 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2008Most durable AR coating for eyeglasses?
I had an el-cheapo Anti-reflective coating that was destroyed after about 6 months and exchanged the lenses for a set without AR. I was careful about cleaning - use a microfiber cloth, wash them first and the coating came off anyway. Thankfully I had warranty. Now the eyeglasses I have are most durable but without AR coating, I can see their disadvantages. In low light, AR rules, you get more clarity and brightness. My local optometrist promotes Teflon AR as the best. I just want to confirm that they are durable and won't come off after a few months. >I had an el-cheapo Anti-reflective coating that was destroyed after > about 6 months and exchanged the lenses for a set without AR. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My local optometrist promotes Teflon AR as the best. I just want to > confirm that they are durable and won't come off after a few months. Teflon coating is about the same (or slightly less) durability as other premium coatings such as Crizale Alize, Zeiss Carat Advantage, HOYA Super HiVision, and other premium lens coatings applied by the lens manufacturer. The main advantage of the Teflon lens coatings is that they are slightly better to the others in terms of having lower reflectance. But according to the Teflon Lens Coating website below, some of the other premium lens coatings I mentioned above are actually slightly tougher. http://www.solateflon.com/professionals/ecptechinfo.shtml I have Zeiss Carat Advantage and have been very satisfied with the durability. > I have Zeiss Carat Advantage and have been very satisfied with the > durability. Thanks for the reply --- sounds most interesting. Do you know if Zeiss Carat Advantage is baked on or cold-treated? I understand that the higher the temperature, the better it adheres to the glass? I wonder if my last set of AR was cold-treated (Not sure of the method, I heard possibly under UV) >> I have Zeiss Carat Advantage and have been very satisfied with the >> durability. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I wonder if my last set of AR was cold-treated (Not sure of the > method, I heard possibly under UV) The Zeiss Carat Advantage on my lens was baked on at the Zeiss plant in Germany where the lens was computer ground from scratch to my Rx (it is the custom ground Zeiss Individual progressive lens). Takes about 2 weeks to get a Zeiss Individual progressive lenses made and sent back to US (unless they have recently set up a plant in the US). There are SV completely finished lenses with high quality AR coating available from manufacturers. Any of the high end AR coats that I mentioned in my previous post are "baked on". They are a bit more durable than the Teflon, but the Teflon apparently has less reflections. Personally, with my life style, I would go for highest durability. The key is to get an AR coat from lab or plant owned by the manufacturer where they apply the AR coating. Do not even bother with AR coating applied at in in-store lab. BTW, Zeiss invented AR coating for glass camera lenses in 1935. > The key is to get an AR coat from lab or plant owned by the manufacturer > where they apply the AR coating. Do not even bother with AR coating applied > at in in-store lab. Thanks for the informative post. Looks like baked-on AR coating is the way to go vs. a dip applied coating. I wonder if the latter is what I had. > Thanks for the informative post. Looks like baked-on AR coating is the > way to go > vs. a dip applied coating. I wonder if the latter is what I had. Most likely you had a dip applied coating. You need to get a name brand lens made at a lab owned by the manufacturer who makes the lens and the AR coating. Many high end lenses only come with the factory AR coating (not even available uncoated). A high quality AR coating can add about $100 or more to the cost of a lens, with the huge markup that most retailers charge. The lens with the AR coating included seem to be a better deal. > You need to get a name brand lens made at a lab owned by the manufacturer > who makes the lens and the AR coating. Many high end lenses only come with > the factory AR coating (not even available uncoated). A high quality AR > coating can add about $100 or more to the cost of a lens, with the huge > markup that most retailers charge. The lens with the AR coating included > seem to be a better deal. My insurance can cover some of the cost of these lenses, but they are still expensive. I hear that Crizale Alize adds hydrophobic coating on top of the AR coating, making it slick and even easier to clean. Browsing the optiboard.com forum, it looks like there is no clear consensus on what's the best AR coating. Let me ask, does the glass (i.e. plastic) itself make any difference clarity-wise? With regards to the Abbe value? I have 1.64 "high index" now. > My insurance can cover some of the cost of these lenses, but they are > still expensive. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > clarity-wise? With regards to the Abbe value? I have 1.64 "high > index" now. Most of the modern high end AR coating I mentioned (including the Zeiss Carat Advantage) have a similar "easy to clean" surface. Early AR coatings were very difficult to clean without leaving streaks (if you have an old camera lens with AR coating you can attest to that). Abbe value makes a big difference in the quality of lens (clarity is probably not the best term for it, but it is not wrong either). I have never heard of a 1.64 index lens (but not saying it does not exist). The common lens indexes are below: 1.50 regular plastic 1.53 Trivex 1.59 polycarb (avoid this like the plague - lowest abbe value of any commonly dispensed lens material) 1.60 1.66 or 1.67 (depends on lens manufacturer - some are 1.66 and some 1.67) 1.70 1.74 Normally, the higher the index, the lower the abbe value. The higher the abbe value, the less chromatic aberration. The one exception is polycarb, which has the lowest abbe value of any commonly dispensed lens. Abbe value is more of an issue if you have a moderate to strong lens power. You may not notice any difference between abbe values in a low power lens (plus or minus). Most lenses are polycarb (terrible optics, but high tensile strength and high impact resistance) or 1.66/1.67. 1.60 is a good choice if you lenses will not be too thick for you. Trivex is a good replacement for polycarb were safety lenses are needed. For the best advice on lens material, please post you exact Rx here. Also, it would be good to get the exact manufacturer and lens design your optician is suggesting for you (in addition to the lens material). Often times they will not like to tell you (and some are so ignorant they don't even know), but if they don't tell you, tell them you will take your business elsewhere. > Normally, the higher the index, the lower the abbe value. The higher the > abbe value, the less chromatic aberration. The one exception is polycarb, > which has the lowest abbe value of any commonly dispensed lens. Abbe value > is more of an issue if you have a moderate to strong lens power. You may not > notice any difference between abbe values in a low power lens (plus or > minus). Interesting. Of course, I have 1.67 High-Index. I wonder if I should go to 1.60 high-index versus 1.67 to get a higher quality lense, with better view quality. Or is there not enough difference between 1.60 and 1.67? My myopia is -5.25 Diopters in both eyes. I want to get the best possible optical 'picture quality' and AR is a step in the right direction towards that. I didn't specifically notice that eliminated glare but did notice that it greatly improved view quality in twilight and at night. This only became apparent when I got a non-AR pair of lenses. Also durability of AR coating is a huge issue for me. It's not that I am rough with eyeglasses but I do tend to clean them several times per day. A poor AR coating will scratch easy and come off eventually, which is what happened to my previous pair of lenses. It did offer nice view though. > Interesting. Of course, I have 1.67 High-Index. I wonder if I should > go to 1.60 high-index versus 1.67 to get a higher quality lense, with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > which is what happened to my previous pair of lenses. It did offer > nice view though. It is a mater of aesthetics and weight. A 1.67 index lens is thinner and therefore lighter than a 1.60 index lens. On a -5.25 this will show up as edge thickness, and is a cosmetic issue with some people. But a lighter lens is also important to some people, and it "could" keep your frames from slipping off your nose as much if the lens where heavier. But a 1.60 lens will have better optical quality than a 1.67 lens, especially in terms of chromatic aberration (abbe value). Some people are more susceptible to chromatic aberration than others. Also, a 1.67 lens costs more, but sometimes it is hard to find a lens with 1.60 index material. If you get one of the premium AR coatings put on by the lens manufacturer that I already mentioned, I would not worry about AR durability. Here is an interesting discussion: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26718 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.