# Optical Forums > Ophthalmic Optics >  Best A/R

## manoj_verma

Dear Friends
Kindly Help me choose The Best A/R Coating in terms of *Smudge resistance ,Which help to avoid Fingerprints.
Rate them 1,2,3,4.....and Available Companies are :HOYA / ZEISS / ESSILOR / RODENSTOCK .

Kind Regards !*

----------


## manoj_verma

:Sleep:

----------


## Jacqui

> 


I'm afraid you're going to get everyone giving you all that they know from the sales pitches they have heard. I don't think there really is an answer to this, just whatever works best for you. A lot of what you want has to do with which lab does the work, some are much better than others. My own favourite is the house brand from a small independent lab here in the US

----------


## Robert_S

Hoya's premium AR for me... by far. 

Zeiss are getting better

Essilor are better than Rodenstock but are still just ok.

So 1.Hoya 2.Essilor 3/4 Zeiss & Rodenstock.

----------


## Happylady

I think Crizal Avance is outstanding but it is pricy. I haven't used any Hoya AR in a few years but I wasn't impressed at the time. They are probably better now. 

The biggest issue I see with AR is how often they need to be cleaned and how easy they are to clean. Most AR does okay when new but after a few months starts to be harder to clean and get dirty faster. Crizal Avance stays easy to clean. It's also amazingly scratch resistant. My husband is very hard on his glasses and his lenses from January still look good. 

I like Hoya lenses and wish we used them more where I work, but they like to mainly use an Essilor lab.

----------


## Robert_S

Some extra information:

I find that Essilor's top tier coating is excellent (I won't name it as all these coatings have different names in different areas of the world), but their basic MAR is very poor. 

Zeiss only have two coatings; their basic one is very good, equivalent to Hoya's mid-range coating, but their top-tier coating is not as good as Essilor's or Hoya's. 

Rodenstock are OK in all tiers but not excellent. Again their basic AR is poor. 

Hoya are, in my opinion, by far the best in the bottom and mid tiers, but their top tier coating is only slightly better than Essilor's. 

I hope some of that made sense.

----------


## manoj_verma

Thanks Everyone .......So It Goes This way :

Basic A/R : 1.ZEISS 2.HOYA 3/4 ESSILOR & RODENSTOCK
Mid Range A/R : 1.HOYA 2.ESSILOR 3.RODENSTOCK
Top Range A/R : 1. ESSILOR / HOYA 2.RODENSTOCK 3.ZEISS

Can we say ............HOYA wins The Trophy  :Wink:  when you Dispense MID/TOP Range Lenses ?

----------


## rdcoach5

We only use Toledo Opticals own Acclaro Elite. It's equal to any top coating and the warranty is much better and quicker turn around and service is awesome. Did I say I love this lab ? The only reason we use any other lab is that VSP requires some to go to Columbus. NO WHERE near the same.

----------


## Robert_S

> Thanks Everyone .......So It Goes This way :
> 
> Basic A/R : 1.ZEISS 2.HOYA 3/4 ESSILOR & RODENSTOCK
> Mid Range A/R : 1.HOYA 2.ESSILOR 3.RODENSTOCK
> Top Range A/R : 1. ESSILOR / HOYA 2.RODENSTOCK 3.ZEISS
> 
> Can we say ............HOYA wins The Trophy  when you Dispense MID/TOP Range Lenses ?



In my opinion, yes, but I am sure there will be others who have a differing opinion. 

But I would bet a lot of money you will be very impressed with Hoya's coatings. Their lenses can be difficult to dispense, though. You will probably have fewer non-tol's with Essilor. However, I would say that Hoya and Zeiss' products are superior, which is why I use them.

Which is not to say that Essilor's lenses are bad; they are great (shame I can't say the same for the company).

----------


## chip anderson

I'm 100% with Happy Lady.

