> I like the hoya cd, (compact design) progressive, which I wear.
> You're right about narrow frames needing more compact designs. The
> Natural is an old, lower cost lens meant for deep shaped frames.
> Your myopia decrease at your age is pretty common, really almost
> standard. It will not continue.
> The double vision at near is usually a weakness in convergence ability,
> but can be caused by incorrect Rx, misaligned segs, etc.
> w.stacy, o.d.
> Sherman wrote:
> > I'm about -6.00D, and it's time for new glasses. My current brand
> > of progressive lens is Essilor Natural. Is there any significant
> > difference among the various brands? Is there one in particular
> > that seems to work better than the others?
> > > This would be for general-purpose tooling around - driving, TV,
> > reading the paper.
> > > One thing I should mention. I got new frames last time, and they
> > are the smaller frames that everybody seems to like. But they are
> > only 37mm top to bottom, versus the 45mm of my old Polos. And it
> > seems like some of the near-vision part at the bottom may be cut
> > off. So I wondered if there were progressives intended specifically
> > for these vertically narrow frames.
>

> "Robert Martellaro" <robopt[at]nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:fsn5o2t7cufkvmras1m4g7ajp8pnnnefki[at]4ax.com...
> > <snip> > Why are you so concerned about the size of the intermediate? This portion
> > of a
> > PAL offers limited utility even in the best case. If you are performing
> > frequent
> > visual tasks at an intermediate distance we should probably be talking
> > about
> > separate glasses that are optimized for such use.
> > > Regards,
> > Robert Martellaro
> Currently I wear Panamic and frequently use a computer for my job (I work in
> IT). I have thought about computer lenses, but I am relatively satisfied now
> with the reading and computer distance viewing (I learned to move my head
> and it does not bother me).

> Since I will be getting new lenses soon, I just want to make an intelligent
> decision and get the best available product, even if I am relatively
> satisfied right now.

> <snip> Why are you so concerned about the size of the intermediate? This portion
> of a
> PAL offers limited utility even in the best case. If you are performing
> frequent
> visual tasks at an intermediate distance we should probably be talking
> about
> separate glasses that are optimized for such use.
> Regards,
> Robert Martellaro

> "Mark A" <nobody[at]nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:rY2dnfx-wZQbcxzYnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d[at]comcast.com...
> > Thanks for the info. Varilux Physio 360 is available in 1.60 in the US
> > according to Varilux website. I have Panamic 1.60 right now, so I was
> > thinking that there is no real reason for me to go to 1.67 (the plus
> > lenses are already quite thin at the edges). In theory I should get a
> > little better optics with the 1.60 compared to 1.67.
> > > My right eye is very amblyopic, and I certainly can't read with it. The
> > right eye is pretty much relegated to peripheral vision. I guess the main
> > consideration for the OD prescribing the same Rx in the right eye is for
> > aesthetic reasons (so the lenses look the same). But I will ask the OD
> > about this to be sure.

> > One advantage of the Varilux is the Crizal Alize AR coating. I have not
> > had AR in the past because of my concern about scratching/cleaning, but I
> > am tempted to try the Crizal Alize.

> Oops. Maybe Physio360 is not as good as some claim. At the very least, some
> dispensers have had problems with it:
> http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...t=20591&page=1

> Trying to find the best progressive is once again becoming a project of
> serious magnitude. Considering the cost the premium lenses these days, one
> cannot afford to make a mistake.

> BTW, some of the vendors (including Essilor rep) mention on OptiBoard how
> their products excel in binocular vision. And since I am amblyopic, I don't
> want to spend more money on technology than I need to, especially if it does
> me no good. On the other hand, with a +4.75 -1.00 x90 with +2.25 add, that
> is fairly difficult Rx for a progressive, so a premium design is definitely
> warranted.

