Polorized sunglasses

[GBW]

Hence why I posted the two lower (sub $100) brands I will buy again when needed...

[mike rousseau]

Something to consider. Prescription eye glasses are an almost complete scam as far as price goes. Style names costs more, quality doesn't. Eye glasses, with individually ground lenses, and individually fitted, are marked-up hundreds of dollars. That doesn't mean that a $15 pair of sunglasses are what you should get, but you can get everything you need without spending a couple of hundred... unless you need to say I spent a couple of hundred on these sunglasses.

 

Rarely is this a popular point, since once you've spent a couple of hundred you kind of feel that you need to justify it.

I don't need to spend the extra money....

 

But I don't think Berkley glasses and Maui Jim's can even be compared...

 

Like an ugly stick and a gloomis

 

After reading some of the links however I'm going to do a lot more research...

 

 

I really like the customer service story with the broken glasses....

[Fishwilly]

I usually get Bolle polarized shades at Costco..they run about $85-$110 and are good value. Bolle is made by Bushnell.

[FloatnFly]

Have a couple of pairs of Smiths with the polarchromic lenses (the tint changes to match brightness of day). They are definitely better than the cheapies that I used to have, but no idea how to compare with Mauis, Costas, etc. The Costa 580G lenses are pretty famous for being amazing.

 

Two notes that may help:

- bigger is better.....make sure they're big enough to properly cover your eyes/face

- bronze/copper is good all around on ontario lakes, but the saltwater guys (on clear water) almost always have greens, I think. May be worth looking into that.

 

 

The Costa site has a guide to lense colour.

 

Blue and green are for harsh direct sunlight that you get in the tropics

 

silver mirror, most versatile, cloudy days

 

gray, everyday, natural contrast

 

copper driving, variable light

 

Amber for dawn and dusk.

 

CHOOSING A LENS COLOR

Light conditions are constantly changing. to get the most out of Costa lenses, it's important to choose the right color. We offer six lens colors that range from low-light like dawn to extremely bright light with blinding glare.

[netminder]

I have to agree with the silver mirror in the above chart, but would also say copper is most useful if you're fishing dirtier/muddier water.

 

As for price point, the total cost doesn't matter as long as they're actually polarized. Most of the time once you're over the $100 point you're paying for the frames and/or the brand. Even though I spent like $200 on the Ray Bans in my avatar, I still managed to have them fall out of my shirt pocket and 3 m deep into a sanitary manhole. Although they did last me like 3 years to that point, longer than any pair of sunglasses to date, and the only time up until then that I've spent more than like $50 on sunglasses. If I spend more money on them I'm going to take better care of them.

[PBenson]

I got my first pair of costas recently and I won't be buying any other brand maybe ever. They're incredible.

[Lape0019]

I've had Oakley, Muai Jim and Revo as my higher end glasses. Not all of the oakleys were polarized but they were all comfortable to wear all day if need be.

 

This is my experience

 

If these are specifically for fishing (that you would wear every day maybe...), a good set of polarized glasses that fit well to your face will be better for you. The less light that gets behind the frames, the better the clarity and better you can see. there will be glare with polarized glasses but nowhere near as much. if you can block out any light from the backside, that glare is virtually gone.

 

If these are an every day set and you will use them for fishing from time to time, any brand will do. The Maui Jims were comfy and did a great job. I ended up leaving them at a restaurant so replaced them with Oakley fishing specific straight jackets.

 

The Oakleys were the comfiest to wear and had great clarity. The Maui were light and flexible but let a lot of light in (it was the model I chose) and the Revo ones had a coating on them that repelled water ( it was called the water lense).

 

I'd buy another paid of Oakleys ( I actually just bought replacement lenses for the straight jackets as they are that comfortable and would buy another paid or Maui Jims in a heartbeat. I don't think I would buy another paid of Revo glasses.

 

If I wanted to try something new, it would be the Costa glasses with the actual glass lenses. Every review I read is always about how clear and durable they are. I just haven't seen a fram I like.

