I had progressives - Varilux Comfort for several years.

I got a new prescription and got the Definity because I
wanted a wider corridor (I think that's what you call it).
The prescription was incorrect and had to be redone. The
reading was moved to +3.25 which meant I could no longer use
the Definity.

As a replacement, I was given the Shamir Creation when the
prescription was replaced and the Definity was no longer
available.

So, how does the Creation compare to the Definity and how
does it compare to my original Varilux Comfort lenses in
terms of width of corridor and overall quality of the lens?

TIA

Louise

I had progressives - Varilux Comfort for several years.

I got a new prescription and got the Definity because I
wanted a wider corridor (I think that's what you call it).
The prescription was incorrect and had to be redone. The
reading was moved to +3.25 which meant I could no longer use
the Definity.

As a replacement, I was given the Shamir Creation when the
prescription was replaced and the Definity was no longer
available.

So, how does the Creation compare to the Definity and how
does it compare to my original Varilux Comfort lenses in
terms of width of corridor and overall quality of the lens?

TIA

Louise

On Feb 6, 10:45 am, louise <lou...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I had progressives - Varilux Comfort for several years.

I got a new prescription and got the Definity because I
wanted a wider corridor (I think that's what you call it).
The prescription was incorrect and had to be redone. The
reading was moved to +3.25 which meant I could no longer use
the Definity.

As a replacement, I was given the Shamir Creation when the
prescription was replaced and the Definity was no longer
available.

So, how does the Creation compare to the Definity and how
does it compare to my original Varilux Comfort lenses in
terms of width of corridor and overall quality of the lens?

TIA

Louise

The Creation is specifically designed to offer a flatter, thinner lens
suitable for rimless and half frames, even for higher power Rx's. But
in exchange, you get smaller viewing areas (distance, mid, and
reading). If you are not using a rimless or half frame, or don't have
a problem with your Rx causing the lens to be too curved, then there
are better Shamir designs. The Genisis or the Autograph have bigger
viewing areas. I am not sure which is comparable to the Definity in
price.

Thanks to both of you for your suggestions.

Thanks to both of you for your suggestions.

I think my biggest problem is finding an optician who makes the kind of
fine distinctions and careful analyses that both of you are making.

I've gone to the most "upscale" opticians I know of, and each one seems to
have one or two lenses that they "prefer" and that is what they recommend.
When I initially questioned the Definity, I got told the optician had very
good experience with it and people usually accommodate quite well.

When I went to another upscale optician, I got told a Zeiss lens would be
the best for my prescription. Why? Because that would work best with
your vision......

I am not using a rimless, nor a half frame and when I was told the
Definity wouldn't work with the high read (I do like being able to read
with them and would rather not give up that option), I was told the "best"
lens for me would be the Creation. At the time I just said ok, thinking
the optician knew more than I did. Now that I have the Creation, I see
that it has a narrow viewing area, much like my complaint about the
Varilux Comfort.

And....since the optician re-made the lens for free because of a change in
prescription, it occurs to me that maybe he recommended a less expensive
lens than the Definity to make up some of the cost. Now I think I'm stuck
with them because they were already made again.

The frustrating thing for me is that I am in the middle of NYC - in
Manhattan - I have access to good care but I don't know how to evaluate
it. The optician I'm now involved with (Definity, Creation etc), was
recommended by a friend who is an architect and very fussy about his sight
but the lens recommendations may not have been so great.

I am also planning to get new computer progressives - I wear these more
often than any other glasses, and I'm not sure where to go - but most
importantly, how to evaluate the recommendations I get.

Are there ways to evaluate - "trick" questions to ask?

Thanks once again.

Louise

"louise" <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:52sqqrF1q6kv9U1@mid.individual.net...
Thanks to both of you for your suggestions.

I think my biggest problem is finding an optician who makes the kind of
fine distinctions and careful analyses that both of you are making.

I've gone to the most "upscale" opticians I know of, and each one seems to
have one or two lenses that they "prefer" and that is what they recommend.
When I initially questioned the Definity, I got told the optician had very
good experience with it and people usually accommodate quite well.

When I went to another upscale optician, I got told a Zeiss lens would be
the best for my prescription. Why? Because that would work best with
your vision......

