The reflection will be there, but only 10-20% as bright as the original.
Nikon can't get 100% reduction on 35mm lenses, either.

The remaining reflections have a pale tint that can be controlled somewhat
but not totally eliminated. Most coatings are multi-layer, each layer acting
as a notch filter, reducing only a certain color from the reflection. Layers
of different thicknesses are combined to cover the entire visible spectrum.

AR coatings use optical interference (more on that, if you want), and
optical interference depends on thickness. So if you plant a fingerprint on
the front surface, you've created ridges that disrupt the uniformity of
thickness and produced a prominent smudge. AR coatings can be hard to keep
clean - another easy way to detect the coating.

-MT

Ideally yes, but the ideal does not exist (a film that eliminates ALL
reflections would be nice, but is theoretically impossible to achieve).
 The fact is, AR coatings work well because the intensity or visibility
of the reflections are REDUCED by around 90% or so.  Put another way,
instead of roughly 10% of the incoming light is reflected away without
AR coating (varies by index of refraction) while with AR, only about 1%
is reflected away.  That means under low light situations, transmission
to the the eye is increased from 90% to 99%, roughly.  Of course most
people get it for the cosmetic benefit of far less noticeable lenses.
You never see a TV person wearing uncoated lenses.  You wouldn't be able
to see their eyes for the reflections of all the lights they use in a
studio.

w.stacy, o.d.

On 12/2/06 10:41 PM, in article Jhuch.1297$M25.13@newsfe05.lga, "The Real
Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

Getting broadband antireflection performance is difficult indeed. In making
a design you really must have a specification as to what is tolerable. Cost
often is a consideration.

For typical glass, reflectivity is about 4% per surface. A simple one layer
coat can bring that down to about 1% in the middle of the visible range and
a fair about away from the middle as well. To do better requires more layers
and expense.

For single layer coatings, it turns out that higher index allows better AR
performance. For magnesium fluoride, a lens of index of 1.90 would give very
close to zero reflectance at the design wavelength. A slightly lower index,
1.80, is likely to give give better overall broadband performance.

If you are willing to pay hundreds, and possibly thousands, of dollars and
use glass lenses, you could get excellent AR coatings.

Panavision makes zoom lenses with many glass to air surfaces. Without good
AR coatings (better than used on spectacles) those lenses would not be
commercially viable.

Bill
-- Fermez le Bush

The color is not visible from the wearer's perspective.

I show my clients my regular coated glasses compared to an uncoated pair (same
script), demonstrating the cosmetic difference. However, when I put on the
uncoated pair, my vision seems foggy, as if the lens needs cleaning. There's
less contrast and slightly less brightness, as if someone turned down the lights
a notch. The uncoated pair feels like a cheap piece of plastic in front of my
eyes.

I prefer the improved vision of coated optics, and most of my clients (about
80%) concur.
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
 - Niels Bohr