Hoya i.d.: My new, NEW Favourite!!!!!

[xiaowei]

Rinselberg -

When the abbe value of the coating is not matched to the abbe value of the lens material you see a 'rainbow' effect on the surface of the lens. Chromatic aberration to a degree. You don't get this with Hoya products.

Optigrlll, Hi,

Hmmm, just curious, from the viewpoint of theoretical optics I cannot understand this. Any thin coating that does not match the refractive index of the lens substrate should only cause a very slight parallel offset (on the order of the coating thickness, i.e. sub µm) of any refracted ray, which will cause NO change in the perceived image.

I know that issue has come up before in this board that AR coatings might influence the (perceived) Abbe. Is there any (written) source for this?

Sincerely

XW

[rinselberg]

One of the most important steps in creating a durable and efficient AR lens coating is called "substrate matching." Knowing that each lens material has its own unique characteristics - how much it flexes upon impact, how porous its surface is, how well it bonds to certain thin films, etc. - it makes sense that the lens material (the substrate) should be matched with an ideal hard coat and an ideal anti-reflective treatment.

This is exactly what quality AR lens coaters do. This is why you must tell them which lens material you are sending them when you ship a lens to be anti-reflective coated. Knowing this information allows them to utilize the best hard coating and AR formulation for that specific material.

If the index of the coating doesn’t match the index of the lens, fringe interference (color rings) occurs. This optical phenomenon can reduce the quality of vision for the wearer. Technically speaking, the index of refraction of the AR layer (or film) must be equal to the square root of the index of the material being coated. This relationship is derived from reflection factors between air and the film, and between the film and the lens.

The interference patterns or color rings are also known as "Newton's rings". Since the interference patterns would be a kind of chromatic aberration, I think that is why the term "Abbe" has been used in this context - a "perceived" degradation in the Abbe value - but caused by the index mismatch between the lens and the AR, and not by the intrinsic Abbe value of the lens material itself.

I don't know how this index matching works out when there are multiple layers of coating - an AR stack - which is the most common way it's done.

Source: http://www.firstvisionmedia.com/uww/...r/tech_ar.html

[xiaowei]

The interference patterns or color rings are also known as "Newton's Rings" or sometimes, "Newton Rings".

I don't know how this index matching works out when there are multiple layers of coating - an AR stack - which is the most common way it's done.

Source: http://www.firstvisionmedia.com/uww/...r/tech_ar.html

Hi,

all true, I have done calculations of multilayer coatings myself, then you basically get complicated sums of all the possible reflection paths inside the coating to get an "effective refractive index" so to speak. Actually, any high AR coatings needs this, because there are simply no single materials that have a refractive index that is the geometric mean of air and glass as you would need it.

HOWEVER, all this interference stuff might cause a slight tinting of the passing light (actually must be the complemetary color of the slight purple or greenish tint you see in reflection), BUT it should NOT cause any lateral spreading of the rays as you get with dispersion due to low Abbe values.

XW

P.S. Rinselberg, what the .... are you doing at that time on the internet!? What is your local time? Impressive!!;)

[rinselberg]

Hi,

all true, I have done calculations of multilayer coatings myself, then you basically get complicated sums of all the possible reflection paths inside the coating to get an "effective refractive index" so to speak. Actually, any high AR coatings needs this, because there are simply no single materials that have a refractive index that is the geometric mean of air and glass as you would need it.

HOWEVER, all this interference stuff might cause a slight tinting of the passing light (actually must be the complemetary color of the slight purple or greenish tint you see in reflection), BUT it should NOT cause any lateral spreading of the rays as you get with dispersion due to low Abbe values.

XW

P.S. Rinselberg, what the .... are you doing at that time on the internet!? What is your local time? Impressive!!;)

Well, I'm getting in over my head, but I think if the AR is not index matched close enough to the lens, it does look like a chromatic aberration or a dispersion of the rays, and not just a slight tinting of the light - but that is as far as I can go with this.

Just think rinselberg 24/7 ...

[rinselberg]

Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth century mathematician and physicist, was one of the first scientists to study interference phenomena. In his famous Newton's rings experiment, he placed a convex lens of large curvature on a flat glass plate and applied pressure to hold the lens and glass plate together. When he viewed them through reflected sunlight, he observed a series of concentric light and dark colored bands similar to those illustrated (image). Although Newton recognized that the rings indicated the presence of some degree of periodicity in light, which would seem to suggest a wave theory, he primarily regarded light as a stream of particles, a commonly held opinion at the time.



