# Optical Forums > Progressive Lens Discussion Forum >  Zeiss vs. Hoya vs. Essilor  vs. Shamir

## need2see

Can anyone tell me in terms of progressives, which ones are the best especially those complaining of peripheral distorsions?  I've heard Shamir autograph II and Hoya id are great lenses, any good lenses in Zeiss?

----------


## WFruit

I'm going to assume that you are talking Free Form progressives.

Zeiss = Individual

Hoya = Hoya ID

Shamir = Autograph II

Essilor = Ideal

Seiko = Succeed/Supercede

I have heard very good things about all of them.  We sell both the Seiko and Shamir designs and there seems to be a slight preference towards the Seiko's.  However, you should have no trouble finding people who will say that one or the other is the best.

Especially see post #12 in this thread for some good comparative information:  http://www.optiboard.com/forums/thre...125#post343125

----------


## Yeap

i agree that Hoya ID is a great lens. just another option for you, SolaOne HD.. Zeiss we have some feedback that the reading portion is a little narrower especially they have short corridor PAL before but far vision is great..

----------


## Uilleann

Depends entirely on: The patient, patient's lifestyle, the patients Rx, the patients expectations, the frame dimensions, frequently POW when required, lens material/features, and of course cost both to the practice and the patient.

Apart from that, they're pretty much the same.  ;):p:shiner::cheers: :Nerd: :hammer:

----------


## snotbagel

Tried em all..and nothing comes close to Indo lifesyle Expert for edge to edge far vision. I can tell because I have compared them while watching my 92 inch home theater screen. I like the wide intermediate on the Hoya, Pentax perfas and Shamir autograph let you  shorten the coridor to make reading and laptop use easier (like the little letters on the inside of the temples..). Physio 360 was up there too, even though its not truly freeform. Zeiss has had responses about a narrower intermediate..but as was said..when its freeform, every job will be different!

I truly like the Indo expert for myopes, and its about the same price as regular varilux.(its not truly freeform either, but it works REALLY WELL)

----------


## Fezz

> I truly like the Indo expert for myopes, and its about the same price as regular varilux.(*its not truly freeform either,* but it works REALLY WELL)


It is not?
Why not? 
What makes it not *truly freeform*?

----------


## snotbagel

The software does not have inputs for panto, wrap , and vertex, ..no position of wear correctios. The surface ticket reads exactly as your ordered RX. A freeform lens will have at last SOME pow corrections.

----------


## Fezz

> A freeform lens will have at last SOME pow corrections.


Really?

Is that what "freeform" really means?

----------


## NewTop

> Really?
> 
> Is that what "freeform" really means?


If you listen to your average sales rep it is :cheers:

----------


## Uilleann

Sounds like some pretty heavy Zeiss/Shamir/Hoya brainwash to me!  hehe :hammer::shiner::p

----------


## WFruit

> Really?
> 
> Is that what "freeform" really means?


By what _should_ be (but isn't yet) the standard definitions:

Free Form = ALL progresssive power generated on the back surface of the lens. (ex: Shamir Autograph II, Seiko Succeed, Essilor Ideal (this is NOT a complete list of all Free Form lenses, just examples))

Digitally Surfaced = lens run through special software designed to more accurately calculate back curves and generated with said curves, usually front surface molded progressive (ex: Varilux 360 and Enhanced series, Definity (yes, I know the Definity has some of the power on the back, but the front is still molded)). In theory I could run any progressive (Image, VIP, Natural, etc.) through such software and call it "Digitally Surfaced."

----------


## RT

How would you categorize HOYALUX ID (free form generation on both sides) or HOYALUX ID Lifestyle (vertical progression on molded front, free form back surface includes horizontal elements of progressive, including inset)?

----------


## OptiMon

Hoya has defined free-form on their website as such:"HOYA’s Free-Form design approach is based on the understanding that no two eyes are the same. Our patented Integrated Double Surface Design (IDSD) technology maps the specific rotation of each eye, creating the blueprint for lens construction. HOYA Free-Form Fabrication then uses diamond point tools to shape both sides of the lens to the exact specifications of your eye rotation." This obviously describes the Hoyalux ID which through dispensing, I have found to be the best, although the most expensive, fully free-form lens. The only other lens in this category is the Zeiss Individual, which I have Not dispensed. Every other "free-form" lens design are hybrid  molded or spherical fronts with digital back side designs.