Chip

----------


## tbyrdman03

> Some extra information:
> 
> I find that Essilor's top tier coating is excellent (I won't name it as all these coatings have different names in different areas of the world), but their basic MAR is very poor. 
> 
> Zeiss only have two coatings; their basic one is very good, equivalent to Hoya's mid-range coating, but their top-tier coating is not as good as Essilor's or Hoya's. 
> 
> Rodenstock are OK in all tiers but not excellent. Again their basic AR is poor. 
> 
> Hoya are, in my opinion, by far the best in the bottom and mid tiers, but their top tier coating is only slightly better than Essilor's. 
> ...



I disagree with Zeiss only having two coatings. They have a lot more than that. I do like the Zeiss Purecoat. It's much better than the Zeiss Et and Zeiss Super ET and is just a little better than the Carat Advantage. 

I work with Zeiss products but have in the past working the Seiko and Hoya.  Hoya anti-reflective coatings have always been excellent. I also like whatever coating Seiko was putting on the Seiko Succeed two to three years ago. Saw great life out of that coating. 

Honestly not too familiar with Essilor coatings. I know they advertise like crazy though. 

1. Hoya 2. Zeiss/Seiko (very close second)

All in all its all going to depend on how they are taken care of.  If this is for a eyecare professional than any of them should work just fine. If it is for a patient/customer than they will find a way to destroy it.

----------


## Steve Machol

I have removed several posts that are advertisements, off-topic and argumentative. Please stick to the original poster's questions. Thank you.

----------


## NCspecs

I really like Hoya's EX3 and Crizal Avance. They do well for me. Purecoat does okay and I have zero point of reference for Rodenstock.

----------


## Sledzinator

+1 for EX3 we do very well with it.

----------


## Psychobablr7

For our office EX3 is the best and Unity is the worst.

----------


## Uilleann

Curious about the Ice Tech 'Premium Clear Blue' and 'Advanced Green' treatments.  Their high power wrap lenses seem to be all the rage - but how does their A/R stack up against the competition?

----------


## chip anderson

The best AR for patients that work and play in the real world and expect to get more than 15mo. wear out of the lenses = none at all.  Especially for those that live in the South and have more than one pair of glasses and leave the rest in the car.

Chip

----------


## wearegood

Crizal coating is not as good as it's price.

----------


## Chris Ryser

What a resourcefull thread..............this is the best and that is the best, nobody gives a reason why. So far it looks like I want glasses without it.

----------


## chip anderson

Did anyone note that when in another thread I said I had ruined a pair of expensive AR coatings by leaving them in the car while fishing the heat was too much.  Everyone, especially those that insist nothing should leave thier store without AR, said "What are you doing leaving your expensive (read delicate) lenses where they could be harmed."  These are the very people who insist that mechanics, automobile painters, glass workers, etc. need the very best high tech (read AR) coatings.
I have also ruined several pair wearing the coating off looking in a slit-lamp.  (now you may tell me how I should coat the eyepieces on the slit-lamp and lensometers).   
These are not particularly strenious things for a glasses wearer to do.  When compared to a lot of other real life activities they should be concidered rather low risk.
De stuff ain't ready fo de publick yet.  True we do make a lot of money off it and true it may enhance vision, preception and  cosmetics.  But so does a coat of paint which has no primer applied beneath it, for a while.

Chip

----------


## sharpstick777

I find that Crizal Avance is the generally the most grease resistant, however, it degrades faster than many, and in addition, there are some men who just gunk up that coating (mismatch of body chemistrie maybe?) leaving a thin "fog" even when new, my second nod would go to Seiko Surpass ECP, more consistant, and it seems to stay grease free longer.  I find Hoya EX3 more durable, but not as quite grease resistant.  I have terrible luck keeping my Purecoat clean.   Standard Crizal is way down the list.

----------


## Prince Nez

> The best AR for patients that work and play in the real world and expect to get more than 15mo. wear out of the lenses = none at all.  Especially for those that live in the South and have more than one pair of glasses and leave the rest in the car.


