Progressive Rejection Rate?

For the first time in my life (I'm 46) I needed correction to help me
read. I've been wearing glasses for distance vision since I was a
teenager. Based on the recommednation of everyone I talked to I bought
progressive lenses, supposedly state of the art, from an independent and
highly recommended optician. They were quite expensive (lenses alone were
$300 Cdn, plus frames at close to the same amount).

I've only had them for a couple of days now, but so far I absolutely hate
the things. If you look straight ahead through the appropriate part you
get the proper correction, but it seems you seldom do that naturally. So
most of the time everything is distorted to some extent. I've not yet been
able to figure out what the middle portion of the lenses are supposed to
be doing, because I never had any problem with seeing beyond 18-24 inches
with my old glasses. As near as I can tell the outer portions of the
lenses don't correct properly either (they warned me about that) and the
distortion out there is quite severe. The only safe way to do things like
walk down stairs is to plant your chin on your chest so you can hope to
see your feet. So I'm wearing my new high-buck glasses to work where I
need them to read, but the minute I get home I go to my old single-vision
glasses. Not what I expecteded, to say the least.

Do people who have these things eventually get used to them? I'm going to
give them a few more days but right now I'm tempted to go back next week,
bite the bullet, and get different lenses made up. For those in the trade,
what sort of rejection rates do you get with progressives? I find it hard
to understand what advantage they are supposed to have other than the lack
of a line, and the trade-offs of distorted off-center vision and constant
over/under correction seems quite severe. But never having worn any kind
of "regular" bifocal I don't know what that experience would be like by
comparison. Am I nuts?

 

I don't know what the rejection rate is, but the accommodation rate after a
few days is ZERO.You need to wear them for at least 2-3 weeks straight
without going back to your old pair if want to accommodate.

You did not tell us your Rx or the brand AND model AND material of the
lenses, which makes it a little harder to predict how difficult your
accommodation will be.

The advantage of progressives is that they offer continuous power
progression from the near to the far, not just near and far like bi-focals.
The part of the lens that can be used for intermediate vision is small, but
it is there.

You will have "swimming" effect in which things seem distorted and your
balance is not that good. Also, only certain parts of the lens can ever be
used for clear vision, which is shaped like an hour glass, although the
upper part is wider than the lower part. Ask your optician to show you a
graphic that explains this, or have them draw one by hand if they don't have
graphic.

However, even though accommodation after a few days is completely
unrealistic, it is possible that the glasses were not fitted properly, which
is a common problem. Proper fitting includes how the lens is placed in the
frame, the L/R pupil distance, how the frame sits on your face, and other
factors, which are much more critical for progressives than most single
vision lenses. You also need to take care in choosing a suitable frame that
sits on your face properly, preferably close to your face. Some very small
frames do not work well with progressives, despite what they tell you.

Generally, there is an accommodation warranty offered by the manufacturer
that is good for 30-90 days depending on your brand, so contact your
optician and find out what your warranty period, and then mark that date on
a calendar. Leave a few days to before then to take them back if not happy.

 

<snip>

My own situation could hardly be closer to yours. Early this year my
first try at progressives was the Zeiss Gradal Top, a generally well
regarded lens. The blurriness was similar to what you described. I
hated them.

So I tried another lens, the Hoya SummitECP. I love it! Not sure why
the peripheral vision is so clear relative to the Zeiss, but the
difference is profound. Downside is cost - the SummitECP is quite
expensive.

The only bifocal I've ever owned is my scrip dive mask. But with
the Hoyas the power seems to naturally optimize for the distance, so
that in most situations I can hardly tell I'm not wearing my SV
glasses - except I can see up close.


So

 

Do you know your Rx and what material the lens was made from? The choice of
material is sometimes as important as the lens design.

 

Mark A () wrote:
: I don't know what the rejection rate is, but the accommodation rate after a
: few days is ZERO.You need to wear them for at least 2-3 weeks straight
: without going back to your old pair if want to accommodate.

