Does AR Coating Improve Vision?

The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).

Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted
the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is
considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about
these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the
Rodenstock. The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not
quite as sharp and there is a very light hazing to my field of view.
The Rodenstock has AR coating the Ovation does not (they mistakenly
did not offer it to me and I, unfortunately, did not think of it).

So, my question, am I seeing differences in the quality of lens
(Rodenstock > Ovation) or I am seeing an absence of AR coating. If
it's the AR, I can have new lenses ordered (they will only charge me
the difference). If I'm seeing the difference because one lens is
poly and the other is plastic (I think) then maybe I should just think
about getting another lens alltogether.

BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the
business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what
prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly.

On 7/28/07 10:56 AM, in article
(E-Mail Removed) m, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
> busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
> prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
> Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
> only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).
>
> Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted
> the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is
> considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about
> these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the
> Rodenstock. The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not
> quite as sharp and there is a very light hazing to my field of view.
> The Rodenstock has AR coating the Ovation does not (they mistakenly
> did not offer it to me and I, unfortunately, did not think of it).
>
> So, my question, am I seeing differences in the quality of lens
> (Rodenstock > Ovation) or I am seeing an absence of AR coating. If
> it's the AR, I can have new lenses ordered (they will only charge me
> the difference). If I'm seeing the difference because one lens is
> poly and the other is plastic (I think) then maybe I should just think
> about getting another lens alltogether.
>
> BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the
> business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what
> prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly.
>
AR coatings improve visual performance by increasing transmission of the
lenses. Moreover, the lost light without AR coatings can add to the
background "noise."

I am not familiar with current AR application technique. I would expect,
however, that AR coating is the last step in lens fabrication. In principle
then, it should be possible to send the lenses back for AR coating. It may
be inconvenient, but possible if you are willing to pay enough. The main
drawback may be the fabricator's ability to clean the lenses well enough.

Bill
--
Support the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney.

On Jul 28, 7:19 pm, Salmon Egg <salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 7/28/07 10:56 AM, in article
> 1185645369.479241.29...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.co m, "stuckin...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <stuckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
> > busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
> > prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
> > Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
> > only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).
>
> > Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted
> > the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is
> > considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about
> > these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the
> > Rodenstock. The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not
> > quite as sharp and there is a very light hazing to my field of view.
> > The Rodenstock has AR coating the Ovation does not (they mistakenly
> > did not offer it to me and I, unfortunately, did not think of it).
>
> > So, my question, am I seeing differences in the quality of lens
> > (Rodenstock > Ovation) or I am seeing an absence of AR coating. If
> > it's the AR, I can have new lenses ordered (they will only charge me
> > the difference). If I'm seeing the difference because one lens is
> > poly and the other is plastic (I think) then maybe I should just think
> > about getting another lens alltogether.
>
> > BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the
> > business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what
> > prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly.
>
> AR coatings improve visual performance by increasing transmission of the
> lenses. Moreover, the lost light without AR coatings can add to the
> background "noise."
>
> I am not familiar with current AR application technique. I would expect,
> however, that AR coating is the last step in lens fabrication. In principle
> then, it should be possible to send the lenses back for AR coating. It may
> be inconvenient, but possible if you are willing to pay enough. The main
> drawback may be the fabricator's ability to clean the lenses well enough.
>
> Bill
> --
> Support the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney.

Eyemasters is willing to order new coated lenses and I just pay the
difference between what I have now and the coated lenses (about
$120). I explained to them that the salesperson didn't offer me a
coating option.....really he should have but he is new and apparently
forgot. Eyemasters return and exchange policy is pretty decent.

Thanks for the info!

On 7/28/07 10:23 PM, in article
(E-Mail Removed), "Mark A" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> I don't necessarily agree that the your lens sharpness problem is because of
> the lack of AR coating. You can pretty much eliminate the effect of no
> coating by standing in a dark room and looking at something in the distance
> which is well lit. If you still have the blurring problem, then AR coating
> is not going to fix that.

The benefit from AR coatings is going to be greatest when YOU ARE in strong
ambient light looking at a dim object. That is when the signal-to-noise
ratio is going to be smallest. When the SNR is large, all kinds of nonlinear
optical processing performed by the eye and brain. Think of having bright
lights on a street also populated with runners wearing black.

