DOES ANYONE have experience whether one holds up better then the other as far scratch Resistance and yellowing is concerned ;?
DOES ANYONE have experience whether one holds up better then the other as far scratch Resistance and yellowing is concerned ;?
Purecoat is terrific for its anti-reflective properties but scratches easily compared to crizal. Haven't seen yellowing in either.
anyone experience the comparison of scratch resistance quality between hoya smp venus guard AND crizal sapphire with scotchgard ?
I am curious about this, also. I rarely use the Sapphire but have been told it has the same scratch resistance as Avance. I find the Avance very scratch resistant and easy to clean and keep clean.
If abused it will scratch though. My husband is a lens abuser and his do have a few scratches. I got a scratch on one pair of mine when I wiped them off on my shirt :redface:after I had been in the rain. I guess there was something on the lens and I now have a good scratch in the upper corner.
Zeiss coatings are not as durable as Crizal. However, they are still way better than an uncoated cr39 lens, which is to say if they get scratched, blame the consumer (gasp).
Zeiss was never a hot favourite in India. And they were infamous for palying around with their coatings and even when I worked for them there were numerous issues of coating peels offs. I am not sure about the other markets.
the most preferd choice here being Crizal A2. Well, we do not have much choice. So settle in for whats available.
Hoya smp venus guard ,claims thier lenses to be among highest on bayer abrasion test ;
does anyone have access to see test comparison between hoya smp venus guard AND essilor crizal sapphire with scotchguard protector ?? that should reveal once for eve'r the answer to the question which lens is the one' that i can wear without compromising all the quality of lens BY SCRATCHES
My experience has been that Crizal does hold better for Scratches, but have had many craze from heat fluctuation. Purecoat on the other hand may scratch a little easier, if not handeled properly, but has never crazed. I personally would rather deal with a few scratches than deal with a crazed lens.
Just my 2 cents.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR BIT OF INFORMATION ;I guess that you haven't experienced in compare to zeiss pure coat ; HOYA SMP VENUS GUARD /OR AND NIKKEN SEE COAT and as you said not just scratch resistance ',but more important ,whether coat may peel over time by temperature fluctuation:
so you say about the issue of coat peel ;with crizal ;while the other poster said the same for zeiss ;so am still out there to find something else !
Axe any of the above companies, they will tell you why thiers is better than thier compeditors.
Chip
Quote:
My experience has been that Crizal does hold better for Scratches, but have had many craze from heat fluctuation. Purecoat on the other hand may scratch a little easier, if not handeled properly, but has never crazed. I personally would rather deal with a few scratches than deal with a crazed lens.
Just my 2 cents.
You may not mind a few scratches on your AR coated lenses but consider this.
A deep scratch on an AR coated lens will allow moisture to get between the AR coating and the lens substrate. That’s one of the reasons AR coating will craze.
Since Essilor and to a lesser extent Zeiss dominate the retail and online markets you might consider other options. I strongly believe if Walmart, Lenscrafters, FramesDirect, or whoever have it - I don’t need it and I dont want it. Other options for equal or better products are available if you look around.
The Bayer Test is good, but only measures initial hardness. The harder a coating the more likely it is to craze, so a softer coating can in many cases last longer. The coating and the material both have to flex with temp changes the same, or crack! We broke a layer. A harder coating may also transmit damage to the base material, I see a lot of AR on poly that look scratched, but really the poly is dented under the AR. The best AR won't only resist impact, they will absorb and transfer that energy to something beside the base layer. Hardness is good, but its not the end all. The Colts RLS test uses real life temperature extremes, so often hard AR's don't come out as well. We need to look at other questions too.
Neither Essilor nor Hoya has not release any Colt's RLS data for a long time, although they are getting their lenses tested. I found testing data published in marketing materials, but its in Polish, Finish, Italian, Thai, Slovakian and Turkish (thank goodness for Google Translate). In every case the numbers are not consistent and are all over the map, not enough be useful.
For example, if you look at Hoya websites all over the world and compare the Spec. Gravity of their 1.70, every website has a different number.
A few years ago I did collect a lot of real Colts RLS testing results, and here is where everything fell from BEST to WORST (from memory):
Hoya Super-Hivision, Seiko Surpass, Crizal Avance wSGP, Leybold, Alize, Carat Advantage, Hi-Vision, i-Coat, Carat, Crizal.
Mind you, all of these have improved since then, so its just a snap shot of late 2009. Thanks to Zeiss, Seiko, Leybold and iCoat for giving me real Colts Data without resorting to nefarious means (I was given access, but not rights to publish, so I can't do more than this).
Good stuff Sharpstick!
Thanks for posting!
while searching for alternatives to zeiss and crizal ;looking into hoya ;found varios version on which is the most updated coating at hoya ;either as said venusguard OR shv-ex3 OR high vision long life ???
may one of these be the answer to peel and scratch problems at any other lens ??????????