The rings occurred in Newton's experiment because of a thin layer of air that existed between the curved convex and flat glass surfaces. Light reflected from the top and bottom surfaces of the glass combined, producing interference patterns that appeared as the colored rings. Today, the basic principle of Newton's experiment is often used by lens manufacturers to test the uniformity of large polished surfaces.

Credit: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/l...erference.html

[xiaowei]

<snip>

The rings occurred in Newton's experiment because of a thin layer of air that existed between the curved convex and flat glass surfaces. Light reflected from the top and bottom surfaces of the glass combined, producing interference patterns that appeared as the colored rings. Today, the basic principle of Newton's experiment is often used by lens manufacturers to test the uniformity of large polished surfaces.

Credit: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/l...erference.html

Hi again

Busy, busy, but this all has nothing related to the "fringing" or "seams" for rays resp. images of contrasty edges passing through the lens interface. Yes, we still do these tests here too some times when making lenses (for microscopes etc.), while most the testing is now verified with laser interferometers that give numerical values.

And yes, interference is at work with AR coatings, but that´s just what they are made for (no side effect). Actually you could say, a (single) Ar coating has just the right *constant* thickness so that one *extended* Newton dark fringe spans over the whole surface of the lens - hence no more or at least lower reflection! (Same overall result with multilayers) That´s exactly how ARs work. The reason you need the right index is that you need just the right out of phase intensity so ideally the reflected light will cancel fully.

And yes, the AR stack needs to have the right "effective Abbe" to work over the full range of wavelengths, but that´s what controls the residual tint I mentioned before.

Cheers:)

XW

[Barry Santini]

No disrespect to Essilor, but Hoya's SuperHighVision is far superior to Alize, even with Clearguard. (I use both products)

And yet my experience with Superhivision is JUST the opposite...just about *every* one of the SHV's I dispensed in the last three years has shown up with adhesion failure....And Hoya's policy had been a 1-time replacement w/i 2 years...not nearly as good as ALize's 2 year unlimited, no hassle guarantee.

As for scratch resistance...I don't have enough hard evidence to make a comparative...but...

I think, for me, ACG's feature's and warranty (lifetime adhesion failure), and variety of materials that it can be applied to, make it the best overall coating for me to present.

Your mileage may differ from mine....

Barry Santini, ABOM

[rob.optician]

I've found through my experience that the Super Hi-Vision is much more scratch resistant than any other AR I use here. I've used Crizal Alize - Kodak cleAR - Super Hi-Vision - Acclaro etc.
I would compare Hoya's Hi-Vision with View Protect to the best Crizal Alize. Hi-Vision is Hoya's "#2" Anti-Glare.

Super Hi Vision comes out with a 2 year. unlimited scratch warranty...they don't even ask for the lenses back if they get scratched up....

I've only been using it for a little under a year but so far have not had to remake any lenses under the scratch warranty..even though I do tell every patient about the warranty.

The SHV w/ View Protect on the Phoenix Trivex lens is about as scratch resistant as you can get with plastic.

Downside to SHV is you can only get it on hoya specific product. For example...if you get a Hoya Summit ECP progressive lens...with Transitions...they will not put SHV on the lens. You have to use Hi-Vision...b/c Transitions is not their own product...

[Barry Santini]

The SHV w/ View Protect on the Phoenix Trivex lens is about as scratch resistant as you can get with plastic.

Downside to SHV is you can only get it on hoya specific product. For example...if you get a Hoya Summit ECP progressive lens...with Transitions...they will not put SHV on the lens. You have to use Hi-Vision...b/c Transitions is not their own product...

And these *exceptions* are another reason I don't use SHV...I hate saying: "...this is the best, but you can't have it on your (polaroid) sunglasses..."

Like many optical technologies for me...I'm not interested in the *absolute* latest/best...just whatever is *excellent*, and also forgives people their accidents and/or neglect. In this way...for me...it is possible to sell many more high-end products than if everything had an alacarte approach.

Since I also feel that the absolute latest technolgies are *always* fluid/changing...the step below is much more stable for me...and represents the core of my approach to dispensing. But I respect others' opinions in this as well.

Barry Santini, ABOM

[Bill Mahnke]

Quote:
And yet my experience with Superhivision is JUST the opposite...just about *every* one of the SHV's I dispensed in the last three years has shown up with adhesion failure.... And Hoya's policy had been a 1-time replacement w/i 2 years...not nearly as good as ALize's 2 year unlimited, no hassle guarantee.

Barry, you've not been ordering Super HiVision!