Bill
--
If intelligent design trumps evolution, please explain hemorrhoids.

On Jul 29, 12:48 pm, Salmon Egg <salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 7/29/07 9:46 AM, in article PeudnYt30JnRWTHbnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@comcast.com,
>
>
>
> "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > "Salmon Egg" <salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:C2D19190.8D8B9%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> The benefit from AR coatings is going to be greatest when YOU ARE in
> >> strong
> >> ambient light looking at a dim object. That is when the signal-to-noise
> >> ratio is going to be smallest. When the SNR is large, all kinds of
> >> nonlinear
> >> optical processing performed by the eye and brain. Think of having bright
> >> lights on a street also populated with runners wearing black.
>
> >> Bill
>
> > You did not read my post correctly. I said standing in a dark room and
> > looking into a room that is well lit (lighted). Because the lenses are in a
> > dark room they not much affected by reflections. Because one is looking at
> > an object in the distance in a well lighted room, one should be able to see
> > quite well.
>
> > What I am described is sort of like using a lens shade on a camera to
> > minimize reelections hitting the lens.
>
> I know how to read, but will admit to having left out of the penultimate
> sentence quoted by you.
>
> I responded to your post because you were "standing in a darkened room." If
> that is why you need glasses and cre only about information transfer rather
> than being offended by stray light, forget the coatings.
>
> Bill
> --
> Support the troops. Impeach Bush. Oh, I forgot about Cheney.

Interesting experiment.....which I have tried. At first I had
difficulty preventing reflections because even a well lit object
viewed from a darked environment will create some reflection. I found
that standing in a moderately darkened area and looking at a
moderately lit object did the trick. And I've concluded that viewing
an object straight on, the Rodenstock offers a slightly clearer
image. Still the Rodenstock doesn't offer the peripheral vision that
the Ovation does. I tend to think though if the optics were equal I
should have the same sharpness regardless of the design of the lens
since I'm viewing straight on. Right now I'm leaning toward ditching
the Ovation all together and maybe trying something like the Varilux.
I'm not sure why the Rodenstock is sharper.....is the lens material or
design. I think the Varilux also uses poly too.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Robert Martellaro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:56:09 -0000, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
> >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
> >prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
> >Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
> >only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).

> >BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the
> >business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what
> >prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly.
>
> The quick turnaround was due to the limited product choices, and by not
> having
> to send the finished lens out to a separate lab for coating.

There's a terrible quote, and I know I am butchering it, but:

I can do it cheap, quickly or right. Pick any two.

This is not an optical thing, it applies to many things.

I have had too much experience with cheap and quickly. It's not worth
it.

On Jul 30, 6:27 pm, Robert Martellaro <rob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:56:09 -0000, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
> >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
> >prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
> >Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
> >only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).
>
> >Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted
> >the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is
> >considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about
> >these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the
> >Rodenstock.
> >The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not
> >quite as sharp
>
> That's related to Rx, lens design, and lens position, if the object in your
> straight ahead view is 20+ feet away. I'd get that resolved to your satisfaction
> asap.

Could this have anything to do with the material being polycarbonate
which many seem to feel is optically inferior to plastic or just about
anything else?

On Jul 28, 1:56 pm, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote:
> The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
> busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
> prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
> Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
> only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).
>
> Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted
> the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is
> considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about
> these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the
> Rodenstock. The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not
> quite as sharp and there is a very light hazing to my field of view.
> The Rodenstock has AR coating the Ovation does not (they mistakenly
> did not offer it to me and I, unfortunately, did not think of it).
>
> So, my question, am I seeing differences in the quality of lens
> (Rodenstock > Ovation) or I am seeing an absence of AR coating. If
> it's the AR, I can have new lenses ordered (they will only charge me
> the difference). If I'm seeing the difference because one lens is
> poly and the other is plastic (I think) then maybe I should just think
> about getting another lens alltogether.
>
> BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the
> business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what
> prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly.

were the rodenstocks poly?