I am not using a rimless, nor a half frame and when I was told the
Definity wouldn't work with the high read (I do like being able to read
with them and would rather not give up that option), I was told the "best"
lens for me would be the Creation. At the time I just said ok, thinking
the optician knew more than I did. Now that I have the Creation, I see
that it has a narrow viewing area, much like my complaint about the
Varilux Comfort.

And....since the optician re-made the lens for free because of a change in
prescription, it occurs to me that maybe he recommended a less expensive
lens than the Definity to make up some of the cost. Now I think I'm stuck
with them because they were already made again.

The frustrating thing for me is that I am in the middle of NYC - in
Manhattan - I have access to good care but I don't know how to evaluate
it. The optician I'm now involved with (Definity, Creation etc), was
recommended by a friend who is an architect and very fussy about his sight
but the lens recommendations may not have been so great.

I am also planning to get new computer progressives - I wear these more
often than any other glasses, and I'm not sure where to go - but most
importantly, how to evaluate the recommendations I get.

Are there ways to evaluate - "trick" questions to ask?

Thanks once again.

Louise

One of the reasons that progressives cost so much, is that the manufacturers
will allow a free remake because of a Rx change, fitting problem, or
exchange to another lens design if there is a failure to adapt. The retail
optician does not bear the cost of the remake (unless it is a very large
chain and they purchase the lenses wholesale and absorb the remake cost
themselves). But I don't know if they will allow a 2nd free remake.

The optician should not have switched brands without your permission (not
sure if this happened). Since it is a different brand (Shamir), maybe the
new manufacturer will allow a remake to the Genesis or Autograph. The
Autograph may cost more though.


The optician phoned saying that with my new prescription I

The optician phoned saying that with my new prescription I couldn't use
the Definity and he recommended the Creation. He may or may not have told
me they were made by different companies. My distress is that the
corridor is so narrow that they are no better than my Varilux Comfort
were - and I went specifically asking for a wider corridor.

Louise

I would refer your Optician to the Shamir website were there is a diagram
of the various viewing areas of the progressive lenses they offer, and it
clearly shows that the Creation has a smaller viewing areas for distance,
mid, and near compared to the Genesis and Autograph. The website also
specifically states the Creation is designed to be flat for drill mounts
and half frames (it should be fairly self evident to an optician that when
you gain some thing in a lens design such as flatness, that something else
will suffer).

Then I would ask for a refund or a remake in a different Shamir lens.

I've gone to the most "upscale" opticians I know of, and
each one seems to have one or two lenses that they "prefer"
and that is what they recommend. When I initially
questioned the Definity, I got told the optician had very
good experience with it and people usually accommodate quite
well.

When I went to another upscale optician, I got told a Zeiss
lens would be the best for my prescription. Why? Because
that would work best with your vision......

I am not using a rimless, nor a half frame and when I was
told the Definity wouldn't work with the high read (I do
like being able to read with them and would rather not give
up that option), I was told the "best" lens for me would be
the Creation. At the time I just said ok, thinking the
optician knew more than I did. Now that I have the
Creation, I see that it has a narrow viewing area, much like
my complaint about the Varilux Comfort.

And....since the optician re-made the lens for free because
of a change in prescription, it occurs to me that maybe he
recommended a less expensive lens than the Definity to make
up some of the cost. Now I think I'm stuck with them
because they were already made again.

The frustrating thing for me is that I am in the middle of
NYC - in Manhattan - I have access to good care but I don't
know how to evaluate it. The optician I'm now involved with
(Definity, Creation etc), was recommended by a friend who is
an architect and very fussy about his sight but the lens
recommendations may not have been so great.

I am also planning to get new computer progressives - I wear
these more often than any other glasses, and I'm not sure
where to go - but most importantly, how to evaluate the
recommendations I get.

Are there ways to evaluate - "trick" questions to ask?

Thanks once again.

Louise

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:11:45 -0500, louise <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote:


I've gone to the most "upscale" opticians I know of, and
each one seems to have one or two lenses that they "prefer"
and that is what they recommend. When I initially
questioned the Definity, I got told the optician had very
good experience with it and people usually accommodate quite
well.

That's because it's a very soft design with a long and wide corridor with a very
smooth progression from distance to near, good for emerging presbyopes and ok
for advanced presbyopes who perform a much less than average frequency of near
tasks.

The problem I have with the Definity is that although it uses free-form
technology to create the back surface, it isn't optimized for the individual's
Rx, PD, position of wear, and isn't atoric. You're paying more money and waiting
longer to get a lens that's available elsewhere using traditional grinding
methods.

