I just got my first progressive lenses about 1.5 weeks ago and hope someone
can tell me if this is as good as things get for a somewhat reasonable
price. After giving them 1.5 weeks so I could adapt, I have to ask if there
is anything better than the Varilux Panamic lenses? I adapted to the up and
down variance very quickly and easily. Distance is OK, mid is OK but
extremely narrow, close/reading is terrible. The close/reading is what
bothers me the most. There is just no sharpness in the lateral (side to
side) view. It just just such a small spot. I am constantly orbiting my
head around trying to find an in-focus area.
I cannot see the width of a page to read it. I must move my head back and
forth. There is a very small sharp area for close/reading at the lower
inside corner for each lens. Then when moving toward the outside edge of
the lens it gets blurry before coming upon another somewhat in focus spot
and then goes blurry all the way to the outside edge. I thought the Panamic
lens would offer me a wider field of vision?
The frames are basic drilled type Ray-Ban RB 8502 1003 52-17 140. The
lenses are Varilux Panamic.
The prescription is:
Sp Cyl Axis Add
OD -2.50 +.50 015 +1.50
OS -3.50 +.50 075 +1.50
The lens for the left eye has an e > P etched into it. On the net, I
found a chart that says this could be a number of lens types but I think it
is "Varilux Panamic Orma 1.5". Oddly, the lens for the right eye has an <
e > etched into it. I think this means "Varilux Panamic Airwear 1.59."
Is it OK that they are not the same?
Is there a lens out there that will give me wider field of view, especially
for reading and hopefully for midrange too? Would Ziess Gradal be better
(which Gradal)? What about going with the Physio? The increased contrast
with the Physio intrigues me. I am wondering if that would help with making
mid and distance better than just OK.
Is anti reflective coating really going to help in any way besides fashion?
Sorry for the questions but the people at Lenscrafters and every other eye
shop I have been too are big on selling frames but seem pretty uninformed
when it comes to lenses. I just don't feel that I am getting the full
story.
Thanks in advance.
- - 07 Dec 2007 07:42 GMT
I meant to add that I have gone back to Lenscrafters and told them about my
issues. They went back and checked the lenses and said they were correct
strength. I can see the 1.5 etched for the add, so at least I know that is
correct. I am just not sure I am getting competent service from this shop.
Thanks again.
Mark A - 07 Dec 2007 10:11 GMT
>I just got my first progressive lenses about 1.5 weeks ago and hope someone
>can tell me if this is as good as things get for a somewhat reasonable
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Thanks in advance.
Varilux Panamic is not the best available, but it is not bad. However, all
progressives have an hour-glass shape of viewable area, and the reading area
for any progressive lens is not very wide (usually about 1/4 the width of
the bottom of the lens at best). You will have to learn to move your head.
As you know, Varilux (who makes Panamic) has some more sophisticated lens
models, such as the Physio or Physio 360. Zeiss makes several sophisticated
models also such as Gradal Top and Individual (very expensive). The Hoya ID
is thought to be one of the very best lens designs (also very expensive).
A progressive lens design typically comes in a choice of lens materials, and
one of those usually is polycarb. The Essilor/Varilux name for polycarb is
Airwear. Polycarb (1.586 index) is a good choice for drilled frames because
it has very high tensile strength and impact resistance, but polycarb has
the worst optics (abbe value of 30) as any material that is commonly
dispensed. LC pushes almost every customer into polycarb. Abbe value is a
measure of chromatic aberration, the higher the number the better. Chromatic
aberration can definitely negative impact in the reading area for a
progressive lens that has a moderate to high Rx strength.
There are other lens material options such as Trivex (Hoya Phoenix) which
has same tensile strength as polycarb, but with excellent optics (abbe value
of 42). Trivex has an index of 1.53 (a little thicker at the edges on your
lenses) and is not available for Varilux lenses. Also, 1.60 (usually about
abbe 42) or 1.67 (usually about abbe 36) would be better than polycarb with
an abbe value of 30 (the higher the index the thinner the lens but the worst
the optics, except for polycarb which is worst optics of almost any lens).
This is an excellent time to invoke your unconditional 30-day money back
guarantee at LC and go somewhere else. Last I heard is that Wal-Mart Optical
was selling a Nikon 1.67 lens for a reasonable price, which is really the
Essilor Accolade Freedom, which is the Essilor version of the Varilux Physio
360 (Essilor owns Varilux and has the rights to Nikon brand name in the US).
These come factory coated with Crizal Alize for about $385 for the lenses.