HOYA's warranty for SHV is 2 years and it has has unlimited redo's! The 2 year 1 time warranty you mentioned is on a bargain priced product called HOYA Premium, this is a process similar to Carat and yes, it’s older/cheaper technology. (In your last post you did say you preferred older technology).

While adhesion problems can happen with any A/R, it’s a rare event with SHV. If you check your invoices you will discover that you’ve been ordering the lower priced HOYA Premium and not Super HiVision. You get what you pay for...

[Barry Santini]

I *have* ordered SHV in the past, and Hoya (Hartford) has told me it was a 1 time replacement in 2 years. If this is not correct, then the people at that facility are wrong...not me.

Barry

[Win C]

Let's not spoil this thread with yet another "Who makes better AR" discussion. :cheers:

[rob.optician]

All of the AR's I've dealt with are all bad. No matter how often I use Windex and paper towels to clean and scrub them...I've even used heavy duty easy off BAM drain cleaner on them before - and they still get oily and peel off...


they're all bad.


all of them.

[Barry Santini]

Let's not spoil this thread with yet another "Who makes better AR" discussion. :cheers:

there than ACG..

It just *my* choice in AR depends on more than just SR, or adhesion.

Lens Availability counts (at least for me!)!!

Barry

[optigrrl]

Rins and Xiao -

Well, mostly Xiaowei - Since optics in your field can be measured by mechanical and theoretical physics you can derive a tangible conclusion.
Visual acuity is measured partially by subjective perception (we see with our brains, not our eyes). There can't be objective, measurable results acheived through conventional testing.

So - to be on the safe side I would rather eliminate all possible (perceived) abberations.

Not to say that I haven't encountered random and arbitrary visual 'perception' problems in the past. There are soooooooooooooo many things that can contribute to a non-adapt situation. May I rant? (Rant mode: ON)

Had a patient with a -.25 change in one eye (cyl). Couldn't 'see' out of new glasses. Checked lens design, base curve, material, etc.

What was the ONLY difference? One diopter difference in the prism thinning in the new lenses from the old. Changed it - patient saw fine. Bizarre. But let me tell you the suffering I went through to get the lab to change this - nothing in their research could explain this phenomenom!

But hey - what the heck. Solved the problem! So having seen this - with regards to chromatic abberation I would rather be safe than give up hours of my life for some neurotic patient that I will never be able to get back again.

And - I'm kinda a sucka for geek-tech stuff anyway!

[xiaowei]

Rins and Xiao -

Well, mostly Xiaowei - Since optics in your field can be measured by mechanical and theoretical physics you can derive a tangible conclusion.
Visual acuity is measured partially by subjective perception (we see with our brains, not our eyes). There can't be objective, measurable results acheived through conventional testing.

So - to be on the safe side I would rather eliminate all possible (perceived) abberations.

Not to say that I haven't encountered random and arbitrary visual 'perception' problems in the past. There are soooooooooooooo many things that can contribute to a non-adapt situation. May I rant? (Rant mode: ON)

Had a patient with a -.25 change in one eye (cyl). Couldn't 'see' out of new glasses. Checked lens design, base curve, material, etc.

What was the ONLY difference? One diopter difference in the prism thinning in the new lenses from the old. Changed it - patient saw fine. Bizarre. But let me tell you the suffering I went through to get the lab to change this - nothing in their research could explain this phenomenom!

But hey - what the heck. Solved the problem! So having seen this - with regards to chromatic abberation I would rather be safe than give up hours of my life for some neurotic patient that I will never be able to get back again.

And - I'm kinda a sucka for geek-tech stuff anyway!

Optigirrl Hi,

no problem, I really appreciate your comment. I´m myself a very picky person regarding sight issues. I still cannot understand why many people eg. lens wearers, and much of the ophthalmic literature too, simply neglect the problem of color fringing in glasses, especially low Abbe ones. Many people say they never ever noticed any colored fringes whatsoever looking through their glasses!!??

The first time an optician had recommended hi index lenses to me and I put them on, I found the new "colorful world" so destracting that I had those lenses soon replaced by more regular ones. Now with current 1.6, Abbe ~ 42 PALs #3 I still can easily spot those fringes when for example looking at the top of distant dark forest trees against the brighter sky, when not exactly gazing through the "color neutral" center of the lenses, (where blue fringes switch to orange ones and vice versa).

When switching from (similar Abbe) PALs #1 to PALs #2, I immediately noticed much worse color fringes, obviously due to a different lens design and/or a change in fitting height, the FV spot that I was used before to gaze through was now no longer "color neutral", (I was going to rant to the poor optician when I got those new Super Duper xxxx $$$ glasses), I later learned I needed to look up a quite a bit higher in those for "no colors".

