 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2006Disappointing New Progressives
Earlier this week I picked up a new set of progressives following an eye checkup that showed a small change in my Rx. I didn't need new glasses, but I'm a bit of an eyeglass junkie and so I decided to treat myself to another pair with trendy frames. I went to my favorite optician and we discussed lens options. He said that he had been having good success recently with a lens from Nikon Canada called the Nikon i so I went for those. Webpage: http://www.nikonlenswear.ca/en/lentilles/progressive.php# Unlike my past couple of pairs (one Varilux Comfort and one AO Easy) when I first tried my new glasses on in the store they immediately didn't feel right. The suggestion was made that I wear my previous glasses the rest of the day and try the new ones first thing next morning upon awakening, which I agree is sound advice. I did that and still not much joy. Intermediate and reading is fine but distance vision is yucky. Lots of off-center non-correction and even watching TV is difficult unless you are perpendicular to the screen. Walking around, just doing everyday things, there is definitely swim that isn't there with the other lenses in my other glasses. Unfortunately these frames (Face A Face "Archi" : http://www.faceaface-paris.com/home.php?lang=4&called=cat&srub=dcv&concept=ARCHI &gl_id=26 ) are plastic and therefore have less adjustability than many others. I suspect the lens centers are set slightly too high but I can't see how they can be tweaked without a remake. Maybe I'm wrong. I believe the Nikon line is Canadian only but perhaps not -- or maybe the same lenses are sold in the US under a different brand. Anyone have experience with Nikon progressives to share? > Earlier this week I picked up a new set of progressives following an > eye checkup that showed a small change in my Rx. I didn't need new [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the same lenses are sold in the US under a different brand. Anyone have > experience with Nikon progressives to share? Is this the first time you've tried a frame with "narrow" (top to bottom) lenses? I wear progressives and I've always chosen frames with fairly large, round lenses so there's more room for the "distance to reading" transition. I wonder if the near and far corrections have to be positioned differently to fit them into such a narrow lens? In any case I'd take them back. > Is this the first time you've tried a frame with "narrow" (top to bottom) > lenses? No, in fact these are slightly taller than the set I have on today with the AO Easy lenses fitted. Actually, we agreed that the lenses would be ground 4mm taller than the display lens exactly for this reason and to give me a bit more reading correction at the bottom. > No, in fact these are slightly taller than the set I have on today with > the AO Easy lenses fitted. Actually, we agreed that the lenses would be > ground 4mm taller than the display lens exactly for this reason and to > give me a bit more reading correction at the bottom. They actually don't have to grind the lens different, they just cut the lens differently after it is ground so that when placed in the frame the fitting height is placed 4mm higher. The round lens with a diameter of about 75mm - 80mm (size varies somewhat by the base curve and model) is ground to your Rx before it is cut to fit your frame. Sounds like fitting the lens height 4mm higher was maybe not a good idea. I think the fitting height should probably be same as you old lens (with respect to your pupils), and if you want more reading area you need a taller frame (more area below the fitting height).. > > No, in fact these are slightly taller than the set I have on today with > > the AO Easy lenses fitted. Actually, we agreed that the lenses would be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > respect to your pupils), and if you want more reading area you need a taller > frame (more area below the fitting height).. I think you misunderstood my meaning. these are semi-rimless, with the bottom of the lens held in place by a nylon string. What they did was make the bottom of the lens extend an additional 4mm below where it would have been on the display lens. They didn't change the fitting height, just extended the lens at the bottom a bit. > I think you misunderstood my meaning. these are semi-rimless, with the > bottom of the lens held in place by a nylon string. What they did was > make the bottom of the lens extend an additional 4mm below where it > would have been on the display lens. They didn't change the fitting > height, just extended the lens at the bottom a bit. OK, I did misunderstand. > Earlier this week I picked up a new set of progressives following an > eye checkup that showed a small change in my Rx. I didn't need new [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the same lenses are sold in the US under a different brand. Anyone have > experience with Nikon progressives to share? I notice that you new frames are fairly short, which is a little bit of challenge for any progressive lens. How tall are your old frames? Many lens makers have special model progressive lens designs that are specifically suited for short frames. You didn't say which model of Nikon lens you have, but it looks to me like the Nikon i and maybe Nikon VV are suitable for a short frame. However, even with a lens that is designed for a short frame, you overall vision will probably not be as good as with a larger frame (but you will look "fashionable"). The other thing to investigate is whether the lenses where fitted in the frame with the correct fitting height. Even a small error could cause the problems you are noticing. It is quite common for remakes to be required because of an improper fitting of the lens in the frame (which is the reason why progressives are so expensive). One problem that I noticed (being a 