Lens care

>>2931704
Commercial coating applications are quite complex and are performed using specialized machinery.

If a low cost, low quality coating exists, it would be in dunk or spray form. You'd have issues with getting an even coating.

>>2931704
Even if you found the equipment and chemicals to do it, you can't just coat the front and rear elements. It's like how manufacturers implement low dispersion lens elements only at certain areas to optimize cost to performance ratios.

>>2931704

WARNING: Do not try this at home.

>>2931704
I've wondered about this in the past so I've finally got round to doing a bit of research (for you).

I've just deleted what was turning into a tl;dr essay on the subject. Let's just say no and getting a firm to do it will cost a fortune.

>>2932172
Can I pay you to follow through with that tl;dr essay? Curious how you'd convey the notion of precisely 1/2 wavelength nanometer-thick coatings in layman terms.

>>2932296
You need a vacuum and shit.

>>2932296
Here's a video instead. Skip to 2:50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X6tNJpJY_A

They are applying aluminium here but will use the same or similiar machine the coat the corrector plates for their maksutov range with an AR coating.

...French onion dip will coat nicely... ...or, Fruity Pebbles...

>>2932653

>the carbon meme

I used to work with the stuff, in QC. Let me tell you: Unless it's something you have to carry, and weight is the #1 issue, get alu.

>>2932663
...what

>>2932729

The OTA in that video is naked carbon fiber, because CF is a fashion statement nowadays, instead of being functional. It is used in all sorts of applications that don't make sense.

Most if it is Chinese, and shit quality. Shit weave, shit resin. But that's because people want it, and without the additional expense... expenses that usually go toward better material, craftsmanship, and quality control.

Just saying. I remember when CF was an ugly necessity, and it was gel coated to hide it. Now it's a fashion meme to the point that people want it bare, and even put fake CF decals on things.

>>2931704
>cleaning vintage lenses

Simply don't.

Coating was invented when they discovered old lenses performed better than clean new ones.
ie: lenses get coated over time just from being exposed to the air.

>>2931723
You're full of shit.

All lens surfaces get coatings, even when it has hardly any effect.
It's a better safe than sorry kind of thing.
The only choice is between cheap and more expensive coatings, but even the cheapest coatings are way better than using naked glass.

>>2932764
wut?
>>2932773
Depends a lot on the process and the coating in question.

>>2932809
>wut?

What is there not to understand?

Uncoated lenses perform better when they get older because a thin film naturally forms onto them.
Cleaning old lenses removed this natural coating.

>>2932838
You're a Retard.

>capital R intended

>>2932839
>I don't know the history of lens coatings.
>therefore you must be retarded.

>>2932663
>get alu
I did, but they didn't do CF tubes at the time.

>>2932734
>CF is a fashion statement nowadays
Dall Kirkham type telescopes and fast astrographs need perfect collamation. It's a problem with them and if CF helps then so be it.

http://www.orionoptics.co.uk/ODK/odkoptimiseddall.html
>The tube is constructed from Carbon Fibre sandwich design. Very, very strong to avoid flexing and zero expansion to ensure the focal plane does not change over long photographic exposures.

As for weight, it's a big issue. Tell me you wouldn't want to shave a few pounds off your C14 here and there.

>>2932854
https://mhcocm.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/a-brief-history-of-optical-coatings/

You sure know your history well...