[JoshS]

I think they are all pretty good in terms of quality lenses and seeing in the water. Definitely make your decision based on comfort and warranty service. Especially is you are going with a "premium" pair. Nothing worse than pressure on your temples, fogging, slipping, hat hitting sunglasses, or bad service.

 

I have cheap pairs and a pair of hobies which are super comfortable,but the finish on the frames isn't holding up after 3 years. Also have a pair of carrera's. I've put those up against oakleys and a few others and all performed around the same seeing in the water.

[BassMan11]

If you are going to go higher-end go i'd Maui Jim. I'd say the difference between Maui Jim, Costa del Mar, or Oakley from a performance or look standpoint they are all fairly similar. But once you start reading reviews and learn about excellent Maui Jim's customer service is in comparison to the other brands is a pretty easy decision.

 

I picked up a pair of Peahi's with the glass and HCL Bronze lenses earlier this year. By far the most comfortable and best fitting sunglasses I have ever owned. IMO of course.

[kickingfrog]

I don't need to spend the extra money....

 

But I don't think Berkley glasses and Maui Jim's can even be compared...

 

Like an ugly stick and a gloomis

 

After reading some of the links however I'm going to do a lot more research...

 

 

I really like the customer service story with the broken glasses....

Sure but the point is there is zero difference between sunglasses except price and name. Zero, none, nada. This isn't lighter components or better build. This is one of the biggest mark-ups in retail, save for designer handbags.

[Lape0019]

There is zero difference when it comes to blocking out UV protection. There is a major difference in clarity between a $30 pair of glasses and a $200 pair of glasses. Is the price difference worth it? It is to me.

[manitoubass2]

There is zero difference when it comes to blocking out UV protection. There is a major difference in clarity between a $30 pair of glasses and a $200 pair of glasses. Is the price difference worth it? It is to me.

Id have to try but im very happy with cheapo berkleys. Fit well, cheap and effective.

 

On these $300 glasses can you see 20ft down in muddy waters or something?

 

When the water is clear here I can sight fish no prob in $20 glasses

[BillM]

brb trading in my Maui Jims for some Berkleys.

 

Pricing on these glasses are crazy, this is why you let your benefits pay for them

Edited April 4, 2016 by BillM

[FrankTheRabbit]

Sure but the point is there is zero difference between sunglasses except price and name. Zero, none, nada. This isn't lighter components or better build. This is one of the biggest mark-ups in retail, save for designer handbags.

 

Couldn't be further from the truth. The pics I posted on the first page shows the difference between quality lens and cheap lens, despite the H20ptix costing $49 and getting them for $26 on sale. You can see the H20ptix lens didn't have full polarization. Near the corners exhibited a rainbow effect. The SmithOptics lens blocked out 100%. I'm sure the competing brands (Oakley's, MJs, and Costas) all do the same thing. You can certainly try it by rotating the shades in front of your monitor to see how much glare gets blocked out.

 

Also, the coating on the lens can differ between the premium lens and the cheap ones. The cheaper ones tend to scratch off and also wear out over time. On Smith's page, they show how their lens technology is different by embedding the polarization film into the lens. Also, the tapered lens removes any distortion. For prescription glass owners, if you have thick glasses, you'll notice that the corner visual quality gets distorted.

 

If some of you are interested in lens tech from Smiths. I'm sure Oakley's, MJs, and Costas are similar. Just scroll down to see the illustrations.

http://www.smithoptics.com/us/techsunglass

 

The science behind different lenses. Read it for what it's worth:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/sunglass1.htm

 

At the end of the day, we only have one pair of eyes.

Edited April 4, 2016 by FrankTheRabbit

[bare foot wader]

UV protection isn't the only criteria imo, and there is still a difference in that department too between cheap vs premium

 

lens quality makes a big difference in eye strain on a 12+ hour day, just like spotting game with cheapy binos, you'll never hear a single hunting guide tell you cheapy binos will cut it, eye glasses shouldn't be any different.....quality lenses reduce eye strain and especially in a water environment you're exposed to more glare...I feel my eyes are worth the money to splurge on glasses

 

I like the maui jim pehai, actual glass lense vs polycarbonate, I wear them 90% of the time...I have some oakleys with dark blue lenses for general cruising around on bright days

 

my buddy said he thought he was watching a steelhead a while back, rapala glasses, handed him my maui's and wait a second, there's two there!