I cannot comfortably wear them outside of the office environment. Watching
TV, for instance, is impossible unless I sit on the floor. I can make you
a good deal on my recliner because I can't use it any more. If I play golf
this weekend I definitely will not be wearing them because I cannot see a
golf ball at address. Not to be crude, but even going to the bathroom
(standing, that is) is, shall we say, a hit-or-miss proposition. I find
the distorted peripheral vision especially annoying; I guess I never
realized how much I used that. Headaches and straining after I got home
last night made me take them off immediately. I understand the need for
accommodation and adaptation, but frankly wearing no glasses is almost
preferable to these right now.

: You did not tell us your Rx or the brand AND model AND material of the
: lenses, which makes it a little harder to predict how difficult your
: accommodation will be.

All I know is that the invoice says they are polycarbonate, which was
recommended for strength because I selected Movado drill-thru frames
(MV130). The lens shape is basically rectangular and is approx. 30mm high
by approx. 50 mm wide. I was not told what brand/model the lenses are and
all the invoice says is Rx lenses. I'll try to find out tomorrow. My Rx is
hard to read due to being handwritten but tell me if this makes any sense:

Sphere Cylnd. Axis
R -1.25 -1.25 75
L -1.75 -0.75 105
Add R +1.50
Add L +1.50

There are columns for prism and base that have nothing in them.

My main complaints are the peripheral vision (which was explained to me,
but which I did not appreciate until now) and more importantly, the fact
that about 50% of the time it feels like I'm looking through the wrong
part of the lens, regardless of what I'm doing.

Is there such an animal as a no-line bifocal that does away with the
intermediate portion of the correction (which I don't think I need) yet
doesn't have the peripheral distance distortion these things have? It
seems to me that these are a good idea that technically hasn't been
perfected yet, but has been heavily promoted, perhaps overpromoted. I am
curious what other users have found.

 

Polycarbonate has the worst optical quality of just about any lens material,
but is usually not a big problem for a moderate strength Rx like yours. It
was chosen by your optician because of its tensile strength which makes it
easier to make drilled frames.

30mm total frame height "may be" a bit shallow for progressives, but the
important dimension is from the "fitting height" down to the bottom of the
frame. The fitting height may not be in the center. Usually the absolute
minimum is 16-20mm depending on the lens design (brand and model), but
progressives work much better if you stay away from the absolute minimum and
select a frame with more depth.

It is impossible from here (on the internet) to know whether your lenses can
be improved or if you have a fitting problem. But you can try moving your
frames around to see if it makes a difference. If so, discuss this with your
optician. Exact positioning of the lens is extremely important with
progressives. Poor positioning could be a lens mounting problem or a frame
adjustment problem, or it could be the frame is just not appropriate for
progressives on your face. If you dealing with a sales clerk who is less
than 30 years old, you may have problems. Ask for the most experienced
person in the store to help you.

Millions of people (including myself) wear progressives and are happy with
them compared to the alternatives. This is not just a cosmetic issue
(no-line) but it allows infinite range of vision power from near to far. But
they are not easy to adjust to, and the physics of progressive lens design
means they will never be perfect.

Will await the info on lens make and model.

 

Polycarbonate has the worst optical quality of just about any lens
material,

Check out this site for information about fitting progressives. I don't know
how current the material is.
http://www.bruneni.com/articles.htm

 

Mark A () wrote:
: Will await the info on lens make and model.

Mark, I failed to mention that I appreciate the info you are providing
here. Thank you.

I went back to the optician today and asked what I have, I did not let on
that I was dissatisfied other than to say I was challenged by them and
that I would be back in a week or so.

I was told that I have Essilor Ovation Airwear progressives. The optician
who fitted me said that she picked those because they have (I forget her
exact words) something special about them for computer users. I remember
her asking me if I used a computer at work and I answered yes. Of course
that's not all I do - maybe she should have asked me if I walk around
there too.

I put them on this AM and within 15 minutes I had a headache in an unusual
spot for me, sort of behind my right ear. Still have it, along with an
ache in my right eye. As I sit here in front of the keyboard about 12
inches away from it, if I center myself to look at the letter "T" the "W"
and the "I" are both blurry. Moving away from it makes no difference.
Driving to her office this morning I also discovered that the outside
mirrors on my car are now useless because I cannot make out anything
clearly. And I tried watching the British Open on TV this morning and made
an interesting discovery - the top half of the TV screen was fairly clear,
but the scoring "crawl" on the bottom was unreadable.