The Nikon ICE (old) and SEE Coat (current brand name) coating is quite outstanding, and in the real world you can expect to get 5+ years out of it with proper care.  I speak from personal experience, having been in Nikon lenses for about 20 years, SV at first and PALs now.  I routinely use my glasses while looking through the ocular of an optical instrument where there is opportunity for lens-to-lens contact damage, yet I have had no problems with scratching (knock on plastic).  The ICE is a very hard coating, so you MUST avoid rapid temperature changes (example, washing the lens with hot water immediately after coming indoors from freezing weather).  I recently destroyed a pair by accidentally leaving them on the black dashboard of my car on a sunny day -- the metal rims got so hot they fried the tops of the lenses and destroyed the coating -- my bad.  The AR color is not terribly obvious, tending toward a faint blue, but it shows face oil like crazy.  Easily and consistently cleaned with wet rinse, followed by any lens cleaning solution (liquid soap, ammonia, etc.) if the lenses have oil on them, then a quick rinse and micro-fibre towel drying.  Nikon includes a micro-fibre swatch with each lens, so you have no excuse about being a bonehead and drying with something scratchy.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Th
> 
> *The ICE is a very hard coating, so you MUST avoid rapid temperature changes (example, washing the lens with hot water immediately after coming indoors from freezing weather).  
> *



.................or do not hop into a warm taxicab when living in subzero temperatures in Eskimo land.

----------


## Robert_S

None of us have mentioned Shamir, but the rep told me recently that their AR gave the best Bayer-Test results in the industry. I don't, however, use Shamir so I wouldn't know. Can anybody verify this?

----------


## sharpstick777

> None of us have mentioned Shamir, but the rep told me recently that their AR gave the best Bayer-Test results in the industry. I don't, however, use Shamir so I wouldn't know. Can anybody verify this?


As far as I know, Shamir has never made or sold an AR.  As well, Bayer Testing is just one factor, a hard AR is more prone to crazing due to temperature changes.  Some very high Bayer rated ARs do not do as well in Colt's RLS testing, which simulates normal temperatue changes.  The best AR's have some flexibility to match the base material.

----------


## NCspecs

> As far as I know, Shamir has never made or sold an AR. As well, Bayer Testing is just one factor, a hard AR is more prone to crazing due to temperature changes. Some very high Bayer rated ARs do not do as well in Colt's RLS testing, which simulates normal temperatue changes. The best AR's have some flexibility to match the base material.



I was just about to say, "Why have I not heard about a Shamir coating?" 

MY Shamir rep knows I'm a tech geek and to tell me about everything new. Hrmmm...

----------


## Robert_S

Bear in mind I'm in the UK. I swear the rep was trying to sell me Shamir coatings. Weird. So, in the US/Canada, do Shamir only sell semi-finished?

----------


## edKENdance

We deal in primarily Crizal and Hoya,  Correct me if I'm wrong but I have been led to believe that Hoya is the only company that does substrate matching so you wont get the newton ring effect that you get with other companies.  Appears to be most noticeable on 1.74 from my experience.

----------


## Uilleann

I believe Hoya is the only company to actively market their substrate matching prowess.  It's been ages since I've seen any of ol Newt's rings in any of the higher quality 'name brand' A/R's myself.  I think the bigger overall push of the last five years or so has been improved abrasion resistance and enhancing the oleo/hydrophobic properties of the top tier offerings.  Customers get that - though I expect you'd be hard pressed to meet many consumers who know about (or indeed even care about) the possibility of slight rings in their A/R when being looked at.  I'm guessing the blank stare you'd likely get as you tried to explain it in many cases might cost you the upgrade...

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Kindly Help me choose The Best A/R Coating in terms ofSmudge resistance , Which help to avoid Fingerprints.
> 
> *



This thread has been hanging around forever and I never looked at it until now.

Funny that in my MHO no one has really addressed the original question and has given a valid answer to it, just the usual go round and round.

