Difference between Varilux Liberty and Panamic?

I've worn eyeglasses (with GLASS lens) for over 40 years, 6 with
bifocals.

My optometrist tried to talk me into PALs in 1998, 2000 and in 2002.
I declined.

This time, he told me that I should be in trifocals if I didn't want
to get the improved vision I would have with PALs. (Rx is about -3.00
with 2.25 add)

Several places I go now want to see the ANSI stuff on the lens, and my
optician was able to get me a pair of "hi-tech" glasses (Titmus
Titanium frames and Essilor's Panamic lens, Airwear, Crizal/Alize)
that looked OK to my wife.

I wore them for 2 months, hating every minute of it. I had such a
narrow reading "segment" that a whole line in a column of newsprint
was not in focus. In a play, from probably 25ft, 3 people standing
side by side had one out of focus. As I moved my head, vertical lines
slithered like a snake. To see out of the rear view mirror in the
car, I had to CAREFLLY align my head. If I dipped my head all the way
down to where I used only the WAY upper portion of the lens, I could
probably see a 30 degree segment. She confirmed they were made
correctly.

I put my old glasses back on and was so glad to be able to see again,
albeit not QUITE as well in the tiny tunnel of the Panamics.

She and I sat back down ... she said she did not see me as one who
would have had a hard time adapting.

I told her it wasn't adapting, that was fine ... it was the *&#% lens
design. "This is the best lens in the world.", she said. I beg to
differ.

We (I accept some of the responsibility) had for sure put the centers
too high. When she told me to look as I was supposed to for her to
measure pupil position, I failed to do it "right". Correcting that
might have helped the rear view mirror, but that is all.

She called Essilor and discussed "me". They suggested the Liberty.
By this time, I had done my research, and wanted the Ellipse, because
I felt that the frames my wife liked, the Ti9, which she said would be
no problem, weren't tall enough to drop the centers where _I THINK_
they need to be. I wanted 5 mm lower which would have been 15 mm ...
"book" says 18mm minimum on Liberty and Panamic. She stretched the
Liberty to 17mm.

I can live with these. I can now see out of my mirrors. I can watch
a movie from 2/3 back and have MOST of the screen in focus at the same
time. The whole (27") TV is in focus from 12 feet ... like my old
glasses. As a car passes, I cannot read the license plate until it is
well in front unless I turn my head a little; the "infinite" zone is
still way too narrow, but ... maybe that is a PAL characteristic.
Maybe it is that darn polycarbonate.

A newspaper line is in focus, but a book line isn't. I don't know
what it would take to resolve that, but I can live with it.

In 2 years, I'll try something different ... any suggestion here is
probably premature, but is there one?

What I know is that the Panamic is NOT the answer to everyone.

Happy New Year!

 

I've been very happy with my Hoya progressives.

DrG

 

It is hard to say whether the polycarb is part of the problem with your Rx.
But it certainly can't help. Essilor makes a 1.60 lens that probably would
be a bit better.

 

I'm told that it doesn't meet the ANSI "shatterproof" specs ... Trivex
and polycarb are the only ones that do, and Essilor's NIH attitude
precludes use of Trivex.

 

Several places I go now want to see the ANSI stuff on the lens,

Do you need shatterproof lenses? Why? More people die in car accidents every
year from poor polycarb vision than die (or are injured) from lenses that
shatter.

Essilor is not licensed to make Trivex by PPG. I believe that at this time
only Hoya (Phoenix) and Younger (Image) are licensed to make Trivex,
although a Thai optical company is supposed to start making them soon.

 

Need, no; have to have, yes. I do technical support work on heavy
indusrial and mobile machinery. Many of the locations require that I
have that little mark on the lens or make me wear something over them.
Something over is EXTREMELY uncomfortable, and impossible to use
practically as I crawl over machinery. I also have to have the rigid
sideshields, but the removeable ones meet ANSI specs.

Yeah, I know, but the rulesmakers don't apply logic. BTW, I'd love to
see supporitng documentation on that.

Golly, they won't even allow me to carry a gun or knife on an airplane
.... more people killed by airplanes crashing than by guns on airplanes

I understood that Thai Polymer had been selling them for a year based
on web research, but I don't know who represents them in the US. At
any rate, my optician is 100% an Essilor product person.

Also, per teh PPG website, Shamir (whom I've never heard of) also is
making Trivex PALs

 

If they allowed people to carry guns on airplanes, then I can assure you
that a many more people would die. Are you thinking clearly today?

 

I don't quite understand how this happened. I experienced the "tiny

This has been discussed by OD's before in this newsgroup. Some have said
they can't tell any difference. There are so many variables involved, that
it is hard to generalize about these things. There is a difference, but it
may be more noticeable to some people than others, depending on a multitude
of factors.

 

Airwear (poly-c) will generally not provide as good vision as
the 1.67 high index material that your lens is also available in.
However the Poly-c is lighter in weight and a more impact resistant
material, so sometimes it is a better choice.
Brian

 

Polycarb has a lower density than 1.67, however since 1.67 lenses are
thinner, the total weight is actually less than poly in most cases (it
depends somewhat on the Rx).