Once I found out what I have I went and did some web research and was
dismayed to find that these seem to have been sold to me at a very
inflated price. From what I understand they are not the top-line, state of
the art product I was led to believe I was getting. I am starting to
believe I have been sold a bill of goods.

 

Zeiss Gradal Top 1.6 w/ Foundation AR.
Hoya SummitECP 1.7 w/ SuperHiVision AR.
Frame is a Silhouette SPX rimless, 50mm eye, 33mm "B" (Sorry, don't
know fitting ht).

OD -2.25-2.75x003 OS -3.25-2.75x002 +1.5 add

I went with the Zeiss originally because it was what the optician
recommended, and who wouldn't be happy in Zeiss lenses? Before
choosing the Hoya I did a little research, but still figuring it was
hit or miss. I liked Hoya 1.7's 36 abbe, the tensile strength/2-year
drill-mt. breakage warranty, 12.4 Bayer abrasion rating on the
SuperHiVision, and of course the thinness at my prescription. The
Hoya looked like it had everything, if only I could see through them.


I could see well from the start. None of the "swimming", the
peripheral distortion, the feeling I had to look directly at something
to see it (looking hard I can see some peripheral distortion at the
lens edge but it's farther out and much less than with the Zeiss). I
remember telling the optician I was now an "instant adapt" with the
Hoyas. My SV Vizios are now pretty much relegated to TV watching in
bed.

I'd like to understand what made such a difference between the two
lenses. And is there something to look for in a future lens in case
the SummitECP was no longer an option...

 

Do you know your Rx and what material the lens was made from? The choice
of

SummitECP is a fairly new design and should be around for awhile. Hoya is a
Japanese company that has been involved in optics for quite awhile. But
there are other premium designs for progressives and the market for them is
getting larger.

Other top brands (besides Hoya and Zeiss) include Rodenstock, Varilux,
Pentax, Sola, and Seiko. But some of these companies have various models,
and they may have different features.

Progressives are a sometimes a hit and miss situation and no single design
is best for all people. But a large part of the problem may be the fitting.
Even if the same person helps you at the optician, the lens may have been
processed differently in the lab, or they may have made a fitting adjustment
the second time around (intentionally or unintentionally).

 

Essilor Ovation is a short corridor lens designed for shorter frames. The
absolute minimum fitting height is 17mm (not from the top of the frame, but
from the fitting height), but it is always better to be comfortably above
the minimum (as is the case in many products, marketing claims are sometimes
exaggerated for competitive purposes). Short corridor lenses usually have a
shorter intermediate channel for viewing. The Ovation has a corridor length
of 11mm, good for short frames, but one of the shorter ones on the market
http://www.visioncareproducts.com/11/progressive_corridors.html.

Essilor owns Varilux and they share some products just with different names,
but my understanding is that the Varilux Panamic (the premium lens in their
line) is not available as an Essilor equivalent.

As mentioned before, you should try to move the frames around (up/down,
right/left) to see if you get better results.This can be especially critical
for a short corridor lens and a small frame. It may be the lens is
positioned wrong in the frame, or the frame needs to be adjusted on your
face. But since you have drilled frames, it may be more difficult to move
them around than ordinary frames.

My first progressives 10 years ago had this problem (the fitting height was
too high) and they had to be remade. I have found that most women
chronically position the fitting height too high with me, because they are
not eye level with me (6' 2") even when we are both sitting down. Based on
your TV viewing description, this may be your problem.

Besides the fact that you probably don't have a premium lens (but not
necessarily a bad lens), other suspicious factors for your situation
(besides the fitting) is that your frame may be too small for optimum use of
progressives, and the polycarb material is not as good optically as other
materials (but is good for drilling and usually not a big problem for a
moderate Rx).