Maybe it´s only with very bright lights, where multiple reflections happen and coating properties are more important, when less picky patients start to note the extra colors too: I think I recently perceived that bright carlights seem to look definitely more colored and blueish in the new PALs #3 than in PALs #2, even if Abbes and regular fringes are almost the same, but there is a totally different coating on both!

Sincerely

XW

[AWTECH]

xiaowei said:

The first time an optician had recommended hi index lenses to me and I put them on, I found the new "colorful world" so destracting that I had those lenses soon replaced by more regular ones. Now with current 1.6, Abbe ~ 42 PALs #3 I still can easily spot those fringes when for example looking at the top of distant dark forest trees against the brighter sky, when not exactly gazing through the "color neutral" center of the lenses, (where blue fringes switch to orange ones and vice versa).

This is an excellent example of color issues often blamed on Abbe value. The abbe of the 1.60 lens is 42 and the most the eye can benefit from as I understand is an abbe of about 40. This can be hard coating index mismatch or light striking the edge of the lens. I do believe many opticians jump at the abbe value as the problem, when it maybe a similar effect that is being seen by the patient, it is the cause that is something other than an abbe value lower than 40. I personally talk to many opticians that use the reason for not using poly is the poor abbe value and then when asking them their lens material they prefer I hear 1.67, which is a low 30 abbe value. 1.60 material is produced with abbe value of over 40 and less than 34 but most opticans assume all material indexes have the same abbe value. There are major lens manufactures who previously produced 1.60 lenses with 42 abbe and now produce the 1.60 with the lower abbe value.

[xiaowei]

xiaowei said:

This is an excellent example of color issues often blamed on Abbe value. The abbe of the 1.60 lens is 42 and the most the eye can benefit from as I understand is an abbe of about 40. This can be hard coating index mismatch or light striking the edge of the lens. I do believe many opticians jump at the abbe value as the problem, when it maybe a similar effect that is being seen by the patient, it is the cause that is something other than an abbe value lower than 40. I personally talk to many opticians that use the reason for not using poly is the poor abbe value and then when asking them their lens material they prefer I hear 1.67, which is a low 30 abbe value. 1.60 material is produced with abbe value of over 40 and less than 34 but most opticans assume all material indexes have the same abbe value. There are major lens manufactures who previously produced 1.60 lenses with 42 abbe and now produce the 1.60 with the lower abbe value.

Arghhh, There should be an Optiboard FAQ why the "Abbe value" of the eye of about 40 has nothing todo with color fringes seen by some mindful observers behind glasses!!!

I&#180;m referring to so-called lateral color, which appears when using an optical system off-axis. Because the eye actually has a very small field of sharp view itself (fovea centralis), it&#180;s own Abbe is not noticeable as lateral color, if you do not apply special measures (block 1/2 of the pupil etc.). Longitudinal color has some effect, but it only will cause slight color-dependent blurring of the object, not nicely defined rainbows at the edges of objects.

Eyeglass Abbe instead will easily cause lateral color, as the eyeglass is used at large off-axis angles when gazing around (prismatic effect), while the eye itself always remains centered on it&#180;s OWN axis (the whole eye rotates!).

Actually, this is a releated to a very old discussion that goes back to the invention of the achromatic lense. I remember reading there were at least two fameous guys involved (on the fame of Newton, Huygens etc.), one had measured the optical properties of all kinds of glasses and fluids available at that time and came around with the (incorrect, his measurements were not too exact) conclusion, that on all materials there is a fixed relation between refractive index and dispersion, which would mean you can not make a lense that does not disperse colors and still refract rays. The other one argued with the seemingly "dispersion free" eye, so he argued there MUST be a solution for such a lens. Both were later proved wrong, the eye has noteable color, but it&#180;s usually not seen, because of the way it works, and Dolond and other built their first achromats!

XW

[Chris Ryser]

Pt. has optic neuritis in the OS since '98, her visual field test shows little to no vision in the periphery.

I was astonished. Talk about the WOW factor. Never seen anything like it - but don't get me wrong, this is the first totally freeform product I have dispensed.

Second post on same patient..................

My first patient with the Hoya id's came in today to order 2 more pairs!

Distance - vision is clear, edge to edge. No "swim" in the periphery.

I asked if she could give me an overall rating, what percentage would she give this lens design in improvement - she said: "A Gazillion!" ("can I say that??")

Question..........................If patient has no peripheral vision how would she detect a "swim" or a no "swim" in the periphery ????????

