Clear A/R .....

[FVCCHRIS]

Tried to search this topic w/o results. I have sampled a product from Optima-- their "color free" A/R. They only offer it in S.V. stock lenses(that I know of). Anyone know of a comparable product available on surfaced lenses?? Thanks, Chris.

[Jacqui]

Try the Zeiss Ice Clear coating from Laramy-K. http://www.laramyk.com/products/coat...r-coating.html

[Mr. Finney]

Interesting. Jacqui, have you used that a/r?

[Jacqui]

Only once when it first came out. Nice stuff.

[Mr. Finney]

Compares to......?

And is it as colorless as Optima's Color Free?

[Jacqui]

I think it compares to Carat Advantage. I have never seen the Optima.

[Mr. Finney]

Thanks, I'll have to give it a try. Gotta open an account first though, lol! But I like Advantage, and I really like the Optima a/r, so I should like Ice too.

[Uilleann]

All the Zeiss Carat A/R's we ever got were a very visible (and nasty to our eye) blue cast. Resolution used to offer some "color free" version of A/R lenses, and the Crizal Avancé is not bad as well (though admittedly it is slightly more green now since the 'upgrade' earlier this year.)

It's always tough to tell just how colorless a lens will be over the long haul - and generally takes a good few months of use to know just how well they will be concerning consistency.

[thep]

Thanks Jacqui, BUT
ICE is nice. IT IS NOT Zeiss

ICE (Incredibly Clear Eyewear) is an in house formulation. You can check out the benefits on our web site. The process does include a thermal cure hard coat and B12 technology.

To be perfectly clear, once again, this is NOT a Zeiss product.

[FVCCHRIS]

Thanks Jacqui and all.... I will investigate tomorrow.

[misty johnston]

Originally Posted by FVCCHRIS

Thanks Jacqui and all.... I will investigate tomorrow.

We offer a colorless AR on surfaced lenses at our lab - give me a call. It's not Zeiss either. I will even mail you a sample to check out first before you set up an account with us if you want to provide it.

[Chris Ryser]

Originally Posted by thep

BUT ICE is nice. IT IS NOT Zeiss
ICE (Incredibly Clear Eyewear) is an in house formulation. You can check out the benefits on our web site. The process does include a thermal cure hard coat and B12 technology.

To be perfectly clear, once again, this is NOT a Zeiss product.

I just love this last sentence...............having something nice that is not Zeiss nor Essilor.......................maybe at some point we can clear up the brainwash advertising by the large corporations and retailers will smarten up that some good other product might be as attractive than the glorified ones.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Originally Posted by FVCCHRIS

Tried to search this topic w/o results. I have sampled a product from Optima-- their "color free" A/R. They only offer it in S.V. stock lenses(that I know of). Anyone know of a comparable product available on surfaced lenses?? Thanks, Chris.

Sure, it looks nice. BUT... in their original advertising for it (don't know if they've changed it or not) they stated that it was VERY important to increase the transmittance and even a 0.1% improvement was a very big deal. Then they went on to state that theirs transmitted over 98%. Now, given that most others go over 99%, you would think that having one that was a full percentage point more clear would be a super huge advantage, but their ads never mentioned that. And they never compared theirs to others as far as abrasion resistance or light transmittance.
So it's grain of salt time on their claims.

[opticianbart]

Originally Posted by DragonLensmanWV

So it's grain of salt time on their claims.

so you want to see what salt would do to their lenses?

[Mr. Finney]

I haven't been super impressed with the durability of the Optima lens compared to the others we use (I generally only use the so-called "premiums"), cleanability seems good, but I love the lack of noticeable residual color cast. 8-12% more light transmittance (compared to a non-coated lens) is noticeable, but I'm not sure that 1% would be.

[FVCCHRIS]

Originally Posted by Mr. Finney

I haven't been super impressed with the durability of the Optima lens compared to the others we use (I generally only use the so-called "premiums"), cleanability seems good, but I love the lack of noticeable residual color cast. 8-12% more light transmittance (compared to a non-coated lens) is noticeable, but I'm not sure that 1% would be.

That is good to know. There is more than "looks" to consider. We have an iron clad 2 year warranty on almost everything here. An "improved/different" reflex color is worthless to me if they start showing up 6 months later with trouble.

[thep]

And you think we would put 20 years of reputation on the line for "different"? Not at Laramy-K.

[everythingeyes]

Duratuff clear.
I believe Brother's optical Lab offers Lifetime warranty.

[Georg Mayer]

The concept is quite old and was introduced by an Italian vacuum manufacturer, they called it "Achromatic AR" (No-Color-AR), in the 70's.

The idea is good, but there are issues:

1) It is nearly impossible to maintain a perfect color balance R-G-B in a 1:1:1 ratio, necessary to create a non-color residual reflection, in manufacturing. As a consequence of this any non color AR will bounce from lens to lens / run to run / day to day from one pale color hue to another pale color hue.

2) Customers are used to see a distinctive color when they pay for their AR, now they see no color, but still a (lower intensity) residual clear reflection (as uncoated ?). Try to explain this.....

3) In a colorless AR a fingerprint adds an additional layer, thus the fingerprint will not only show up (bad enough) but will also have a different color to its colorless surrounding.

Again, from an optical engineering point of view a noble concept, but since it was established it would not gain any significant market advantage versus the traditional residual color ARs.

