Crizal AR Question

For those of you using Crizal; is it really a better coating and if so, in what ways?

Historically, we have used the in house coating of our lab. They have a coating that they claim is as good as Crizal and since it's in house, the turn around time is faster.
I work for two people. One is very loyal to the lab, the other is more concerned about the bottom line and the better product. I don't know enough about Crizal to fairly judge.
Also, if anyone is selling Crizal as well as another type of AR, how do you describe Crizal as the "superior" AR without making the "normal" AR sound like junk. I don't like to offer an "inferior" product to anyone.
As usual, they look to me for the info and I just don't always have it, that's why I love this board, 'cause someone here usually does!!

I have seen the "seven layer in~house 2 year warranted" and the crizal turn to junk in much less than one year.

Chip

[This message has been edited by chip anderson (edited 02-22-2001).]

I have been using Crizal for 2 years now. I absolutely find it to be the best A/R I have ever used. I personally use it and it is the easiest A/R to clean I have ever seen. I do not use anything else on my lenses.

Chip, learn how to spell. :0)

Crizal is teriffic! So is Reflection Free NP and Zeiss (Super ET and Gold). If I feel that the wearer is going to be tough on their lenses, I default to Crizal, mainly because of what I've read. But, I honestly haven't had problems with any of the above. We really stick to big name brand products here and I've never tried any "house" AR so I really couldn't compare.
cj

We have been doing Crizal for a bit over two years, and on jobs that crizal can't be done on, we use Zeiss ET. About 90% of our jobs are Crizal orders. I've never seen a delamination problem with crizal, and they warranty it for scratching. it is easy to clean, and quite durable.

Disclaimers. AR Council member. Crizal "Lab of the Year" award. Zeiss AR in-house.

Re: good experiences over the last couple years with Crizal or others. For the most part, ALL AR coatings are substantially better now than even 2 years ago. Satis, Balzer-Leybolt, Denton, Pentax, Zeiss, UTMC, R/F, Crizal, and others (who did I offend by leaving their name off?) are all good technologies; the diference is in the execution. Again, a reminder: UV attenuating dyes are not good for AR coatings.

Re: Crizal being superior. ANY AR coating applied over a hardcoat will perform better than when applied to an uncoated (naked-opps, can I say that?) lens. The exception to that statement obviously is glass; still the best substrate for an AR coating. Most premium lenses have a factory hardcoat on the front that has been optimized for an AR coating so the front is not necessarily an issue.

Most labs DO Not apply a backside coating unless requested (we do automatically). This is somewhat negated by the fact that the cc side is typically not subjected to the abuse of the cx side. Many/most regular CR-39 lenses are not hardcoated at all before AR coating (we use hardcoated lenses automatically). Therefore, a process--like Crizal, UTMC, the upcoming Zeiss Foundation process, or a factory coated front with a lab coated back--with a front and backside hardcoat optimized for AR will be superior to an uncoated lens.

You will be well served to always request your lab, or even some independent AR coaters, to apply/use lenses that have been hardcoated prior to AR coating.

Jim, yes you did forget one very important
player in the AR arena...Hoya. I would stack their HIVISION coating up against Crizal or anyone else any day of the week and keep it there for 2 years or more. (Of course, my disclaimer is that I am a Hoya rep and I couldn't let your omission of us go.)

Crizal is great if your tough on your lenses, but the most expensive. We use Ziess most of the time or optima. Ziess is coming out with a new AR coating that is supposed to way out preform Crizal in everyway. Should be out within the next couple of months...

Crizal is an excellent product. I also use the Hoya progressives and use the Hoya HiVision A/R on them and its just as good, if not better.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by specs13:
Crizal is an excellent product. I also use the Hoya progressives and use the Hoya HiVision A/R on them and its just as good, if not better.

---

WOOOHOOOO! Love hearing that Hoya stuff!! (for those who don't know I work for a Hoya lab) One of the advantages Hoya HiVision has over Crizal, UTMC, and Zeiss (which we also do on site and is damn good!) is the fact that each index of refraction has its own coating (substrate matching properties) which increases adhesion even more because the coatings and the lens expand and contract at the same rate. The combo of the AR, the SSR2 and the cushion coat is so strong that you can surface the 1.71 to a 1.0 center thickness and still have it pass the drop ball test. that is pretty tough stuff!!

hi all, Steve was kind enough to straighten me out regarding SMP and AR and I thought I would post it so everyone can know and before one of you old timers puts me in my place :)

I saw your note on the index matching features of the Hoya AR coating. To
quote:

"....is the fact that each index of refraction has its own coating
(substrate matching properties) which increases adhesion even more because
the coatings and the lens expand and contract at the same rate."