When I went to another upscale optician, I got told a Zeiss
lens would be the best for my prescription. Why? Because
that would work best with your vision......

The Zeiss Gradal top has very clear distance peripheral vision and a long, wide
corridor, similar to the Definity. Costs less too.

I am not using a rimless, nor a half frame and when I was
told the Definity wouldn't work with the high read (I do
like being able to read with them and would rather not give
up that option), I was told the "best" lens for me would be
the Creation. At the time I just said ok, thinking the
optician knew more than I did. Now that I have the
Creation, I see that it has a narrow viewing area, much like
my complaint about the Varilux Comfort.

The viewing area (distance, intermediate, and near zones) with a +3.25 add is
going to be narrow with any PAL. The fact that it's similar to the Comfort that
had a +2.75 add tells me that the Creation is a very good lens. The only way to
make any discernible improvement over what you have now is to use the more
advanced lenses I mentioned previously.

And....since the optician re-made the lens for free because
of a change in prescription, it occurs to me that maybe he
recommended a less expensive lens than the Definity to make
up some of the cost. Now I think I'm stuck with them
because they were already made again.

It' slightly less expensive but in most situations it's as good or better than
the Definity. You'll have to spend a lot more money to get a lens that performs
better than what you have now.

The frustrating thing for me is that I am in the middle of
NYC - in Manhattan - I have access to good care but I don't
know how to evaluate it. The optician I'm now involved with
(Definity, Creation etc), was recommended by a friend who is
an architect and very fussy about his sight but the lens
recommendations may not have been so great.

Good opticians have good people and technical skills, tend to be "fussy" about
their work, and should be honest and sincere.

I am also planning to get new computer progressives - I wear
these more often than any other glasses, and I'm not sure
where to go - but most importantly, how to evaluate the
recommendations I get.

Are there ways to evaluate - "trick" questions to ask?

Maybe, although they need to be somewhat specific to your Rx and visual needs. I
would just ask a lot of questions, and try to find an older, presbyopic optician
with many years of experience fitting ophthalmic lenses.

Thanks once again.

Louise



Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman

Thanks again - I am getting used to the Creation - but it is
kind of narrow - maybe unavoidable with such a high read +3.25.

NOW - computer glasses - progressives for screen and
reading. This time I'm trying to do the research before
trusting the optician :-)

This same optician, who I may or may not go back to,
strongly recommends the Shamir Office.

Is there anything else that might be better? Here I would
definitely be willing to pay more for a lens with a wide
viewing area; these are the glasses I use the most.

Louise

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:30:11 -0500, louise <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote:


Thanks again - I am getting used to the Creation - but it is
kind of narrow - maybe unavoidable with such a high read +3.25.

Right.

NOW - computer glasses - progressives for screen and
reading. This time I'm trying to do the research before
trusting the optician :-)

This same optician, who I may or may not go back to,
strongly recommends the Shamir Office.


Is there anything else that might be better? Here I would
definitely be willing to pay more for a lens with a wide
viewing area; these are the glasses I use the most.

Louise

I would avoid PALs designed specifically for office/desk work. I'll assume this
is a desktop monitor. Measure the distance from the eyes to the monitor. Rx the
distance part of the lens for the monitor, the near for the desktop. You said
your Rx is...

Plano +2.50 x 85
-.75 +3.25 x 80

Add for near +3.25

If the distance to the monitor is 23" the new lens powers will look something
like this...

+1.75 +2.50 x 85
+1.00 +3.25 x 80

Add for near +1.50

A small frame with good vertical depth and rounded corners will minimize lens
thickness and weight. The Creation might be ok for the PAL design. Alternatively
a segmented multifocal (lined bifocal like a ST28) would also work well and
would be much less expensive- if you can tolerate the line. Discuss the above
with your doctor and optician.

Hope this helps,

Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman

Thanks a lot for your advice. I have one problem with it.

My habit is to walk around the room where my computer is
(21" Sony CRT about 21" away from me at the moment). I walk
over to my desk, get papers, read them, go back to the
computer with them, go to the kitchen and get a snack, come
back to the computer etc.

In other words, I move around a lot and a lens that was just
limited to 22" plus reading might prevent me from doing that?

Why would you object to a PAL for the computer?

Thanks once again.

Louise