Clear views,

Georg Mayer

Better Best then Biggest

[Barry Santini]

Originally Posted by Georg Mayer

The concept is quite old and was introduced by an Italian vacuum manufacturer, they called it "Achromatic AR" (No-Color-AR), in the 70's.

The idea is good, but there are issues:

1) It is nearly impossible to maintain a perfect color balance R-G-B in a 1:1:1 ratio, necessary to create a non-color residual reflection, in manufacturing. As a consequence of this any non color AR will bounce from lens to lens / run to run / day to day from one pale color hue to another pale color hue.

2) Customers are used to see a distinctive color when they pay for their AR, now they see no color, but still a (lower intensity) residual clear reflection (as uncoated ?). Try to explain this.....

3) In a colorless AR a fingerprint adds an additional layer, thus the fingerprint will not only show up (bad enough) but will also have a different color to its colorless surrounding.

Again, from an optical engineering point of view a noble concept, but since it was established it would not gain any significant market advantage versus the traditional residual color ARs.

Clear views,

Georg Mayer

Better Best then Biggest

All the points Georg has raised I have personally experienced, especially #2.

FWIW

Barry

[AR Guy]

I would like to "clear" up a few points with some data of what it taking place with the "clear or colorless AR" in the market today.

First, clear or colorless has been attempted several times in the US and has not had success in the past due in part to the lack of education of the consumer to AR in general. The thought process in the past was that the consumer needed to see a color on the lens so that he/she would see that they had purchased a product (no smoke and mirrors).

Second, the resurgence of the colorless AR in the US actually came from across the pond in Europe. As everyone knows, they are much more educated in AR at the consumer level (70 plus % market penetration) than we are in the US. Because colorless AR was launched by one of the largest retail chains in Europe, it has caught on quickly there and was and may still be the fastest growing new market segment in AR.

Third, colorless is more difficult to achieve than a colored AR. In the past, the attempts that were made were to tying together lower residual reflection with no color. In order to "hold" a colorless AR in today's market, a sacrifice was made in transmission. The higher in reflection we go (to a certain degree) the easier it is to maintain balance in the color spectrum. Most colorless AR's have a lower transmission level (98.0-98.4 percent) than a comparable Green AR (98.3-99 percent).

Fourth, if you combine dip hardcoating to the mix we can stabilize the refractive index across the majority of lenses to give the coating a better base and maintain the lack of color. This, of course, does not compensate for major index shifts to high index but an additional AR process specific to these indexes can compensate.

Lastly, the Colorless AR that we have provided to a number of labs around the country have extremely high performance characteristics. Scratch resistance, adhesion, longevity, anti-static, Oleophobic and fingerprint removal all perform to the highest standards. The coating is also approved at the highest reimbursement level "D".

All the best,

[Georg Mayer]

Very true and competent spoken, can agree to every point.
Interesting here is the fact that in order to stabilize the colorless AR in production you have to compromise the level of reduction of reflections, thus the effectivness of the product.

This is something I learned the hard way from my customers then, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. i.e. an AR coating should be cutting out reflection as good as possible. If performance is better in a color type AR then what is this about ? Let the market decide.

BTW, hardness, olephobic, antistatic and other coating package features have no functional link to the color or non-color of the AR package.

Low reflections

Georg Mayer

[AR Guy]

Originally Posted by Georg Mayer

Very true and competent spoken, can agree to every point.
Interesting here is the fact that in order to stabilize the colorless AR in production you have to compromise the level of reduction of reflections, thus the effectivness of the product.

This is something I learned the hard way from my customers then, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. i.e. an AR coating should be cutting out reflection as good as possible. If performance is better in a color type AR then what is this about ? Let the market decide.

BTW, hardness, olephobic, antistatic and other coating package features have no functional link to the color or non-color of the AR package.

Low reflections

Georg Mayer

You seem to be someone familiar with AR and because of that you realize that in the US at least, the AR is sold more on its cosmetics than on its performance characteristics (funny but true). We both know that is the way it is. If I could, all AR would be a magenta color like Japan and our transmission would be nearly 100% but no one here likes that color (except J&J some years ago).

Most commercially available AR in the US is running between .8-1.2% reflection by surface and therefore is not a very hard target. The sacrifice of .2% transmission overall for the cosmetic benefit of no residual reflection seems to be something most are willing to give.

(BTW) I spoke of the characteristics of that particular coating because it was referenced several times in the dialogue. We designed the colorless AR stacks referenced in the discussion except Optima.

Thanks for the great dialogue Georg!

[For-Life]

Originally Posted by AR Guy

You seem to be someone familiar with AR and because of that you realize that in the US at least, the AR is sold more on its cosmetics than on its performance characteristics (funny but true). We both know that is the way it is. If I could, all AR would be a magenta color like Japan and our transmission would be nearly 100% but no one here likes that color (except J&J some years ago).

Most commercially available AR in the US is running between .8-1.2% reflection by surface and therefore is not a very hard target. The sacrifice of .2% transmission overall for the cosmetic benefit of no residual reflection seems to be something most are willing to give.

(BTW) I spoke of the characteristics of that particular coating because it was referenced several times in the dialogue. We designed the colorless AR stacks referenced in the discussion except Optima.

Thanks for the great dialogue Georg!

Maybe this is why the US has a lower rate of AR sales than other nations. Because the focus is cosmetic, not visual. I know that once I focused on the visual impact, my AR sales increased dramatically.