Printable View
What is your "go-to" coating? I really don't feel like supporting Essilor as have in the past. Crizal coatings really seem to be the best (unfortunately) as I don't like SHV/EX3 or Carat Advantage/Purecoat. They all seem to leave more fingerprints and aren't as easy to clean. Any recommendations?
Crizal is all I have ever used in this office. We are well pleased with it. If I was told I had to switch I would go to Zeiss.
It should be noted that although Crizal was once among the top dogs, other coatings have improved at much faster rates.
Seiko and Hoya both beat Crizal most durablity tests, as do even many generic coatings today.
The new Seiko Super Surpass beats Crizal Avance in durability and with a 114 initial water contact angle, almost matches it in cleanability. But where it shines though is that it will keep 95% of that cleanability after 20,000 simulated cleaning cycles.
Zeiss has not released any testing data in 7+ years so rational comparisons are a challenge.
The problem today is that with both Hoya's and Essilor's AR, they are made and hard coated on so many different types of equipment now the same name coating you get from lab A is very different than the coating you get from lab B, it can be completely different. its just a factor of both those companies rapid growth.
Zeiss exerts more control over its partners and requires more frequent sampling, Seiko is only be made at the Seiko lab facility in Minnesota.
Generic house branded coatings can be very good, or very mediocre depending on the "process" (read chemicals) and hard coatings each company uses, there is no way to verify their choices or combinations are what they say. Its a crap shoot.
Ask for dip coated hardcoats, though. It will effect hardness more than brand will, spin coating is faster and cheaper so its done on 90%+ of ARs in the US but its vastly inferior.
Unfortunately, the only "tests and data" that matter are wearing them yourself and forming an opinion. Contact angles and durability numbers are shiny objects. I prefer Avance, but also test "house" coatings and have found 2 to be equal to the Avance. You'll get different answers from everyone, so really you need to try them to know.
Whats a simulated cleaning cycle? A lot of people don't know proper care, so what's a simulated cycle a lab made up matter?
I like avance/sapphire (have had on my safety glasses), but use an in house, super ex3, and purecoat daily. As mentioned above, it all depends on who/where you get the product. All 3 work great and comparably now that we have found good suppliers of each.
We use 70% spin coated and 30% dip coated AR- the spin coated is done in Crizal machine and dip in a Zeiss machine; we can tell no difference and have total satisfaction with both coatings. The dip is designed with less color hue, but both are great products and no consumer could tell the difference or care!
We do 99% non glare and as long as it does not fall off the lenses we are all good. I just had a lady back in with a 5 year old Kodak ar that looked perfect. I wish they would fall off in 2-3 years, but not 3-6 months like some products have int he past.
To the best of my knowledge ALL Essilor ARs have TD2, so they are dipcoated. So you are saying that Essilor produces less than 10% of all AR lenses sold in US?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpstick777
Even Sears Optical dip/thermalcoats their highend AR. As an optician I feel I must work with an independant lab who can provide me this service.
Edit because its relevant: optispray reviews and is it worth the AR savings?
This is a completely false statement with regard to HOYA AR coats. The equipment and process is very tightly controlled.Quote:
The problem today is that with both Hoya's and Essilor's AR, they are made and hard coated on so many different types of equipment now the same name coating you get from lab A is very different than the coating you get from lab B, it can be completely different. its just a factor of both those companies rapid growth.
Edit:
I'm surprised you find EX3 difficult to clean. It's been one of the easier to clean coatings I've had experience with, though I have to admit that it does get just as dirty as lower-end ARs. Have you found that other ARs you've mentioned are more efficient in staying clean?
Thanks everyone for the insight. I have House A/R on a few pairs (has worn out very quick) but I must say my Crizal coatings ARE much easier to clean and stay clean longer and last longer than the others.
Yes I have found Avance superior to everything (well, except Sapphire, which is gorgeous) in cleanability and staying clean. Everyone is hydro and oleo these days, but contact angle does contribute to ease of cleaning, and the anti-static is huge and poorly done in all other ARs that claim it. Though they don't claim it as a feature I find even Alize works better at resisting dust that some other "anti-static" ARs out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Browman
I have found no competition for Crizal in quality. For price and value however, there might be reason to go to other brands.
So far, only Hoya EX-3 and Crizal Sapphire have illicit end "WOWS!" From clients, after they've had the new eyewear for a month. That said, I agree that there are a lot of more than adequate ARs out there that do the job for most clients.
B
I think Crizal Avance is outstanding and sell it a lot. My latest glasses I went cheaper on the progressive(Navigator Short in poly) but used Avance. Spent more on the AR then on the progressive!
I wish Trivex came with stock Avance as well as Alize.
Another vote in favor of Crizal products. VisionSource practices also have access to Essilor's Viso line of AR coatings, which are comparable to Crizal at a discount. Avance and Sapphire are lovely, lovely coatings, but my personal favorite is Zeiss PureCoat.