[cram]

[manitoubass2]

???

[manitoubass2]

All arguments aside. One thing I wont do is fish without glasses.

 

Yeah they help. But heaven forbid a bad hookset and a lure flys at your face.

 

Wear your $300 glasses or your $20 glasses

Edited April 4, 2016 by manitoubass2

[netminder]

All arguments aside. One thing I wont do is fish without glasses.

 

Yeah they help. But heaven forbid a bad hookset and a lure flys at your face.

 

Wear your $300 glasses or your $20 glasses

Good point. Or if you go fishing with my wife.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what were you doing fishing with my wife?

[Old Ironmaker]

No glasses on my boat, no fishing. I always carry a few extra pair of polarized sunglasses onboard. I once buried a hook in my brother in laws eye. We were getting off the boat and a worm harness let go from the rod. He opened his eye and the hook just fell out. Lucky. I know many that don't wear glasses or shoes onboard. I thing that's just being irresponsible. A guy I knew almost lost his foot with an infection from fish slime or whatever gets into a small cut on the hands or foot.

[craigdritchie]

Sure but the point is there is zero difference between sunglasses except price and name. Zero, none, nada. This isn't lighter components or better build. This is one of the biggest mark-ups in retail, save for designer handbags.

 

 

Not so.

 

Lenses are made from all sorts of different materials. Some are much more optically correct than others, which means far less eye fatigue. Some lenses scratch easily, others don't. Some are more resistant to impact, like a split shot or a spinnerbait zinging your way after some fish shakes the hook in mid-jump. Some lenses are much heavier than others, and other types are more resistant to fogging. There are even more differences in frames. Some are heavier, some are lighter, different materials take more abuse than others, some have spring-loaded hinges so the arms won't snap off if they get extended the wrong way.

 

It probably is true that some fashion brand sunglasses may cost a lot more than they're worth. But saying that there's no difference between any of them is just foolish. That's like saying all fishing rods are identical except for name and price.

 

Makes no difference to me ... I'm stuck to wearing prescription ones.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Craig_Ritchie

[Bass Tard]

I have two pair of Spy polarized, and recently got a pair of Arnettes. I'd recommend either, both very high quality. My first pair of spy polarized are over 10 years old and still look as good as the day I bought them.

 

I'd also like to throw out there to the guys who are "hard" on glasses and break them a lot, good quality glasses can take quite a beating before they break unlike cheap ones. I've sat on mine countless times and they're still just fine. They've also spent an hour at the bottom of the pickerel river, until some kid lent me his goggles and I could go down and find them.

 

Good quality glasses are totally worth the extra money, if you're arguing otherwise, I'd venture to guess you've never owned a pair of good glasses. As been said, you've only got on pair of eyes. Its almost like arguing that you don't need snow tires because you've always been fine without them. Doesn't make it right..

[Old Ironmaker]

I was a believer that all sunglasses were the same, just buying a designers name, not so. I finally got good glasses and I can SEE the difference now.

[hirk]

Sure but the point is there is zero difference between sunglasses except price and name. Zero, none, nada. This isn't lighter components or better build. This is one of the biggest mark-ups in retail, save for designer handbags.

Tell that to an optomitrist lol. There are tests that layman like us can do that will show vast differences in lense quality. Maui jims have the highest quality lenses available, some others are good of coarse as well.

[kickingfrog]

Plastic and glass. The coatings can make a difference but money has virtually nothing to do with the quality.

 

 

If prescription eye glasses are marked up hundreds of dollars for a brand name, and they have individually ground glass lenses what do you think the cost of mass producing sunglasses is?

 

Sure there is garbage out there, as I said before, and you do have to compare. The information is there, ignore it if you will but don't suggest that I have to.