----------


## YrahG

> Sounds like some pretty heavy Zeiss/Shamir/Hoya brainwash to me! hehe :hammer::shiner::p


** Edited **

Uilleann,

For someone who is so tired of all the company bashing you seem to be a professional at the craft. In my neck of the woods we have a name for that.

----------


## hcjilson

My wife, much, much wiser than I, told me I didn't have to go to every argument to which I was invited. I am going to take that advice today.



_Note: the rest of the original post has been deleted by me, to be continued by PM where it should have been to begin with._

----------


## drk

Sheriff Jilson rides again.

----------


## WFruit

> How would you categorize HOYALUX ID (free form generation on both sides) or HOYALUX ID Lifestyle (vertical progression on molded front, free form back surface includes horizontal elements of progressive, including inset)?


You ever have something that you just don't know what to do with, so you basically just ignore it? Yeah, that's what this is.....

However, after some thought, I think I have an actual answer:

First, the debate: By the definitions I posted above, these lenses really fit into neither catagory. They are not really molded lenses, but they also do not have a spherical front surface..... so what are they? :Confused: 

I'm going to go with the opinion (my alone, not endorsed by anyone, though feel free to join in) that because each lens is custom made for each individual patient, and not massed produced, they are Free Form. I'm sure everyone at Hoya is thrilled to hear this:hammer:. 

Or perhaps to go with Hoya's Phoenix brand, they should be Phree Phorm.:cheers:

----------


## hcjilson

> Sheriff Jilson rides again.


I semi retire at the close of business tomorrow. No more tilting at windmills Sancho- it's high time to let the inmates run the asylum for a while. I plan to continue to moderate but am taking  hands off when it comes to anything less than a violation of posting guidelines, and even then I probably will leave it for others to clean up.The other moderators and I have spent the better part of a lot of spare time trying to shape what appears as Optiboard today.Steve takes care of the techie stuff which is fine for a former hippie!:bbg::bbg: and the rest of us try to set the tone and keep a level playing field for you folks to play on. You will notice I never wore a badge as you can plainly see under my name, so I have nothing to hang up anyway!

Some day perhaps, when the time is right, I will give you all the story behind the story of my defense of some of the companies that grew up with me. Some of them were built by friends of mine, now long gone.Those companies are sort of old friends and i have been offended by some of the half truths and outright lies that have appeared on these pages by those who attack without regard to the facts or the truth. This violated my sense of fair play and I wasn't afraid to let anyone know that. I call them the way I see them and that's just the way I am. I have no apology for that, but that will cease tomorrow....as a matter of fact, tonight because I've got to move my stuff tomorrow.

I also would like everyone to know that I don't hold grudges either except in two instances and they've both been banned long ago. I have the utmost respect for all who continue to post here....even though I may not agree with you. I have long suspected that even DrK has turned the corner...because lately he's been sounding like ME! YIKES!

----------


## AWTECH

> By what _should_ be (but isn't yet) the standard definitions:
> 
> Free Form = ALL progresssive power generated on the back surface of the lens. (ex: Shamir Autograph II, Seiko Succeed, Essilor Ideal (this is NOT a complete list of all Free Form lenses, just examples))
> 
> Digitally Surfaced = lens run through special software designed to more accurately calculate back curves and generated with said curves, usually front surface molded progressive (ex: Varilux 360 and Enhanced series, Definity (yes, I know the Definity has some of the power on the back, but the front is still molded)). In theory I could run any progressive (Image, VIP, Natural, etc.) through such software and call it "Digitally Surfaced."


You identified the problem many participants have with freeform and digital surfaced lenses.  There are no clear definitions or accepted industry buzz words yet.  Some are close but then the marketing minds at one company get the definitions to be something different.

"The lens the patient can see best with, is the best lens for that patient"

----------


## saltcitywizkid

Accolade Freedom(Essilor) is a fantastic digitally surfaced lens.
Patient's report almost no/minimul distortions.
Good results, good feedback.

----------


## scriptfiller

So far so good with a limited introduction of the Kodak Unique into the practice.  Ice Tech does some truly amazing things in the realm of SV and PAL's in wrap frame designs.