 

Mark A () wrote:
: Essilor Ovation is a short corridor lens designed for shorter frames. The
: absolute minimum fitting height is 17mm (not from the top of the frame, but
: from the fitting height), but it is always better to be comfortably above
: the minimum (as is the case in many products, marketing claims are sometimes
: exaggerated for competitive purposes). Short corridor lenses usually have a
: shorter intermediate channel for viewing. The Ovation has a corridor length
: of 11mm, good for short frames, but one of the shorter ones on the market
: http://www.visioncareproducts.com/11/progressive_corridors.html.

An odd thing - I asked more then once when I was trying frames whether the
size of any particular set made a difference because I needed bifocals or
progressives, and in every case was told "no". The set I ended up with is
nowhere near as small as some of the others - in fact, I specifically
picked it over another model because the lenses were bigger top to bottom.
It's not as if I insisted on a particular style and they had to force-fit
the lenses. I'm afraid I don't understand the fitting height/corridor
length issue you discussed.

: As mentioned before, you should try to move the frames around (up/down,
: right/left) to see if you get better results.This can be especially critical
: for a short corridor lens and a small frame. It may be the lens is
: positioned wrong in the frame, or the frame needs to be adjusted on your
: face. But since you have drilled frames, it may be more difficult to move
: them around than ordinary frames.

I've tried this, with not much change. If I slide them down on my nose
like a pair of reading glasses I can see the entire TV screen fairly well,
but anything above eye level is outside the lenses and hence invisible.
Pushing them closer so they almost touch my face does nothing except fog
the edges. I can't really adjust sideways. And the peripheral distortion
and blur is severe in any incarnation.

: My first progressives 10 years ago had this problem (the fitting height was
: too high) and they had to be remade. I have found that most women
: chronically position the fitting height too high with me, because they are
: not eye level with me (6' 2") even when we are both sitting down. Based on
: your TV viewing description, this may be your problem.

This is interesting. When I was fitted the optician originally marked the
display lenses using a Sharpie at one level, then made a comment that I
might prefer them differently and remarked the point slightly higher. That
may be part of the problem and would explain the split-screen TV.

: Besides the fact that you probably don't have a premium lens (but not
: necessarily a bad lens), other suspicious factors for your situation
: (besides the fitting) is that your frame may be too small for optimum use of
: progressives, and the polycarb material is not as good optically as other
: materials (but is good for drilling and usually not a big problem for a
: moderate Rx).

Again, at the time I knew nothing about anything and just accepted their
recommendation and took what they told me was a top-line, state-of-the-art
lens. I've learned a lot in a few days. If I knew the issues around
polycarb I might not have picked a rimless. I really don't think the lens
size can be an issue because they aren't *that* small compared to a lot of
others I've seen. I am very dubious of the Ovations due to the bad
peripheral distortion and blur I'm seeing in the distance part - I don't
think that could all be a fitting issue. Knowing what I know now I'd just
get new single-visions and take off my glasses when I need to read.
Actually, since my distance Rx didn't change I didn't even need new
glasses except for aesthetics. I feel like I just threw $600 down the
drain.

Can I ask a dumb question? If I can get a SV ground so I can see perfectly
around the edges of the lens, why is it that adding the near correction
just to the bottom part of the lens throws that off so badly? I just don't
get why progressives force you to accept such compromised peripheral
vision.

 

Many people who work at optician offices and serve customers are
incompetent. This is especially true of chain stores, and especially true
when talking about progressives. The only chain store that has good
opticians in my experience is Wal-Mart, although some of the other chains
"may" have one decent person in the store if you can find them. Ask for the
most experienced person.

The fashion these days is for very small frames, especially short frames
(top to bottom dimension). Sales clerks are very fashion oriented, but very
few know much about progressives. Remember that only people over 40-45 wear
progressives.

While the total height of the lens is important, more important for
progressives is the fitting height measurement. The fitting height is the
point they mark with the sharpie, down to the bottom of the frame. It is
usually above the center point of the frame. But on a 30mm frame height,
where the fitting height is 2 mm above center, that leaves 17mm fitting
height. That is OK according to the manufacturer specs for your lens, but
realistically is not optimal for a progressive lens.

Moving the lenses down your nose won't work well, because that is not a
natural position. As I mentioned, drilled frames may not be able to be
adjusted much, because they are already close the eyes. You may need to see
if you can adjust you nose pads to lower the frames. But I suspect that you
fitting height is too high.