:hammer:

[optigrrl]

Second post on same patient..................



Question..........................If patient has no peripheral vision how would she detect a "swim" or a no "swim" in the periphery ????????

:hammer:

Hi Chris. You're right, I should have been more specific as to where her periphery vision ended. The visual field test showed little to no vision in the lower temporal periphery. Additionally, the swim effect bothered her considerably because according to the patient she was more acutely aware of anything on the peripheral because of the blind spot.

I think faster than I type and I was trying to remember all the details after the 3+ weeks it took to get the job in and dispensed. :)

[Chris Ryser]

- I wonder if anyone would like to expand on that? What do you see that makes the one AR treatment definitely superior to the other one?

Rinselberg..............Hard to tell, because they are all made with the same materials, on same the type vacuum coaters.

Lens..........hard coat, needed for adhesion to plastic lens surface,...............metal oxydes,(to give color hue) ................SIO2 (silicone dioxide).......hydrophobic pill evaporated on surface.......top slick coat. Mnay coaters do have slightly different stacks on from another.

In my book, according to information read and received, Essilor strips the existing hard coat on lenses and replaces it with one, they claim is more compatible to promote a better adhesion of the SIO2 layer. Others might do the same.

All over all the end result all the same, the application technique might vary slightly.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Aargh! Seems the iD only comes in the 1.67 or higher. Guess I'll have to settle for the Summit instead.

AAARGH! Again! Got my account all set up with Hoya, ordered my IDs, got a call today that I am out of their range, even though it is within the range listed on the website. So I cancelled.
I am having extreme difficulty in ordering my new glasses.I had such hopes for Hoya, but it seems they are not much different than anyone else.Oh, well, there goes my shiny new relationship.

[Bill Mahnke]

Quote:
AAARGH! Again! Got my account all set up with Hoya, ordered my IDs, got a call today that I am out of their range, even though it is within the range listed on the website. So I cancelled.

HOYA just expanded iD's power range:
+8.00 to -13.00, up to -6.00 cylinder, add .75 to 3.50

They've also added Suntech, a photochromic option to the HOYA iD product line

[DragonLensmanWV]

[quote=Bill Mahnke;163277]Quote:
AAARGH! Again! Got my account all set up with Hoya, ordered my IDs, got a call today that I am out of their range, even though it is within the range listed on the website. So I cancelled.

HOYA just expanded iD's power range:
+8.00 to -13.00, up to -6.00 cylinder, add .75 to 3.50

They've also added Suntech, a photochromic option to the HOYA iD product line

That's what the website said, but apparently that is not the case. They called me from Hartford to tell me that it was impossible to do mine, that the power stopped at a combined power total of -10.00.
They did hint that it might be available in the future, but the future is not now yet. :D
I got my frame back from them yesterday. What's weird is that I had discussed it with Brian beforehand and we both went with the poweers listed as the expanded range. I'll have to call him Monday, maybe whoever called did not know of the increased power range.
I wonder how effective the Suntech coating is.<recalls AO's photochromic blue coating>

[DragonLensmanWV]

[quote=DragonLensmanWV;163539]

Quote:
AAARGH! Again! Got my account all set up with Hoya, ordered my IDs, got a call today that I am out of their range, even though it is within the range listed on the website. So I cancelled.

HOYA just expanded iD's power range:
+8.00 to -13.00, up to -6.00 cylinder, add .75 to 3.50

They've also added Suntech, a photochromic option to the HOYA iD product line

That's what the website said, but apparently that is not the case. They called me from Hartford to tell me that it was impossible to do mine, that the power stopped at a combined power total of -10.00.
They did hint that it might be available in the future, but the future is not now yet. :D
I got my frame back from them yesterday. What's weird is that I had discussed it with Brian beforehand and we both went with the poweers listed as the expanded range. I'll have to call him Monday, maybe whoever called did not know of the increased power range.
I wonder how effective the Suntech coating is.<recalls AO's photochromic blue coating>

Well, they did up the power range to -13.00 to a -6.00 cyl, however that -13.00 is for TOTAL lens power, so I'm still not eligible.
However, I just received a pair of Summit ECP SHV in 1.70 index. I am pleasantly surprised at the relatively low amount of chromatic problems with these. Seems the 1.70 has a better ABBE value than the 1.67 index. These are thin,slick, and (allowing a day to accommodate the extra -1.50 sph) very comfortable, with virtually imperceptable amounts of swim or distortion outside the add. I have noticed over the years that high minus powers do not notice the distortions the way high pluses do.