your "best" A/R?

[Barry Santini]

Uhhmmmm.....Could you qualify your statement with some facts, please.

Also, expand on the words "enhanced" and "qualified" and the missing term.......temporarily.

Look, all results for vision are ultimatley from that person's perspective and evaluation. By "Enhanced", I mean wavefront/HOA optimized.

Qualified applies both to the vetting of the patient and the surgeon. And yes, it is only temporary, as vision is fluid. But for people between the ages of 22-40, statistically, the amount vision changes is neligible, as I understand from the studies I've seen.

But... that applies to what we do as well.

What would you like in terms of "facts" to support my statements here?

B

[optilady1]

I think an easier way to measure is ease of clean. Since we are cleaning hundreds of lenses a year, it is something that we are relatively exposed to.

+1. As for the smudging Chris, if I spray the heck out of a lens, and wipe it with the same clothes that I use for every other lens, if it is not crystal clear the first time I clean it, then I consider this less slippery and more smudgy.
Clearly my testing method is highly scientific.

[Ecliptic]

So I guess everyone kinda has their own preferences with A/R (though that should be expected I suppose.)

It sounds like many people prefer SuperHivision OVER SuperHivision EX3?

[Lee Prewitt]

iCoat has just a few advantages over the others...Our AR goes on ANY lens, FT, Progressive, SV...goes on ANY material...costs less by a significant percentage...deliverable in shorter time (OK, we do operate 24/7, too many lenses to coat). You want to run a profitable operation? You need to explore the alternatives to the corporate hype.

[kcount]

iCoat has just a few advantages over the others...Our AR goes on ANY lens, FT, Progressive, SV...goes on ANY material...costs less by a significant percentage...deliverable in shorter time (OK, we do operate 24/7, too many lenses to coat). You want to run a profitable operation? You need to explore the alternatives to the corporate hype.

Lee, I couldn't agree more. Although I use a competitor to you, I would definately state that local and national coating labs do it better, faster, and allow for greater profit.

[Robert Martellaro]

It's not my specs that's the problem...It's me!

Seriously...Well done *enhanced* PRK on a qualified candidate can deliver outstanding vision...even at night!

B

Probably better than a flap that never heals, but I would never recommend refractive surgery to my clients, friends, or family- the risks are just too high for an elective surgery. I would recommend properly fit rigid gas permeable (very low risk of microbial keratitis) or silicone hydrogel contact lenses.

[uncut]

Look, all results for vision are ultimatley from that person's perspective and evaluation. By "Enhanced", I mean wavefront/HOA optimized.

Qualified applies both to the vetting of the patient and the surgeon. And yes, it is only temporary, as vision is fluid. But for people between the ages of 22-40, statistically, the amount vision changes is neligible, as I understand from the studies I've seen.

But... that applies to what we do as well.

What would you like in terms of "facts" to support my statements here?

B

I think you covered it Barry..........thanks!

Thinking in the same context....removing the lens from the frame accomplishes a lot, heck......easier to clean, too! As Robert M, also stated...contacts are better, and easily upgradeable!

Now, back to the thread......

I am of the belief that the ultimate AR coat is yet to be developed, and all current ones are great stepping stones to the future. Glitches in attempting to create the hardest, clearest, longest lasting...are still with all brands. I haven't experienced one yet that I was totally enamored with, due to variances in performance with different raw materials, patient occupations, and Rxs. It is nice to have various qualities, and costs available to us.

[Chris Ryser]

I am of the belief that the ultimate AR coat is yet to be developed, and all current ones are great stepping stones to the future. Glitches in attempting to create the hardest, clearest, longest lasting...are still with all brands. I haven't experienced one yet that I was totally enamored with, due to variances in performance with different raw materials, patient occupations, and Rxs. It is nice to have various qualities, and costs available to us.

The ultimate AR coating on plastic eyeglass lenses will never happen. There is too much change on a plastic molded or injected lens material, just in regular daytime conditions. A lens can go through extreme temperature change during a day time as fro 92F outside to a freezer compartment at -20F.

Same with mechanical influences on the material. A hard as glass AR layer adhering to a flexible surface that microscopically shakes and bends.

AR has done fine on glass lenses since the 1950s and 1960s and that is why it is still used in may countries is Europe and elsewhere.

Maybe the chemical AR process has a better adherence to the plastic lenses. However I have never see a discussion on that issue.

[sharpstick777]

I am a huge fan of Colt's RLS testing. It's an 11 step process that bombards an AR with 3 years worth of simulated wear, and then tests the AR. Hard AR's can craze more so the Colt's test includes temperature fluctuations, which can cause crazing. Last year I gathered as much data as I could from late 2009 and early 2010 and here is the ranking I found. I have not received much data since then. The ranking may have changed because manufactures have improved some of their coatings since they were first tested, so its not perfect. But here is the ranking from the latest Colt's data I could get (manufacter's choose to release the Colt's data themselves, not Colt's, so some of my sources is from European and Asian marketing material).

1) Hoya Super-Hivision
2) Seiko Surpass ECP
3) Crizal Avance
4) Leybold Ultra Premium (appears under different brand names)
5) Zeiss Carat Advantage
6) Crizal Alize
7) iCoat Stainless
8) Carat
9) Crizal

The problem with Colt's testing is that in real life many coatings come with UV hardcoats, while manufactures usually submit thermally cured lenses for testing. So your real life experience may be less than these. The other problem is that many of these coatings have been improved since they were first tested. Thermally cured lenes are generally superior to UV curing as it leaves unreacted catalyst in the lens. The only 2 manufactures that I know of that require thermal hardcoating are Hoya and Seiko (that may have changed since I last looked). Since this was all acquired over a year ago my info IS OUT OF DATE. So please if you have new Colt's testing (I prefer the actual data sheets) please forward them to me, and I will update my post. Special thanks to Zeiss, Seiko, Leybold and iCoat who made getting Colt's data painless.

Although Colt's RLS testing is not perfect, its still the best method we have of emirically comparing AR's and not relying on the effects of marketing.

[sharpstick777]

....Now, back to the thread...... I am of the belief that the ultimate AR coat is yet to be developed, and all current ones are great stepping stones to the future. Glitches in attempting to create the hardest, clearest, longest lasting...are still with all brands. I haven't experienced one yet that I was totally enamored with, due to variances in performance with different raw materials, patient occupations, and Rxs. It is nice to have various qualities, and costs available to us.

A/R is advancing to the point where the greatest weakness is becoming the subrate base material. The effectiveness of AR will always depend on the qualities of the base material as crazing and denting start to exceed scratching as sources of AR dissatisfaction. You see this in glass. The AR is improving faster than base materials and we will very soon reach a point where we cannot make an AR much better until new base materials are invented. That is why you are seeing more and more AR's (and the best AR's) limited to which materials they can go on. The next improvements will require more proprietary lens matching and fewer material choices.

[rdcoach5]

Most house brand ARs are hydrophobic, oleophobic and is the best value when you look at the cost and quality.

I agree, my local lab, Toledo Optical, makes their own AR that is at least equal to Avance and beats the heck out of Avance in service and warranty.

[Joann Raytar]

We've had the fewest problems over the years with Crizal products and Seiko products. However, from time to time we did notice a run of bad batches especially with stock poly, surfaced Transitions and stock 1.67 products.