On Jul 31, 6:46 pm, michael toulch <michaeltou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:56 pm, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
> > busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
> > prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
> > Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
> > only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).
>
> > Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted
> > the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is
> > considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about
> > these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the
> > Rodenstock. The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not
> > quite as sharp and there is a very light hazing to my field of view.
> > The Rodenstock has AR coating the Ovation does not (they mistakenly
> > did not offer it to me and I, unfortunately, did not think of it).
>
> > So, my question, am I seeing differences in the quality of lens
> > (Rodenstock > Ovation) or I am seeing an absence of AR coating. If
> > it's the AR, I can have new lenses ordered (they will only charge me
> > the difference). If I'm seeing the difference because one lens is
> > poly and the other is plastic (I think) then maybe I should just think
> > about getting another lens alltogether.
>
> > BTW, I know Eyemasters isn't considered one of the best in the
> > business but their money back guarantee and quick turnaround was what
> > prompted me to go to them first since I need the new specs quickly.
>
> were the rodenstocks poly?

No, they are plastic.

On Jul 31, 2:00 pm, Robert Martellaro <rob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:40:58 -0000, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Jul 30, 6:27 pm, Robert Martellaro <rob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:56:09 -0000, stuckin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >The frame on my four year old Rodenstock Progressiv glasses recently
> >> >busted. My backup was pretty poor so I scurried to get a new
> >> >prescription and eyeglasses as soon as I could. I ended up going to
> >> >Eyemasters because their turnaround time is so quick. My prescription
> >> >only changed with the add (1.25 to 1.75).
>
> >> >Anyway I ended up with the Essilor Ovation Polys. Initially I wanted
> >> >the Varilux but they don't stock them, so I went with what is
> >> >considered by many, the 'second string' lens. The great thing about
> >> >these glasses is that the peripheral vision far surpasses the
> >> >Rodenstock.
> >> >The bad thing is that the straight ahead view is not
> >> >quite as sharp
>
> >> That's related to Rx, lens design, and lens position, if the object in your
> >> straight ahead view is 20+ feet away. I'd get that resolved to your satisfaction
> >> asap.
>
> >Could this have anything to do with the material being polycarbonate
> >which many seem to feel is optically inferior to plastic or just about
> >anything else?
>
> Not on the distance gaze, unless the distance Rx is very strong, over eight
> diopters or so, and would only occur with PALs or improperly positioned SV
> lenses.
>
> Two problems with Poly- it's a very dispersive material and tends to blur images
> off-axis in higher strength RXs, and it's very chemical sensitive- tends to
> crack at the edges, especially in rimless mountings.
>
> You didn't provide the full Rx in your previous posts, although you did note
> that the Add power increased from +1.25 to +1.75. Some folks might feel a
> slightly softer focus on the distance gaze initially, along with some flare or
> streaking of lights at night, dependant on lens design, pupil diameter, and
> client sensitivity. This is much more common, if it happens at all, with higher
> Add powers, although there always seems to be exceptions.
>
> However, if you stand up in a relaxed and typical posture, look at a distance
> object (a street sign for instance) during the daytime, the object should be
> clear and sharp, and should not become clearer if you raise or lower your chin.
> Moreover, the distance vision should, at the least, be as clear as your old
> glasses. I would investigate further it that's not the case, especially if this
> is still occuring the next morning.
>
> Robert Martellaro
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Optician/Owner
> Roberts Optical
> Wauwatosa Wi.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
> - Richard Feynman

Here is my prescription.....excuse me if I don't use the proper
format:

Sphere
R -4.00
L -4.25

Cylinder
R -0.50
L -0.25

Axis
R 108
L 075

Add
R+1.75
L+1.75

One thing I haven't mentioned that I thought would pass by now but
hasn't.....I feel extremely tired. I don't have headaches or
eyestrain. But each day since I've gotten the glasses it feels as
though I have only gotten a couple hours of sleep by mid-day (though
my actual sleep schedule is the same as it has been). This has been
going on since Saturday (four days now). I called the store today and
they said to give it a couple of weeks. I don't think I want to wait
that long. Could this be a lack of AR coating? This is really
strange. I'm almost positive this is the glasses rather than some
other sort of ailment.

Regarding sharpness of the Ovation vs the Rodenstock, I should point
out that I notice the difference (Rodenstock being a bit sharper) only
when I compare the two glasses. Taken by themselves, the Ovation seem
to be sharp. The Rodenstock, practically crystal clear. It's hard to
describe unless you are seeing what I'm seeing.

BTW, I appreciate your comments and help!