Just thought I'd let you know that while matching indices can be important
for other reasons, it has nothing at all to do with the lens and coating
expansion coefficients and even less affect on adhesion.

What index-matching does do is eliminate 'Newton rings' - the rainbow like
effect you see on many high index and polycarbonate lenses that have hard
coatings with an index of refraction substantially different from the
substrate.

Just thought you should know before someone points this out to you publicly.

Best regards,

Steve
OptiBoard Webmaster

thanks Steve! I would rather have egg on my face in front of you guys than out there in my accounts

Sorry Hoya-folk. I wear a Hoya-wide w/AR and love it. Only about 6 months now so can't compare to others for longivity but it should be an excellent coating.

Karen, just to add to Steve's note. Passing a drop ball test at 1.0 also has NOTHING to do with toughness. In fact, a soft coating probably will pass drop ball easier than a hard coat cause of the forces involved.

I have been wearing a pair of Hoya Wide with HiVision AR for over 6 months now. I have to say it is probably the best AR coating I have ever had. I have tried them all, in house coatings, Zeiss, UTMC and Reflection Free. The HiVision AR is easy to clean and so far scratch free!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim G:

Karen, just to add to Steve's note. Passing a drop ball test at 1.0 also has NOTHING to do with toughness. In fact, a soft coating probably will pass drop ball easier than a hard coat cause of the forces involved.

---

Thanks Jim! - I am not sure if I am just being obtuse (which is VERY likely) or that I just don't truly understand the comcept but it seems to me that passing the test at 1.0 would mean the lens is more resilient (or tough) Here is where the wisdom of you guys that have been around a while comes in handy. Would you say that is true? and if not, could you please explain why so that I can actually know what I am talking about :) thanks!!

Karen, for the record, and rather simplistically (if anyone wants more info, please let me know). When a lens is impacted, the lens compresses with the majority of the energy being transferred to the backside of the lens. The coatings on the backside therefore become more important to impact resistance than the front. A softer--and therefore more flexible--coating will bend and dissipate the energy laterally. A harder--and more brittle--coating does not compress thus resulting in breakage.

Our in-house tests have shown that certain combinations of lens materials, hard coats and AR coatings will result in a lens that will not consistently pass drop-ball. We have not tested the Hoya 1.71 but I would expect it to pass.

My two cents.

I have Crizal and I haven't had a spot of trouble with it.

I have just recently gotten Crizal on my new set of glasses and the standard AR that I've had on my previous glasses doesn't even compare! The Crizal is extremely easy to clean, it doesn't smudge and smear like standard AR. I am also impressed by the scratch resistance of the coating and it's ability to repel dust and dirt. I highly doubt that I wil be using a standard in-house AR again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadHouseBlues

I have just recently gotten Crizal on my new set of glasses and the standard AR that I've had on my previous glasses doesn't even compare! The Crizal is extremely easy to clean, it doesn't smudge and smear like standard AR. I am also impressed by the scratch resistance of the coating and it's ability to repel dust and dirt. I highly doubt that I wil be using a standard in-house AR again!

---

8 years 1 month & 7 days! That has got to be a record for digging up a dead thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Himyope

...if anyone is selling Crizal as well as another type of AR, how do you describe Crizal as the "superior" AR without making the "normal" AR sound like junk. I don't like to offer an "inferior" product to anyone.

---

The Crizal is great, and honestly it is the only AR we really sell. We offer the Zeis Carat, SharpView, and a generic lab coat also, more to deal with availability issues we've run into as opposed to offering other price options. The newest Crizal product, the Crizal Avance is very easily cleaned- older Crizal products were like grease magnets for some patients, and using that focus point we've been able to change many people's minds about AR. Not only is it easily cleaned but the clarity it provides is pretty great also. Our selling points to patients on how this product is superior is that the coating is intergrated into the lenses, cleans easily, and can help vision by decreasing glare.

