Nikon Fluorine Coating - a Video Demonstration

[bgelfand]

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZsRx_OKTzo&feature=youtu.be</p>

<p>Unlike the video, I do not think I would like to use Magic Marker on my lenses - or paint, or motor oil, or ...</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Gosh, that was fun to watch. Thanks for posting.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Yes, very impressive. Now what substance do they <strong>really </strong>coat their glass with?<br /> Fluor<em>ine</em> is a gas of the Halide family, and a very aggressive gas that readily combines with hydrogen to form Hydrofluoric acid. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) will readily attack glass and quickly etch it into an opalescent appearance. Applying fluorine to glass therefore seems like a very bad thing to do, even if it could be made to stick to glass in its pure gaseous form.</p>

<p>Fluor<em>ide</em> salts of HF, OTOH, have been used as anti-reflection lens coatings for over 70 years by almost every lens manufacturer on the planet, so that's hardly newsworthy.</p>

<p>Perhaps this is yet one more of those "silicon" / "silicone" confusions often made by the chemically illiterate.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>The typical technique patent for these fluorinated hydrophobic coatings is here -<br>

http://www.google.com/patents/EP2638107A1?cl=en</p>

<p>For some fun watch what a spray coating of a Rustoleum material (Home Depot) can do, at least temporarily ...<br>

<p>The effect diminishes with time/wear ... but it is initially TRULY impressive. Don't ask how I know !</p>

<p>Jim</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Yeah. Fluor<em>inated</em> silanes aren't exactly the same as raw fluorine, are they?</p>

<p>Sounds as if Nikon are trying to address the inate fragility of nanocoatings by combining them with this hydro/oleophobic perfluorinated silane treatment. I'm not sure if or how this compromises the refractive-index transition of a silica nanocoating though.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Pentax seems to be applying something similar to their lenses since 2008: Pentax SP (Super Protection) coating: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/Photo-Lenses-Glossary.html</p>

<p>Canon also applies "fluorine" coating to many of their lenses: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/latest_ef_lens.do?page=2</p>

<p>So either Nikon is just late to the party or they are using some different, newer, improved formula.</p>

<p>It should be obvious "fluorine" coating doesn't use fluorine gas but fluorinated carbon or silicon-based polymers; just do a google search for flourine based superhydrophobic coatings. In addition to being hydrophobic (i.e. water-repellent) some of them are also oleophobic (oil-repellent). Probably the fluorinated polymer most familiar to many is teflon - though that's certainly not what is applied to the optical glass by Pentax, Canon, or Nikon (it's opaque).</p>

<p>Joe: the confusion about the use of "fluorine" in "fluorine coating" likely comes from the fact that many think of flourine gas rather than of the element fluorine. A chemical compound containing "fluorine" doesn't contain the gas but the atom chemically bonded to, for example carbon or silicon atoms. Or, as in MgF2 or CaF2, fluorine is bonded as a negatively charged anion, forming a salt. Similarly, "chlorine" bleach doesn't contain chlorine gas but chlorine atoms in form of hypochlorite.</p>

<p>Canon uses fluorite elements in some of their lenses - fluorite is the mineral that consists of CaF2 (calcium fluoride); Canon managed to grow this "mineral" synthetically in a quality good enough to use as a lens element.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Canon uses the same terminology for their easy-to-clean coating so I think rather than come up with a

new name it is good that they use the same. The new fluorine coating is use for external surfaces

whereas nano crystal coat is used in some inner lens surfaces only.

 

I think the 14-24 and 24-70 should get the new coating soon as with the former it is easy to get wateron

the front element and the latter is often used for events where liquids and "stuff" can be in the air, and a

resistant surface would be very helpful to have.

[keirst]

<p>Weird that no one calls it a fluoride or fluoridated coating. Marketing trumps precise chemical terminology I guess.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It's not called a fluoride because it's not a fluoride (the fluorine coating has covalent bonds between carbon and fluorine, whereas the term "fluoride" suggests a salt or in other words an ionic bond).</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>In which case it's a fluorinated carbon, hydro-carbon, silicate or whatever. It still ain't fluorine. And carbon tetrafluoride isn't a salt either, but it's the correct chemical name for that solvent.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So I take from the chemical engineering experts here I shouldn't lick my lens glass to clean it without the risk of turning into the Toxic Avenger.</p>