6'1") is that if I have my frame measured for fitting by someone shorter than me, then even when we are both sitting down, they are not looking straight into eyes. When they are standing and I am sitting they are looking down, and when we are both standing they are looking up. I know this sounds silly, but the business of optical shops is replete with incompetence. > I notice that you new frames are fairly short, which is a little bit of > challenge for any progressive lens. How tall are your old frames? See my other post. These are actually a bit taller than the old lenses. Being a semi-rimless, we agreed to make them 4mm taller than the sample lens. > Many lens makers have special model progressive lens designs that are > specifically suited for short frames. You didn't say which model of Nikon > lens you have, but it looks to me like the Nikon i and maybe Nikon VV are > suitable for a short frame. Mark, you missed it. I mentioned they are Nikon i. > One problem that I noticed (being a 6'1") is that if I have my frame > measured for fitting by someone shorter than me, then even when we are both > sitting down, they are not looking straight into eyes. When they are > standing and I am sitting they are looking down, and when we are both > standing they are looking up. I know this sounds silly, but the business of > optical shops is replete with incompetence. Actually, they took considerable care with this, but I agree that it feels like they got it off. I'm not worried about fit issues eventually being resolved because I know this shop well and they take excellent care of their customers. My real question is, I guess, about the quality of the Nikon i lens itself. It appears to be fairly high up their fod chain but I am wondering how good they are generally. > Actually, they took considerable care with this, but I agree that it > feels like they got it off. I'm not worried about fit issues eventually > being resolved because I know this shop well and they take excellent > care of their customers. My real question is, I guess, about the > quality of the Nikon i lens itself. It appears to be fairly high up > their fod chain but I am wondering how good they are generally. From reading their website, it appears to be a fairly high tech and modern lens design. It might even be a Varilux lens since Nikon is now in partnership with Essilor (or maybe the newest Varilux lenses are really from Nikon). >I went to my favorite optician and we discussed lens options. He said >that he had been having good success recently with a lens from Nikon [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >vision is yucky. Lots of off-center non-correction and even watching TV >is difficult unless you are perpendicular to the screen. The Nikon i is probably a short corridor design- typically these designs have a narrow (vertically and horizontally) distance zone. There are reasons to use these designs, related to the Rx and viewing habits, as well a frame size. >I went to my favorite optician and we discussed lens options. He said >that he had been having good success recently with a lens from Nikon >Canada called the Nikon i Well, they should have said that this lens has performed well for folks with your Rx and visual needs. Ask the optician why they chose this lens for you as an individual. If they can justify the lens choice then try to adapt (it's the brain not the eyes). That said, if they're fit improperly it won't really matter what brand or design is used, although some are more forgiving of inaccurate lens positioning than others. While you're there, have them check the fit and Rx. Hope this helps, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa, Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman >The Nikon i is probably a short corridor design- typically these designs have a >narrow (vertically and horizontally) distance zone. There are reasons to use >these designs, related to the Rx and viewing habits, as well a frame size. What's a "short corridor"? (*narrow* (vertical) corridor, I think I understand) Looks like from what's being said here that there's a wide (no pun) choice lens topologies (or whatever the correct term might be) -- corridors, hour-glasse shapes, etc, all vs size and shapes of the frames they're to fit into. A wee tutorial would sure be educational! Thanks! David In a nutshell, your problem is with the lens design. The frame depth is irrelevant, the plastic frame is irrelevant, the short dispenser is irrelevant. You need to change to a new design. There are TWO Nikon i designs. The i13 and i15. They have 13 and 15mm corridors respectively. I can only assume you have been given the i13 which is designed for shallow frames, but you may want to check this with your dispenser. Making the frame deeper will not give you any more reading vision as the entire reading zone is fitted into the frame as designed. The Nikon design is one that I have always had issues with. I find that it rarely gives great vision and frequently have had to replace it with different designs. It may be the aberration profile is more designed for asian eyes, but I rarely get the WOW that I get from other lenses. The short dispenser will fit the lenses low, so that will not affect the distance vision and give you the woozy sensation you refer to. It all comes down to lens design. You have been happy with comforts and AO Easy, go for similar designs. I would suggest asking for a remake to Physio 360's. This is the best lens I have ever come across, and is made by Essilor, who own Nikon, thus the lenses will be replaced under warranty. They give stunning distance clarity, no blur to the side, wider reading and intermediate zones and can be fitted at a height of 17mm, which will fit into your frame. Go and talk it over with your optometrist. Cheers,\ dr grant |
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
|
©2009 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.