----------


## Sphinxsmith

We currently use the standard Physio as our bread and butter PAL. The occasional enhanced but thats far and few between. One of our docs is the office guinea pig and has tried the Individual, Physio 360, Hoya ID, and VSPs Reveal. As a mild myop with almost no astigmatism he doesn't see a dramatic difference between them. Noticeable, yes, but $100-$200 worth? Not really. 
Increase the Rx, cyl, etc. I'm sure the differences are greater but for the majority ... *hands in air*

Sphinx

----------


## SailorEd

Sphinxsmith:  
The Physio used to be the bread and butter lens for us too.  However, I think you should try the Seiko Supercede.  We get it from our lab at LESS than the Physio AND it's an Internal Free Form lens - totally surfaced on the back.  It delivers the WOW to patients with Rx's above 2.00 Sphere and/or above 1.00 cyl.  It's a good way to improve your patient base and put quality lenses on a person for about the same price as the physio.  Also try the free form SV lenses with the same criteria as above for those patients (we use Shamir Autograph II SV).  It also gives the WOW factor.

----------


## IC-UC

So we have no "real" definition of what a "FreeForm" lens is or should be. My question is this though, why would the lens companies continue to design new conventional progressive lenses when FF or DS are supposed to be the future (or are they?)
Would it not be simple to just select freeform lenses as the norm, because they can vary the corridors and eliminate a lot of distortion? And then fit these into whatever frame suits the patient (within limits)?
Just asking for opinions on this way of thinking about lenses and options.

----------


## Fezz

> Sphinxsmith: 
> The Physio used to be the bread and butter lens for us too. However, I think you should try the Seiko Supercede. We get it from our lab at LESS than the Physio AND it's an Internal Free Form lens - totally surfaced on the back. It delivers the WOW to patients with Rx's above 2.00 Sphere and/or above 1.00 cyl. It's a good way to improve your patient base and put quality lenses on a person for about the same price as the physio. Also try the free form SV lenses with the same criteria as above for those patients (we use Shamir Autograph II SV). It also gives the WOW factor.


 
I am glad that you finally saw the light!

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## SailorEd

> why would the lens companies continue to design new conventional progressive lenses when FF or DS are supposed to be the future (or are they?)


Cost.  There is still a market for lower priced progressives.

----------


## xiaowei

> My question is this though, why would the lens companies continue to design new conventional progressive lenses when FF or DS are supposed to be the future (or are they?)
> Would it not be simple to just select freeform lenses as the norm, because they can vary the corridors and eliminate a lot of distortion? And then fit these into whatever frame suits the patient (within limits)?


IMHO simply because the manufacturing technology for conventional PALs has been optimized so much over the years that the net profit per company expense if huge. Also I would assume that there are really not any NEW conventional PALs, but you choose a new shiny name for an old product with - at max - new different curve selection strategy - and you can claim that´s it´s a totally new product.
Add some silly argument that "for the 1st time" it takes the details of the eye rotation ito account and you have it.

ALSO, because the companies themselves know that the true advantages of "individual" lenses / free form over a good traditional design in many cases is only slightly more than marginal. (Will likely also apply to "true back surface design", but this would belong to a different thread.....)

----------


## IC-UC

So then it all boils down to marketing? 
If it was based on cost, just imagine if they did away with their warehouses full of ready made conventional PAL moulds and provided only those for FreeForm? 
You think they would pass they saving on to the customers??:finger:

----------


## Uilleann

> So then it all boils down to marketing?


Pretty much.




Look, as much as the vitrol tends to spew forth on these boards against the "Big E", _*every*_ company will spin their product to be in some way, shape or form better than everything else out there.  It's marketing 101, and it's done with great effect by just about every one the world's lens manufacturers large and small.  What may on the surface appear to be a "better" or "cheaper" or "more accurate" way to you and I, may in fact be very different to a given company.  We all have to remember that despite what we know about or profession, and what we would like to think we know about a given company, their level of R&D, technical skill and knowledge, product performance, and even marketing may vary widely - even within a single company over time.

If you ask me - ALL lenses from EVERY manufacturer are over hyped and over priced to a degree.  But, this is the market we all choose to work within.  My suggestion is that we all try to find the way we can best fit the model...because folks, it ain't changin anytime soon.

----------


## HarryChiling

My personal opinion and take it for what it's worth.  The technology to create a free form lens is still in it's infancy compared to the traditionally molded technology.  Their are limitations to the powers, cyls, prism, etc that can be surfaced.  I believe that once these parameters are expanded to cover the large majority of the population you will see free form lenses replace most of the molded designs.  Some manufacturers are continuing to invest money into molded designs still to date and the equipment still exists in the marketplace to justify the traditionally molded route, but time will tell.  Their used to be a time when you ordered a plus cyl and the cyl was ground on the front, this was the norm, nowadays they transpose and grind it on the back, this was due to a reduced number of tools that had to be stocked and the ease of picking those tools.  Free form offers the same advantages to the lens inventory, except the entire inventory can not be replaced yet.

