Anti-Reflective Test Results

[sharpstick777]

I could not find this information all in one place, so my hope is to gather A/R test information on all the popular A/R's in one place for comparison.

I will presume that Colts Lab Real Life Simulation Test is the best all around test for A/R performance (yes, no test is perfect). I have been able to gather this test data on a couple of Anti-Reflectives, but hope to include more with your help. Most of the information I have found is from marketing material that is often incomplete. I am hoping to get better and more complete data too.

Here is info on the test from Colts: http://www.colts-laboratories.com/re..._test_glos.pdf

A score of 5.0 is considered perfect.

Zeiss Carat Advantage: 4.21
Lens Material unspecified
Source: Marketing Material

Seiko Surpass ECP: 4.67
Lens Material: CR-39
Source: Colts Data Sheet

Crizal: 3.67
Lens Material Unspecified
Source: Marketing Material

Crizal Avance W/ Scotch Guard Protector: 4.76
Source: Marketing Material
Lens Material unspecified
Please add your data if you have it from the Colt's RLS Test.

[au]

Thanks Sharpstick777,

It is very interesting.

:cheers:

[Chris Ryser]

Lens Material unspecified ......................Source: Marketing Material

I love test's done by whoever that are done with and on unspecified materials and the source is marketing material, which is advertising.

Furthermore how valid can they be when these products are made on a daily basis in hundreds of different locations by hundreds or different technicians on hundreds of different coating machines world wide.

Also it was stated on a recent post on OptiBoard by Georg Mayer of Rodenstock that the quality of an AR coating is much depending on the technicians doing them.

When a manufacturer advertises test results. the lenses used for such test's have been made specially, and made for this purpose as careful and good as they can make them. They have not been tested at random, or this would have been mentioned.

I would discount such tests as they do not represent your run of the mill, daily product as you receive from your local lab with a brand name tagged to it..

[sharpstick777]

I love test's done by whoever that are done with and on unspecified materials and the source is marketing material, which is advertising.

Furthermore how valid can they be when these products are made on a daily basis in hundreds of different locations by hundreds or different technicians on hundreds of different coating machines world wide.

Also it was stated on a recent post on OptiBoard by Georg Mayer of Rodenstock that the quality of an AR coating is much depending on the technicians doing them.

When a manufacturer advertises test results. the lenses used for such test's have been made specially, and made for this purpose as careful and good as they can make them. They have not been tested at random, or this would have been mentioned.

I would discount such tests as they do not represent your run of the mill, daily product as you receive from your local lab with a brand name tagged to it..

I would agree Chris that tests are fraught with potential bias, but I would disagree that they are not valuable. If we don't have and use test results then we are left with only pure speculation and endless fanboy threads on Optiboard praising one product over another with no scientific or rational basis.

Lets assume then that all lenses submitted to Colts represent a best sample made by the best technicians. If Georg was correct then all results would be identical. They are not. Some aspect of the design, chemistry, or process of the coating is at work in the difference between them. That is why I was hoping to get data from the exact same test.

[Chris Ryser]

That is why I was hoping to get data from the exact same test.

sharpstick...................Companies using a professional testing lab, are paying for the services and have a proprietary right to the results.
Most probably they will not part with such results unless you would sign a non disclosure document that will make you shut up for at least 5 years.

Another way you could go would be through a university in your area. Get a physics professor interested who would conduct the same tests as class project which then could be come public knowledge according to arrangement.

[sharpstick777]

sharpstick...................Companies using a professional testing lab, are paying for the services and have a proprietary right to the results. Most probably they will not part with such results unless you would sign a non disclosure document that will make you shut up for at least 5 years.

Another way you could go would be through a university in your area. Get a physics professor interested who would conduct the same tests as class project which then could be come public knowledge according to arrangement.

That would work Chris but I don't know any physics professors.

Companies do pay the for the testing, but I believe they do so because they want to release the results in marketing. I found a few examples in my file drawer. Seiko was kind enough to share their raw data without an NDA, and maybe some of the corporate folks on these boards will do so as well.

Lee with iCoat reads these boards, and I bet Georg has a drawer full of Colts test results he has done on competitors lenses. Its to their advantage if they have a good product to make the results public. If they don't, I could assume their numbers are not very good.

[Chris Ryser]

Its to their advantage if they have a good product to make the results public. If they don't, I could assume their numbers are not very good.

Shapstick........................don't forget that AR exists since the 1930s when it was first applied on cameras and telescopes and Microscopes and other instruments lenses ever since.

On ophthalmic lenses Europe has been leading in AR coatings for a much longer time than it is the case in North America and all the optical companies have their own testing labs and standards, that might not totally correspond with an independent lab in the USA.

Also in Europe advertising is under control of some advertising laws that prohibit unfair advertising. That means you can not say that "my product is better than yours" or "performs better than yours".

Why dont you sen Georg a PM and ask him privately. I happen to know that he is on holidays right now but should be back in a week or two. Maybe he can solve your questions.

[Chris Ryser]

deleted as double post

[Barry Santini]

When it comes to AR coating knowledge, Georg Mayer of Rodenstock should know.

He was head of Rodenstock AR production and QC for many years.


FWIW

Barry

[Georg Mayer]

Back from leave and catching up......

There is no full and final answer to the relation of test results and real life performance, it's more an ongoing process which we improve all the time.

In my opinion Colts have done a tremendous job to give the US ophthalmic market a kind of yardstick and awarness of AR/HC quality during the past years. This on it's own, despite the uncertainty of pre-selected lenses and other issues mentioned, has done more for the quality of AR coatings than having no standardised AR test facility in the years before.

You can not test an AR/HC coating on a lens without damaging it in the process of testing. Therefore the basis of all testing is the correlation between the tested lens and the ability to reproduce this in production on a daily basis. That explains the relation and importance of the consistancy and workmanship of the coating lab to quality.

We have nothing more than those tests (..real life simulations...), and we are certainly guided by them.
But you have to keep an eye on the source of the information and be aware of the fact that this is just a snapshot of the quality of a particular batch of lenses tested then, the rest is up to your AR Lab.

Georg Mayer
Rodenstock - Munich