylinder, 090 axis
> Left:    +4.00  Sphere, -.50 Cylinder, 095 axis
> 
> ...


Consumers are not allowed to post here except for Just Conversation. 
Visit a eye care professional near you.

----------


## idispense

The technology exists with VisioOffice to account for centre of rotation, eye dominance, facial wrap, pantoscoptic tilt, and vertex distance

----------


## NickJohnson2008

> Consumers are not allowed to post here except for Just Conversation. 
> Visit a eye care professional near you.


Sorry, the closest practice which offers Varilux S-4D is 100 miles away even though I live in Columbia, SC - our capitol city - which is why i posted here when I saw the discussion on Varilux 4D.  Is there a different forum that I can ask these questions in? Thanks and I apologize again.

----------


## newguyaroundhere

> Sorry, the closest practice which offers Varilux S-4D is 100 miles away even though I live in Columbia, SC - our capitol city - which is why i posted here when I saw the discussion on Varilux 4D.  Is there a different forum that I can ask these questions in? Thanks and I apologize again.


Please see this thread as to why consumers are restricted from posting in any other forum than the Just Conversation forum. http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...-and-OptiBoard

----------

