super 66 lens

[smiegal]

Anyone have thoughts on this particular lens? I currently use a 90D and a 20D, but want to pick up either a 78D or Super 66.

Any truth to the increased stereopsis that Volk advertises with the Super 66?

Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

66 is very nice. I use a 60D too.

 

[FlyingDoc]

When I was thinking of getting a 78 or super 66 I looked at the data:

Super66: Field of view 80/96, image mag 1.0x, laser mag 1.0x, working distance 11mm
78D: 81/97, 0.93x, 1.08x, 8mm

Given that the super66 had slightly higer mag with about the same field of view, I decided to go with it. I figured that I wasn't going to lose anything compared to the 78D and could reap all the supposed benefits of the "new" design (better stereopsis etc...)

All in all, I like it and give it a 👍


So what are people's opinion about the superfield vs the digital wide field? I am very happy with the superfield right now and am wondering if the digital wide field is any better.

 

[ckyuen]

I like the superfield lens, gives a wonderfully wide field, can get way past the equator near the ora, and the 90 mag is enough stereopsis to judge csme, c/d. I've picked up a lot of things with my superfield that I would have missed with other lenses. Great for people with pvd's to look in the periphery for tears.

 

[smiegal]

Just an update for anyone who's interested:

I picked up a Super 66 on a trial basis & examined a bunch of patients with both the 66 and a 78 over the past week. I actually preferred the 78. In my experience, there was a bit more peripheral distortion with the 66 as well as more glare and internal reflections. I couldn't appreciate any difference in stereopsis between the two. As far as a personal preference, I didn't like the 12 mm working distance (for the 66) quite as much, either.

 

[Commando303]

When I was thinking of getting a 78 or super 66 I looked at the data:

Super66: Field of view 80/96, image mag 1.0x, laser mag 1.0x, working distance 11mm
78D: 81/97, 0.93x, 1.08x, 8mm

Given that the super66 had slightly higer mag with about the same field of view, I decided to go with it. I figured that I wasn't going to lose anything compared to the 78D and could reap all the supposed benefits of the "new" design (better stereopsis etc...)

All in all, I like it and give it a 👍


So what are people's opinion about the superfield vs the digital wide field? I am very happy with the superfield right now and am wondering if the digital wide field is any better.

These all are just pieces of glass, the properties of which are almost entirely dependent on nothing more than curvature and diameter. Everything else — "Super" this, and "Digital" that — really is only marketing.

Volk's 78D is slightly higher-power than their Super 66, and is slightly smaller. Thus, the latter affords a bit more magnification, and approximately the same field-of-view. ("Stereopsis" describes nothing more than binocular disparity; it is tantamount to magnification, so discussing it in addition is redundant.)

 

[RestoreSight]

These all are just pieces of glass, the properties of which are almost entirely dependent on nothing more than curvature and diameter. Everything else — "Super" this, and "Digital" that — really is only marketing.

Volk's 78D is slightly higher-power than their Super 66, and is slightly smaller. Thus, the latter affords a bit more magnification, and approximately the same field-of-view. ("Stereopsis" describes nothing more than binocular disparity; it is tantamount to magnification, so discussing it in addition is redundant.)

The main advantage of the super 66 is 1:1 magnification. With the 78 you have to multiply measurements by 1.1. I think the 66 is slightly better for viewing the fundus, but that's just my opinion. Really either one is fine for a DFE.

 

[orbitsurgMD]

These all are just pieces of glass, the properties of which are almost entirely dependent on nothing more than curvature and diameter. Everything else — "Super" this, and "Digital" that — really is only marketing.

Volk's 78D is slightly higher-power than their Super 66, and is slightly smaller. Thus, the latter affords a bit more magnification, and approximately the same field-of-view. ("Stereopsis" describes nothing more than binocular disparity; it is tantamount to magnification, so discussing it in addition is redundant.)

The differences between the heavily promoted new lenses and the older lenses are sometimes not noticeable but sometimes are. Some of the lenses have aspherical surfaces different than the older lenses. Some have more updated coatings and may be compatible with IR focusing lamps with autofocus cameras. A few have different enough designs to affect and improve working distance (mostly for the very high power slit lamp BIO lenses--120D and up.) Some are touted as steam-autoclavable for OR use (glass, metal ring, usually comes with a sterilizable case.) I have not heard of claims to be using unusual low-dispersion glasses, which would be difficult and impractical for a single element hand lens, so I have to guess that both Volk and OI (and Nikon and Heine) are using standard, durable, relatively scratch-resistant crown glass.

Of course there is a palette of pretty colors for the rings to choose from. FWIW, black gives the least amount of annoying reflection off the ring, so my vote goes to the non-bling old-school black ring.

As lenses last indefinitely with reasonable care, and doctors generally buy only so many for routine diagnostic use, most of these companies have to find something to present as "new and improved."