I assume that is $600 Canadian. Ovations may be the best that store carries.
Many chains do not carry premium brands, although some can special order
them. Hoya ESP. is available in a lens with Phoenix material (which is
Hoya's brand name for Trivex). Trivex has similar strength to polycarbonate,
but much better vision (but a little thicker lens). I am not an expert on
drilling, but I think many people drill non-polycarb lens such as 1.60
plastic.

Has to do with the physics of the progressive lens. That is, not just near
and far, but a progression between the two. The clear viewing area (not
including peripheral vision) is an hour glass shape, and is probably only
50% of the total area of the lens. This include the far vision at the top,
the near vision at the bottom, and the narrow progressive channel
in-between. The near vision area is only about 1/3 the width of your lens
(if you get lucky). The far vision is better, but many times not completely
as wide as the lens width. If you can invent a better solution, you will be
a billionaire.

One reason progressives are so expensive, is the liberal warranty they offer
in case of remakes or failure to adapt. Use it if you need to. It should not
cost the retailer anything because the warranty is offered by the
manufacturer of the lens.

 

Mark A () wrote:
: Many people who work at optician offices and serve customers are
: incompetent. This is especially true of chain stores, and especially true
: when talking about progressives. The only chain store that has good
: opticians in my experience is Wal-Mart, although some of the other chains
: "may" have one decent person in the store if you can find them. Ask for the
: most experienced person.

: The fashion these days is for very small frames, especially short frames
: (top to bottom dimension). Sales clerks are very fashion oriented, but very
: few know much about progressives. Remember that only people over 40-45 wear
: progressives.

Just to clarify, these were not purchased at a chain or a discount house;
they came from a local independent optician with 3 staffers, all of whom
appear to have been in the business for some time. The place was highly
recommended and has been in business for nearly 20 years. I guess mistakes
can happen even in such a place.

: I assume that is $600 Canadian. Ovations may be the best that store carries.
: Many chains do not carry premium brands, although some can special order
: them. Hoya ESP. is available in a lens with Phoenix material (which is
: Hoya's brand name for Trivex). Trivex has similar strength to polycarbonate,
: but much better vision (but a little thicker lens). I am not an expert on
: drilling, but I think many people drill non-polycarb lens such as 1.60
: plastic.

I would think that a place like mine could get most anything. They
certainly do not appear to be low-end judging from what I saw they
carried.

Thanks again for all your input, Mark.

 

Independents vary greatly in terms of knowledgeable sales staff. You can
sometimes find excellent people (if you look hard) but many of them are not
any better than the chains. Usually there is only one really good person (if
any) per store who is really knowledgeable about progressives (if you are
lucky).

Same is true with the optical shops in an OD office. Often the OD hires very
cheap help with the idea that he/she will direct them in what to do, but the
OD is often too busy to really do that.

I am sure they can get anything, but sometimes getting a different product
may mean using a different lab, which they don't always like to do unless
pushed to do so. Also, I notice that there are a lot of contests the
manufacturers put on for retailers to encourage them to rack up a lot of
sales for one product, rather than using a lot of different products. I am
not saying that happened here, but you never know.

 

I haven't read all of this long thread, but it seems to me that multi-focal
contacts would fit your life style.

You have to be patient, though. It may take a couple of weeks to get used
to them, but I don't have any of the problems that you are talking about
with your spectacles.

marc

 

Marc () wrote:
: I haven't read all of this long thread, but it seems to me that multi-focal
: contacts would fit your life style.

: You have to be patient, though. It may take a couple of weeks to get used
: to them, but I don't have any of the problems that you are talking about
: with your spectacles.

I wore single-vision contacts from '92 to '99. They were like the little
girl with the curl; when they were good they were very, very good; when
they were bad they were horrid. And most of the time they were bad -
uncomfortable, undependable, and poor correction. Some of that may be just
to bad luck with ODs and bad fittings, some of it might be just me and my
eye shape and condition. But as much as I dislike my new PALs, I disliked
the hassle, cost and discomfort of my contacts just as much if not more.
So I think multifocal contacts would be a huge gamble.