----------


## Barry Santini

> If you ask me - ALL lenses from EVERY manufacturer are over hyped and over priced to a degree. But, this is the market we all choose to work within. My suggestion is that we all try to find the way we can best fit the model...because folks, it ain't changin anytime soon.


If you subbed "glasses" for "lenses", I belive you'd come close to what the public at large thinks about the product we deliver.

It's not really about cost, IMHO. It's about**:

1 Technology (or lack thereof) - especially with frame construction and attention to fit, as well as durability (think those gosh-darn spring hinges)

2. Being "carefully taught" over generations that glasses are bad, and to be avoided

3. The always decreasing lack of skill with respect to ophthalmic dispensers - and I'm not talking technical knowledge here... I'm talking real _craftsmanship,_ the type you can only learn over time, if you're truly motivated to do so. (many OBs here possess this trait - I can tell).

4. Our current culture's fascination with hype and marketing. Those who know...see through it all.

Hate to sound like a curmudgeon, but the good ship ECP is not going to turn in the right direction anytime soon without a return to the good old basics of ophthalmic dispensing as a _craft_ - I'll go so far as to say "technical craft" Sure, Soft skills are important, but we're leavin' so many hard skills behind in the market consolidation that I'm afraid that no one will soon remember enough to teach others. This, then, is my main issue with the schools and their current curriculums. Lot's of technical...little craft.

OMO

B

----------


## WFruit

> So then it all boils down to marketing? 
> If it was based on cost, just imagine if they did away with their warehouses full of ready made conventional PAL moulds and provided only those for FreeForm? 
> You think they would pass they saving on to the customers??:finger:


What savings?

The money to be made with Free Form is NOT in the blanks, it's in the software licencing and click-fees. So while there is a savings on the basic blank, there is greater cost in producing the lens.

The blank cost for the Shamir Free Form is very low, since it's just a single vision blank.  The real cost comes in for the "click fee."  Everytime we make a Shamir design, we pay a fee to Shamir for the design.  This actually makes our cost for the lens _higher_ than most molded progressives.  

Seiko's royalty cost is much lower, _but_ you have to use Seiko blanks for their lenses.  Overall they still cost less, but have a narrower Rx range, and still end up more than most molded progressives.

This is why Shamir keeps introducing lower cost FreeForm designs.  While they make excellent lenses,  Seiko, Zeiss, and Hoya are making ones just as good at a lower cost.

----------


## YrahG

I like Shamir products, but I think their top end PAL is well overhyped and here is my reason why:


The benefits that make the Autograph premium:FreeFrame Technology - Adapt the corridor to the frame.As-Worn Technology - Compensations for vertex, panto, and faceform tilts.FreeForm - Fully back surface design.These three components make the Auto what it is. Well the lower cost FreeForm lenses don't have this technology built in so they are inferior in that respect, but they don't preclude the addition of these technologies. Here's what I mean:


I like the:
ElementElement ShortSucceedSuccees WSThese lenses have a cost comparable to traditionally surfaced products and they are produced as fully back surface PALs so they include the last technology FreeForm. Now if memory serves me correctly there have been numerous threads on this forum that discuss the formulas for compensating the powers for an As-Worn position. Actually befor eth Autograph was available 


Darryl Meister had:http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...ional-friendly) - A stand alone compensation program.http://www.opticampus.com/tools/tilt.php - A web based compensation program.HarryChiling had:http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...rap-Calculator - A stand alone compensation program.Kbco had:http://www.kbco.net/wrapsolutions/accucalc.html - A stand alone compensation program (documentation seems to have references to Darryls programs so it may be a derivative of Darryl's work or may have been a colaboration.)So there are threee different companies provideing 3 different solutions for as worn technology which can be implemented by the optician on there end and as an added bonus the alogorythms in all cases have either been discussed here on this forum or are available in the documentation.


As for th elast technology FreeFrame this is another way of saying our software put's our different PALs and your frame on a virtual layout chart. A member of this board Tony has a site with the majority of PAL brands cut out charts available:
www.thelensguru.comFor me FreeFrame technology is as simple as making the choice between the Element and Element Short or the Succeed or the Succeed WS.  To illustrate even further the new Physio and Comfort platform tout variabel seg heights this is doen by the lab making a choice between the standard or short corridor version.  I am competent enough to make that decision myself so I don't need a technology to make that choice for me.