<p>Any of this stuff pollute the environment during the manufacturing process?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>carbon tetrafluoride isn't a salt either</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, it isn't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but it's the correct chemical name for that solvent</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry to disappoint - but it isn't. Just because everyone uses that name doesn't make it correct.<br /> Goes to show what problems arise when wrong names are used. CF4 is correctly called Tetrafluoromethane - making clear what it is and what it isn't. Of course, it is tough to convey to the uninitiated that CaF2 is a fluoride and CF4 is not. As Ilkka pointed out - one is a salt with ionic "bonds" and the other is a covalently bonded molecule. Just because the formula looks alike doesn't make the the chemical classes equal. You can call CH4 carbontetrahydride if you so desire - I prefer to call it Methane. If you are so inclined, peruse the IUPAC rules for naming chemical compounds - there's a lot of fun to be had!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I shouldn't lick my lens glass to clean</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lick away to your heart's content - that stuff isn't going to come off easily (though I doubt that licking will clean your lens all that well). You can practice by licking your teflon-coated frying pans - just let them cool down first ;-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It is <em>a</em> fluorine, not <em>the</em> fluorine. A simple google search will find numerous applications of this term "fluorine coating" by various companies (Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Nanoprotex, G'zog, looks like there are lots) so it's established terminology.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Tim -</p>

<p>While I cannot make specific comment regarding lens coatings, the semiconductor industry and the photoconductor industry (the latter of which I am a part) does deal in some potentially toxic, corrosive or deadly compounds.</p>

<p>There is the manufacturing process for the chemicals which is a potential source of problems. The use of those chemicals has some worker exposure or neighborhood hazard concern. And the disposal or reclamation of spent product or process materials is another avenue for possible pollution.</p>

<p>Consider silane, a common semiconductor chemical commodity. It may autoignite @ 54C, LC50 for rats is 9600ppm and has a NIOSH 5ppm/8hr limit. Inorganic arsenic exposure is NIOSH 0.065ppm/8hr by comparison. All sorts of compounds, acids, corrosives and solvents are used in industry to produce our modern products. Some are used for expediency, some for cost and many because there is no other way to produce something. Hopefully, most 'good' companies are also good stewards of our environment. Pollution will always be a nasty potential problem, way beyond our ability to dissect it here.</p>

<p>In the end, I could live without my Teflon fry pan, but maybe the heart valve is better to be still made ... etc. And for photo.net, compare the total toxic load to produce and develop a roll of film and prints versus the same for a creating a digital camera and its usage.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Thanks for the well thought out and concise explanation on the toxicity of chemicals used in photography, Jim.</p>

<p>Compared to the nervous system affecting Bestine I used to cut wax for paste up of graphic elements for camera ready art as a former graphic/production artist and the putrid smelling darkroom chemicals I had to endure, I'll take the less toxic digital photography world. </p>

<p>I guess this thread for me turned into watching sausage getting made with regard to lens coatings and the Latin bandied about coming up with proper names for chemicals I've never heard was testing my trust. It started sounding quite frightening.</p>

<p>Oh BTW, Dieter, I got rid of all my Teflon ware. It's all stainless steel and aluminum and non-stick spray for me. That or microwave oven.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Dumb question perhaps.... but what advantage (or presumptive advantage) do fluoride lenses offer? </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"A simple google search will find numerous applications of this term "fluorine coating" by various companies (Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Nanoprotex, G'zog, looks like there are lots) so it's established terminology."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A simple Google search will also find the words "silicone" and "silicon" inextricably confused, as well as numerous other totally incorrect "facts". I notice the words "then" and "than" being used interchangeably as well, despite their having totally different meanings according to every dictionary I can find.</p>

<p>Language is the means by which we transmit, transfer, inherit and bequeath knowledge. Therefore it should be in everyone's interest to use it correctly and in a manner that avoids confusion. I'm not against language evolving, but the lazy use of incorrect terms for the sake of dumbing down for advertising purposes is actually a devolution of language. Now who's next for a polytetrafluorine-ethanol hip replacement, or a silicon breast implant?</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"Sounds as if Nikon are trying to address the inate fragility of nanocoatings. "</strong></p>

<p>Regardless of whether or not Nikon should be using the correct elongated chemical compound name for it's coating, I haven't heard this before. Nanocoating is applied to internal elements, not to the front element and thus not subjected to the hazards of cleaning (which is what fluorine coating primarily addresses.) The Fluorine coating is totally unrelated and is more or less like putting "rainex" or teflon on the front element to help shed water and make for easier cleaning.</p>