You will likely never get the full story at LC, because most of their
employees were selling jeans at the same mall a few months before. Their
sales pitches are scripted and dumbed down for salespersons who know little
to nothing about optical products.
- - 07 Dec 2007 15:52 GMT
Mark -
Thanks so much for the informative response! I will go to WalMart and see
if they can supply those lenses. I was not sure from you post, but are the
"Nikon 1.67 lens for a reasonable price" lenses OK for drill mount frames?
Thanks again!
>>I just got my first progressive lenses about 1.5 weeks ago and hope
>>someone can tell me if this is as good as things get for a somewhat
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> sales pitches are scripted and dumbed down for salespersons who know
> little to nothing about optical products.
Mark A - 07 Dec 2007 23:16 GMT
> Mark -
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Thanks again!
Wal-Mart will tell you whether they are OK for drill mounts, since they have
to provide a warranty. Most lenses are OK for drill mounts, but polycarb and
Trivex are better (because of their high tensile strength). My recollection
is that they are #385 for the lenses, which includes Crizal Alize AR
coating.
- - 08 Dec 2007 03:03 GMT
Ok, I am going to give your recommendation a try! I shopped around today
at a few Wal Mart and Sam's Clubs. It was rather interesting. The first
WalMart was willing to order different frame colors if you ordered the Nikon
rimless frames but didn't have Ziess rimless frames. The seond WalMart and
the Sam's Club would not order any variation from what they had on the rack
but did have Ziess rimless frames.
FYI, at least in the Southeast, here are some prices for the Nikon Custom
lenses:
Walmart = $389 (most all totally rimless frames are $128)
Sam's Club = $349 (most all totally rimless frames are $122) but don't
forget the $40
membership fee if you aren't yet a memeber
Thanks again for the information.
> Wal-Mart will tell you whether they are OK for drill mounts, since they
> have to provide a warranty. Most lenses are OK for drill mounts, but
> polycarb and Trivex are better (because of their high tensile strength).
> My recollection is that they are #385 for the lenses, which includes
> Crizal Alize AR coating.
Anon E. Muss - 08 Dec 2007 06:34 GMT
>Thanks so much for the informative response! I will go to WalMart and see
>if they can supply those lenses. I was not sure from you post, but are the
>"Nikon 1.67 lens for a reasonable price" lenses OK for drill mount frames?
As far as drill-mounts, here is the best materials to use:
1. Trivex (far and away the very best).
2. 1.67 (an excellent second choice).
3. Polycarbonate (spider-type cracking often occurs).
4. CR-39.
5. Crown Glass
The absolute WORST to use is the 1.56 mid-index plastic used in
Corning's SunSensors.
Anon E. Muss - 08 Dec 2007 06:27 GMT
>I just got my first progressive lenses about 1.5 weeks ago and hope someone
>can tell me if this is as good as things get for a somewhat reasonable
>price. After giving them 1.5 weeks so I could adapt, I have to ask if there
>is anything better than the Varilux Panamic lenses?
Yes. However, I find it rare that people who non-adapt to a great
progressive like the Panamic are able to adapt to the very best
progressives such as Hoya's Id or Essilor's Physio 360.
The success stories are more like people who wore lower-end
progressives then moving to a modern, quality one. Or people who were
flat-top bifocal wearers who were unable to adapt to standard
progressives but do after trying a "non-traditional" progressive
(e.g., Varilux Liberty).
FWIW, the top progressive I have been using lately is the Kodak
Unique, but it is very expensive.
>I adapted to the up and down variance very quickly and easily.
>Distance is OK, mid is OK but extremely narrow, close/reading is
>terrible. The close/reading is what bothers me the most. There is
>just no sharpness in the lateral (side to side) view. It just just
>such a small spot. I am constantly orbiting my head around trying to
>find an in-focus area.
That area tends to expand with time.
>I cannot see the width of a page to read it. I must move my head back and
>forth. There is a very small sharp area for close/reading at the lower
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>OD -2.50 +.50 015 +1.50
>OS -3.50 +.50 075 +1.50
You got a big potential problem right there -- you see too good at
near without glasses.
>Is there a lens out there that will give me wider field of view, especially
>for reading and hopefully for midrange too? Would Ziess Gradal be better
>(which Gradal)? What about going with the Physio? The increased contrast
>with the Physio intrigues me. I am wondering if that would help with making
>mid and distance better than just OK.
You might be a candidate for the "executive" trifocal progressive
unfortunately.