> Thanks for the info. Varilux Physio 360 is available in 1.60 in the US
> according to Varilux website. I have Panamic 1.60 right now, so I was
> thinking that there is no real reason for me to go to 1.67 (the plus
> lenses are already quite thin at the edges). In theory I should get a
> little better optics with the 1.60 compared to 1.67.
> My right eye is very amblyopic, and I certainly can't read with it. The
> right eye is pretty much relegated to peripheral vision. I guess the main
> consideration for the OD prescribing the same Rx in the right eye is for
> aesthetic reasons (so the lenses look the same). But I will ask the OD
> about this to be sure.
> One advantage of the Varilux is the Crizal Alize AR coating. I have not
> had AR in the past because of my concern about scratching/cleaning, but I
> am tempted to try the Crizal Alize.
> I am well aware of the problems with optical chains and the mediocre
> products they sell. There is also a problem with the opticians who work in
> chain stores, unless you happen to be dealing with the head optician for
> that store. I have found the same problem with independents and even
> optical shops in OD offices (the OD is usually to busy to spend time with
> an patient and has a low paid optician try and do most of the work).
> But even with the best opticians like Robert and with knowledgeable Dr's
> like yourself, there are so many new products out there that it is
> probably difficult for any one person to know about all of them in detail.
> And of course, there are often differences in how someone with a high plus
> Rx responds to a particular design compared to a different person with a
> high minus Rx.. But the Physio360 does sound like something that I should
> seriously consider for my next pair of progressives.

> While Robert is right in saying the hoya lenses are good, I think ou
> will find that the Physio 360 1.67 is the best lens for you. Firstly,
> you are wearing panamics, and the physio is a panamic upgrade (although
> a big improvement). It has a significantly wider reading and
> intermediate zone, clearer distance optics than panamic (which were
> good anyway) and a smoother transition from distance to near. The 1.67
> is a bit more expensive, but well worth it. In my dollars (Aus) 1.5MC =
> $320.00 1.67MC = $420.00. The additional $100.00 gives much thinner
> and lighter glasses and is what I have my mum in, and she is +6.75D.
> One thing to remember here is that all retailers ally themselves with a
> lab based on some reason, whether it be price, proximity, friendship,
> service, product lines etc. The products they sell are often the ones
> they find work best from the product line they have available.
> Independent retailers like Robert can ally themselves with anyone they
> like and will push (recommend) products they find work best for them.
> This is not to say they are that much better than anything else, but
> that design works for them and they understand the nuances of the
> design.
> As an example, I can't work out Sola lenses. Every time they bring
> something out, I tried it, had problems and gave up, going back to
> tried and trusted designs. The SolaOne was great, but every one I ever
> sold came back after 6-12 months with the multicoat coming off, so NO
> MORE Sola One's - EVER.
> What your OD will recommend (as long as he is ethical and independent)
> is what works for him.
> Chains on the other hand sell what they can get cheap. It is the margin
> that counts, and while the staff may be great, they are often hamstrung
> by what is available, not being able to order premium designs.
> Also, how amblyopic are you? If you do not use the amblyopic eye, them
> put a single vision lens in that eye. It will reduce the cost and you
> won't notice the difference. The binocular design is still worthwhile
> for you as it is designed to work with how your eyes work when turning
> in, which you do anyway when you read.
> good luck.
> dr grant

> "Robert Martellaro" <robopt[at]nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:8oh0o25dqv3h8blau0k617dldc1b8b9h3e[at]4ax.com...
> > The Physio 360 is based on the Phsyio design, the progressive is on the
> > front
> > surface, the back surface uses direct-to-surface free-form technology.
> > Most of
> > these types of lenses are atoric, may be optimized for position of wear,
> > and use
> > varying techniques to improve binocular vision, and to minimize skew
> > distortion
> > and other aberrations.
> > > Regards,
> > > Robert Martellaro
> What lenses would be on your recommended list (best of breed) for a
> +4.75 -1.00 x90 with +2.25 add?

> Amblyopia in right eye (so fancy designs
> that measure and optimize binocular vision might be wasted expense?).

> Good/wide intermediate vision fairly important.

> Currently wearing Varilux
> Panamic and reasonably satisfied with them.

> The Physio 360 is based on the Phsyio design, the progressive is on the
> front
> surface, the back surface uses direct-to-surface free-form technology.
> Most of
> these types of lenses are atoric, may be optimized for position of wear,
> and use
> varying techniques to improve binocular vision, and to minimize skew
> distortion
> and other aberrations.
> Regards,
> Robert Martellaro

> Robert Martellaro says...
> > > I'm about -6.00D, and it's time for new glasses. My
> > > current brand of progressive lens is Essilor Natural.
> > > Is there any significant difference among the various
> > > brands? Is there one in particular that seems to work
> > > better than the others?
> > IMHO, the Hoya ID and Zeiss Individual are one-two in
> > aberration control and real world optical quality.
> Ok, but aren't we talking real money with those? Like $400
> or so?

> If so, that's out of my league. Can we get under $200, or
> do you only get coke bottles at that price?