 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2007Varilux Physio vs Varilux Physio360
Could someone please explain the difference between the Physio and Physio360. I've been to Varilux.Com, but they are far from clear on the target market of either product. I know the following question has been asked and answered in many posts, but I am getting ready to make a purchase and just want to be sure (the retailers tell me the opposite of what I read here)... For a light prescription using a Varilux lens and a regular metal frame, I am better off getting a standard plastic lens as opposed to a polycarb lens... is that generally correct? Thanks Tom > Could someone please explain the difference between the Physio and > Physio360. I've been to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks > Tom For your Rx (previously posted) with a regular metal frame, 1.50 plastic (CR-39) is fine. If you want a thinner and lighter lens from Varilux, I would go with the 1.60 plastic, which is optically much better than the 1.59 polycarb. Looking at the Varilux web site, it appears that Physio 360 is a finished lens with Crizal Alize AR coating included, whereas regular Physio is available in traditional unfinished lens which is custom finished at a local lab. But I cannot guarantee that this is the only difference. All Physio lenses are made with patented technology by essilor. The difference between the 2 designs is the Physio is a rear surface control only, while the Physio 360 has aberration control on both sides. While there is not a huge difference between the lenses, we have found a wider reading zone in the 360 and crisper distance optics. With the exception of higher scripts and higher base curves (where the 360 can't be ground) we now are using the 360 exclusively. The few dollars difference in cost is irrelevant once function and ease of adaptatin are factored in. There is no "target" market for these lenses per se. Essilor does not and never has made lenses for a specific purpose as some companies, such as Sola do. I find most of my patients do a bit of everything, so a lens for computers is often useless for reading etc. Essilor has always aimed at lenses for general use that work in most situations. The Physio 360 is the best lens I have come across and I can highly recommend it. For low scripts, stick to CR39. Airwear for higher scripts and industrial needs. dr grant > All Physio lenses are made with patented technology by > essilor. The difference between the 2 designs is the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > can highly recommend it. For low scripts, stick to CR39. > Airwear for higher scripts and industrial needs. I should have mine any day now. (low script with a 2.5 add). Drilled frames so the doc recommended poly. I elected to go for 1.6 (Somehow I thought it was 1.67 instead of 1.60?) and transitions. First pair from the lab they had drilled one side for the frames crooked and it was poly instead of 1.6. Doc sent it back but not before I tried them out for a couple of days. I don't have anything to compare against except my translating trifocal rgps but the crispness and clarity was stunning. The 360s also come with ClearGuard (antistatic). I'm don't know if that is available as an option on the Physio. -Quick > I should have mine any day now. (low script with a 2.5 add). > Drilled frames so the doc recommended poly. I elected to go [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Quick 1.60 and 1.67 are two different lens materials (among others) available from Varilux. Physio do not come in 1.6 material. dr grant > Physio do not come in 1.6 material. > > dr grant I am not saying that you are wrong, but that is different than what the availabity chart says: http://www.varilux.com/Vision+Care+Professionals/Lens+Availability/ You are correct. We don't get it as an option here. dr grant >Could someone please explain the difference between the Physio and >Physio360. I've been to > Varilux.Com, but they are far from clear on the target market of >either product. The 360 uses free-form technology, surfacing the add power on the back of the lens instead molded on the front surface. You won't see too much difference in the designs unless you need a high add (above +2.00) or are very astigmatic (above +2.50). Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa, Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman >>Could someone please explain the difference between the Physio and >>Physio360. I've been to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The 360 uses free-form technology, surfacing the add power on the back of the >lens instead molded on the front surface. Correction- the progressive is molded on the front surface and uses free-form technology to create the back surface. Robert Robert, the 360 is freeform on both surfaces, the Physio on the back only. The MF is purely front surface on both, but the aberration profile is better controlled over both surfaces on the 360. grant >Robert, the 360 is freeform on both surfaces, the Physio on the back >only. The MF is purely front surface on both, but the aberration >profile is better controlled over both surfaces on the 360. > >grant Grant, Sorry, I lost track of this thread, probably the holidays. In the U.S., and this may not be true in Europe, Asia, and Australia, the Physio is a traditional PAL with the progressivity molded on the front, using standard generators to grind the Rx on the back. The Physio 360 has the same front design but is direct surfaced on the back with free-form generators. The Ipseo started out as a double sided direct surfaced lens but is now done on one surface only, but I don't know which surface has the progressive. Regards, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman The Ipseo was never moulded. It was laser generated front and back from day 1. That was the reason to test head/eye movement so as to vary the reading band accordingly. You americans are very funny then if you get a generated physio as they are diamond cut on the rear surface everywhere else to account for the aberrations of a given prescription. You can't get that from a generator, thus nullifying any benefit of the lens. grant > The Ipseo was never moulded. It was laser generated front and back > from day 1. That was the reason to test head/eye movement so as to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > grant No, Essilor is very funny. >The Ipseo was never moulded. It was laser generated front and back >from day 1. That was the reason to test head/eye movement so as to >vary the reading band accordingly. Grant, I have a list of all direct-to-surface lens designs available in the US. The only lenses that don't use metal/glass molds for the front surface is the Hoya lens, although Zeiss does switch the free-form surface from back to front in higher powers (using traditional generators for the back). To be sure, it's debatable whether Hoya's approach offers any optical advantages, it probably avoids paying royalties to Seiko since they have the patent on free-form back surface PAL designs. Most use free-form technology (computer numerical controlled (CNC) generator fed with thousands of data points which define the surface) to generate a back surface that contains the PAL and power. Definity does put .75 of the add on a front molded surface though, and the Physio 360 uses a front PAL (molded) using free-form for the back surface, again probably to avoid a fee to Seiko. So, one might ask why put the PAL on the back if you have to pay Seiko a royalty? Probably because they don't have to stock and manufacture at least ten add powers in addition to seven or eight base curves for each add power. >You americans are very funny then if you get a generated physio as >they are diamond cut on the rear surface everywhere else to account >for the aberrations of a given prescription. You can't get that from a >generator, thus nullifying any benefit of the lens. It's probably all in the marketing. For instance, the Liberty is marketed in Europe as a budget general purpose PAL, in the US it's recommended as an ideal design for switching segmented wearers to PALs. Regards, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.