----------


## sharpstick777

The newton rings are caused by Hard Coats and AR processes with an ABBE value different from the base material... and not solved by Substrate Matching. 

Hard coats come in two flavors, tintable and non-tintable, one each for every material in a perfect world.  But we don't live in a perfect world.  Hard Coat laquer is very expensive and unstable, so we live in a cost effective one.  So most small and medium labs compromise, they either carry 2 or 3 indexes only, tintable only.  The result is birefringence when they don't match ABBE value.  Very few labs are big enough to have every hard coat, in every material available.  Its why most high end AR's are still outsourced, as is 1.74.

Hoya is not the only company to offer substrate matching.  All it means is that the Hard Coat is matched the the base material.  nothing more.  Its not really magic, Hoya buys most of their hard coats from Matsui Resin company of Japan, so anyone has the capability to do it.  We once lived in a world of one great hard coat, but that changed a few years ago.  More high end ARs are made with Hardcoats matched to the base material.

Don't believe the marketing hype, its just simply having more vats of good hard coat available.   Its not really a technology per se.




> We deal in primarily Crizal and Hoya,  Correct me if I'm wrong but I have been led to believe that Hoya is the only company that does substrate matching so you wont get the newton ring effect that you get with other companies.  Appears to be most noticeable on 1.74 from my experience.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> The newton rings are caused by Hard Coats and AR processes with an ABBE value different from the base material... and not solved by Substrate Matching.


I think you mean "refractive index" not "Abbe value." Interference fringes result when there is a difference in refractive index at the interface between two materials, particularly when there is a variation in coating thickness.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## sharpstick777

Yes, my bad.  Thanks!




> I think you mean "refractive index" not "Abbe value." Interference fringes result when there is a difference in refractive index at the interface between two materials, particularly when there is a variation in coating thickness.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl

----------


## musicvirtuoso

I really do like Hoya's coatings. EX3 in particular. I did however want to throw something out there: when our Hoya Rep was telling us about their coatings (even though I was already sold on them), she told me what set Hoya's apart from others is that they are all substrate-matched. This confused me because I always assumed that everyone did that; my understanding of how AR worked was that the coating index _must_ be the square root of the substrate index. Now, because I don't and never have worked in a surfacing lab, I never verified this. She told me that all other coatings had one formula that they used for all substrates. This made me feel a little stupid because I had never thought to look into it. What is the deal? Any input from the lab rats?

*Edit: I just realized that this question was already posted in this thread. Sorry... But I'd still like to get more opinions.*

----------


## MakeOptics

> Bear in mind I'm in the UK. I swear the rep was trying to sell me Shamir coatings. Weird. So, in the US/Canada, do Shamir only sell semi-finished?


Rumor mill says Shamir created their AR stack using satis chemistry and tech.  When E bought satis they effectively stopped the release of Shamir AR in the US, but it has been available in the EU for a while.

Again this is rumor mill, but I heard it from what I consider very reliable sources and yes that's source with an s so I am inclined to believe it.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *The biggest issue I see with AR is how often they need to be cleaned and how easy they are to clean. Most AR does okay when new but after a few months starts to be harder to clean and get dirty faster. Crizal Avance stays easy to clean. 
> *



Actually there are now products available with which you can very simply renew the "Easy Clean" properties out of a spray bottle at very little cost. So the problem  is solved that way.

Now you can actually use any type of AR coating, expensive, or cheap, and give or sell your patient a little bottle of the topcoat and problem is solved.

----------


## Spazmonkey

I like Zeiss Purecoat. Do not use it on a ft bifocal.

----------


## Happylady

> I like Zeiss Purecoat. Do not use it on a ft bifocal.


Why?

----------


## Slim

build up at the segment line.   They use allure to help with that, but I have stopped ordering FT's from zeiss as they all come with a puddle across the seg.  my local lab knocks it outta the park in that area.  comes in perfect.

----------