So every one of the patented technologies that go into the top of the line PAL can be done in house before ordering and can allow any truly free form lens to be upgraded from base line to top of the line. I have been doing this for years and saving almost 50% of the cost of an Auto by utilizing the Element or Element Short while lately I have been into the Seiko designs with great success.

----------


## shanbaum

> My personal opinion and take it for what it's worth. The technology to create a free form lens is still in it's infancy compared to the traditionally molded technology. Their are limitations to the powers, cyls, prism, etc that can be surfaced. I believe that once these parameters are expanded to cover the large majority of the population you will see free form lenses replace most of the molded designs. Some manufacturers are continuing to invest money into molded designs still to date and the equipment still exists in the marketplace to justify the traditionally molded route, but time will tell. Their used to be a time when you ordered a plus cyl and the cyl was ground on the front, this was the norm, nowadays they transpose and grind it on the back, this was due to a reduced number of tools that had to be stocked and the ease of picking those tools. Free form offers the same advantages to the lens inventory, except the entire inventory can not be replaced yet.


I have to take issue withn the assertion that the incentive behind the shift from plus- to minus-cylinder manufacturing was a "reduced number of tools".  On the contrary, using plus-cylinder blanks required far fewer tools - just spheres, as opposed to spheres x cylinders.  Also, sphere surfacers (which are hardly seen in labs anymore) are far simpler machines, and the process of fining and polishing on such machines, simpler and faster.  Strangely, the freeform polishers bear a strong resemblance to the old sphere polishers.

There was always an incentive to use minus cyl single vision, because wearers would eventually graduate to multifocals, with additions of one kind or another on the fronts of semi-finished blanks, and there was a belief that shifting from plus- to minus-cylinder lenses caused some discomfort.  But plus-cylinder single vision glass finished lenses were far cheaper to produce, as the curves involved lent themselved to producing large numbers of lenses simultaneously.

I think that the real reason for the shift was the shift from glass to plastic lenses.  I don't think that anyone ever came up with a manufacturing process for producing minus cylinders analogous to the one used for plus cylinders (the problem, I think, being the curves involved; they were too steep or too flat for the multi-blank process) - and for cast lenses, producing convex cylinders required a concave mold.  Also, in a casting operation, the number molds required is a fraction of the number of lenses produced, making mass production (of the kind applied to finished glass lenses) of molds less attractive.

Today, I don't know if any of the large producers still use glass molds.  But they did, back in the 1970's, when the shifts from glass to plastic, and from plus to minus cylinder processing, took place, simultaneously.

----------


## Mizikal

At Wal-Mart we sell these as a Nikon Customized. It seems like every time I sell one the patient is in a few weeks later for a refund or I remake it into a less expensive Zeiss.I would rather sell the Zeiss or the Varilux .

----------


## listenclose23

Hoya just introduced a new lens , the summit IQ...it offers a freeform design and they compensate the PD based on seg ht and RX to provide optimal intermediate and reading placement. My Doc has tried the Zeiss individual and Autograph II in the past year and says the optics in the Summit IQ is the best he has ever had...the price is great too but have not had time to compare it to the lifestyle

----------


## Wang Jeff

There have plenty of freeform design for PAL to choose and it is really hard to say which one is the best for individual patient. Too much things to be consider in a prescription makes our choice more complicate.

We are setting up a new Rx lab to produce freeform lenses and the first problem for us is which design we should choose in the beginning. Most design are charged as click-fee and the price of each click will be big difference. Our target is supply low price freeform lens with good quality and fast leadtime to customers.

Did anybody tried I.O.T. design and share some outputs about the design?

----------


## conantoptics

The click-fee is for technology/patent; but it doesnt mean other products dont have that technology.
Free Form is popular, not just because hype/advertising, but also because poeple values their eyes/vision.

A well dispensed PAL is better that a poor dispensed Free Form.

----------


## eyemanflying

> Hoya just introduced a new lens , the summit IQ...it offers a freeform design and they compensate the PD based on seg ht and RX to provide optimal intermediate and reading placement. My Doc has tried the Zeiss individual and Autograph II in the past year and says the optics in the Summit IQ is the best he has ever had...the price is great too but have not had time to compare it to the lifestyle


In my opinion, overall both the Summit iQ and Lifestyle are excellent choices...I've had great success with both.  However, although both are considered FF technology, the Summit is a harder design, where Lifestyle is softer.  One word of advice...if it's a first time presbyope, always put them first into a soft design.  If they are a previous wearer, always know what they are currently wearing.  Hard design wearers will not achieve the WOW factor with a soft design.

----------