The key, I feel, in informing patients about AR options as to not make them feel that they must get the higher end product otherwise they are getting garbage is letting them know that AR period is better that no AR. If they enjoy a less exspensive lower quality AR then perhaps eventually they will make the investment and go with a better product next time they fill their Rx and be even more satisfied with their lenses.

And just a point of clarification, our optical doesn't try to sell the Crizal because it is the most exspensive in an attempt to bleed our patients of their last dime. We sell the Crizal at under $90- with it's 2 year warranty and optimal features our patients are getting a screaming deal. Our motivation being that we want people to be able to get the best without having to pay too much and without having to drive the considerable distance (we are located in a rural community) to a Shopko, Walmart, or Lenscrafters to pay the same amount (or less in most cases) and recieve a considerably less superior product. :D

This thread is a dinosaur from the times when any consumer could come on OptiBoard and glorify the Crzal's and Valiluxes. I always thought some of the large corporations had hired an army of consumers to push their goodies...............

03-08-2001 11:59 AM

:bbg: :bbg: :bbg:

Were you that paranoid in 2001??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bradmain

Jim, yes you did forget one very important
player in the AR arena...Hoya. I would stack their HIVISION coating up against Crizal or anyone else any day of the week and keep it there for 2 years or more. (Of course, my disclaimer is that I am a Hoya rep and I couldn't let your omission of us go.)

---

I would agree that Super Hi-Vision is more scratch resistant than Crizal, but I prefer Crizal's lower residual color and higher cleanability. I wear both but I can tell when I hav SHV on by how dirty they get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hcjilson

Were you that paranoid in 2001??

---

.........Can't remember..................:hammer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharpstick777

I would agree that Super Hi-Vision is more scratch resistant than Crizal, but I prefer Crizal's lower residual color and higher cleanability. I wear both but I can tell when I hav SHV on by how dirty they get.

---

and now that Forte is on the market, I am sure that it is equal to the scratch resistance of Super Hi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob_f_aboc

8 years 1 month & 7 days! That has got to be a record for digging up a dead thread.

---

Hey blame it on google not me!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharpstick777

I would agree that Super Hi-Vision is more scratch resistant than Crizal, but I prefer Crizal's lower residual color and higher cleanability. I wear both but I can tell when I hav SHV on by how dirty they get.

---

The scratch resistance (sr) of Crizal Avance has recently been improved. It is twice as scratch resistant as the Alize. I believe that it is as sr as Super Hi-Vision now, if not more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharpstick777

I would agree that Super Hi-Vision is more scratch resistant than Crizal, but I prefer Crizal's lower residual color and higher cleanability. I wear both but I can tell when I hav SHV on by how dirty they get.

---

Sharpstick et al,

I hope all you AR fans are aware of the fact that AR treated lenses don't get any dirtier than clear lenses. They only SHOW it. This is a selling point that is often missed.

Actually, many of the best AR lenses now include hydro/oliophobic properties that do indeed make them far easier to clean and to keep clean - especially when compared to a non A/R lens. Some also employ different technologies to minimize static attraction of particulates etc. as well. I've never seen ANY base lens do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hcjilson

Sharpstick et al,

I hope all you AR fans are aware of the fact that AR treated lenses don't get any dirtier than clear lenses. They only SHOW it. This is a selling point that is often missed.

---

I know this is commonly said, but I don't know if I completely believe it.

There is a real difference in how clean Crizal Avance lenses stay compared to any other AR I have worn. They also are extremely easy to clean, I just rinse with water. I have worn AR lenses since 1986 so I have had over 40 pairs of AR glasses.

Love Crizal. I have a pair in crizal Alize and another pair with Crizal Avance. I love the avance one more but they are both great. A bit costly. It is much easier to clean!. I have to take my Crizal lens coated glasses to the theater. It is a must!

When weighing in on costs vs product and of coarse the lab you are using, I have found I Coats stainless too be superior to that of Crizal and at a much more attractive price. DEL has a wonderful in-house AR, which I have been using for close to seven years; admittingly not as oliophobic as some of the higher end crizal products but at less than half the price. I haven't had a complaint from any of my patients. In my opinion, if your current lab is doing the work at an exceptable level and you have no desire to change, talk to their lab rep and have them bring in a sample of the AR's they offer for the entire staff to examine.