Fishing Sunglasses

Native Eyewear = Costa, in case anyone was wondering. Same company. The lower specd costas are the same lenses as Native. Frames are different.

Polycarbonate hasn't advanced. It's a material with a lot of aberration inherent in the crystal structure. It can't advance. There are, however, more advanced plastics like Trivex and CR-39 and a whole bunch of proprietary ones. These are generally the type of material that modern prescription glasses are made from. Like I said they all strike some balance between the optics and scratch resistance of glass and the impact resistance of poly.

And, since they are plastic, some may refer to them as polycarbonate. They are not, and should not be marketed as such either.

Regarding expense, when I bought cheap is I'd break and lose them. Funny how nice stuff seems to get taken care of better. Though my wife did break my pair of Mj's. MJ replaced them for $10. And you can replace lenses, for life, for $50ish.
 
pc, yeah it was the proprietary advanced plastics i was thinking of - FF have something called triacetate which is also on the PC lens.

Swattie - trees love taking sunglasses off ball caps and rod tips too. always when i'm tired at the end of the day it seems.
 
jifigz wrote:
My suggestion is to by a cheap pair. I like sunglass warehouse.com. They have a bug selection and you can find whatever style you please. Just make sure that they are polarized and all will be good, I feel that there are many more important places to drop money in fly fishing than on glasses.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree more, glasses are one of the most important things to me. I know what you do and where you are may change the need somewhat but visibility is key. Good glasses make a very big difference.
 
What I'm trying to find are sunglasses (hopefully fit-overs) that are anti-glare / anti-reflective. Meaning I don't want the sun reflecting off my glasses and presenting a "flash" back to the fish. If anyone knows where to get any I'd appreciate it.
 
Well, when you search for anti-glare or anti-reflective, you'll get plenty of glasses advertised as such, but none of them are referring to the glare and reflection off the glasses to the fish. Anti-glare = polarized. Anti-reflective means the INSIDE of the glass has an anti-reflective coating to prevent light from behind you causing reflections and thus ruining YOUR vision.

Generally Cocoons is the best fitover brand out there. They run around $50. The polarization is good. As far as avoiding flashing the fish, you'll never totally get away from it, but stay away from the mirrored surfaces.

Cocoons has an amber lens, and a "green mirror" with an amber base. Likewise with gray, and blue mirror with a gray base. Get the amber or gray, not the green or blue mirror.
 
I have a few pairs of better lenses and I only own Smith and Costa.

Costa 580 glass lenses in Silver Mirror/Copper: awesome all around lenses.

Smith Polarchromic Ignitor lens: Great in sunlight and slightly overcast conditions.

Smith Low Light Ignitor lens: Seriously unbelievable lens in low light or any cloudy conditions...feels like an almost clear polarized lens.

Smith Chromapop: I own both the Brown and Grey/Green lens: These are awesome all around lenses for just about anything and rival my Costas.

The two glass Smith's (Polarchromic Ignitor and Low-Light Ignitor) are really excellent overall fishing choices since they serve both full/partial/and low light perfectly.

You can go cheap (and I do have some cheap polarized lenses for the car, cutting grass, etc.) but a really nice pair well taken care of will last you a long time.
 
That's a nice collection of lenses.

I've got 2 good pair and a few cheapos.

1: Costa 580 glass, green mirror, copper base. Great lenses, and the polarization is truly top notch. The computer monitor test shows them absolutely pitch black. The 580 thing works, as colors really pop, especially reds and greens. My only issue is that they are pretty dark. They're ok at mid-day on bigger water, whether sunny or somewhat overcast. But just too dark for evenings, heavily canopied brookie streams, or really dreary days. In the evening it starts to seem dark, you take em off, and you realize you've got hours to go, lol! And they HAVE to come off as soon as you go indoors, things just go black. Light transmission = 10%.

2. Maui Jim. HT lens color, MauiPure material. The polarization isn't quite as good as the Costa's, but it's still very good compared to any of my cheapos. On the computer monitor test, it at first appears dark but there's a slight amount of light still coming through, especially when compared side by side with the costas. Distant objects are plenty sharp, though, compared to cheapies, so clarity and aberration are indeed approaching glass. They are light as a feather and comfortable, I hardly know I'm wearing them. The lens color gives good contrast in lower light conditions. Perfect for morning, evening, clouds, etc. And when going indoors, it's not a problem, I frequently forget I was wearing them and thus forget to take them off, till someone asks why you are wearing sunglasses while sitting at a bar. That said, you do gotta take them off as the witching hour approaches if fishing past dark, usually minutes before the spinner fall. That's ok because polarization doesn't really help when light is at such a low angle anyway. In bright sun, they aren't ideal, but they aren't bad either. If I had to choose only 1 pair, I'd take these over the Costas just because they're useful in more conditions. Light transmission is 24%.

I am considering another pair. The Smith low light ignitors are a thought. I realize they'd last a little longer than the Maui's on dark evenings, but frankly, I think you EVENTUALLY have to take anything off, and as I said, polarization doesn't help much in those situations anyway. The MJ's do just fine in getting me to the point where when it begins to seem dark with glasses on, you remove them, and it still seems pretty dark. I'm not sure an extra few minutes is worth it.

More likely I'd go with something in the mid-high teens that's perfect for more variable light conditions and everyday (non fishing) wear. Maybe another MJ pair, in bronze, either MauiPure or glass. I think they come in around 15-16%. Probably a better all round choice, not just for fishing but everyday wear, driving, etc.

I do consider "expensive" glasses a luxury. Are they better than drug store cheapies? Yes. Are they 10x better? No, but the price is 10x higher. But the same can be said of any other piece of equipment. Going with luxury sunnies enhances my enjoyment of the outdoors moreso than, say, spending the same amount of extra cash on a rod I don't really need.
 
I got a cheaper 35 dollar pair of polarized with the amber colored lenses from LL Bean and they do the trick.

 
Suncloud is also a nice option...they are Smith's budget brand and run about $50. LL Bean sells the heck out of them and they were very popular in Colorado a few years ago when I visited. My brother has a pair and very much likes them.
 
pcray, Smith low light glass ignitors also do not go completely dark in the monitor test. On the other hand, I am not sure about how to interpret that as regards polarization, since some of my other sunglasses with lower VLT do go black, similar to what you mention about your 10% VLT Costas. This may just be the nature of the beast in VLT/polarization/tint design. That is to say, there probably has to be a tradeoff somewhere.
 
Well, regarding polarization, there's how much polarized light it blocks when at the "ideal" angle, and then there's how tight that pattern is. They generally go hand in hand, though.

i.e. a 100% polarized lens will block 100% of light when held at a certain angle to a typical monitor. Jet black.

A "tight" pattern means that as you turn the lens, it's only dark for a fairly narrow part of the rotation, and as you continue to turn, comes back to full transmission more quickly.

The two seem to go hand in hand, the blacker it is at the ideal angle, the tighter the pattern as well.

As for the monitor test, I think most polarizing films are indeed 100%. Things change, though, when you put them into shaped glasses. For one, stressed materials change the polarization angle of incoming light, so different stresses throughout the lens material will cause some light to bypass the filter. It's the same phenomenon that lets you see the square pattern in the rear windshields of cars. Those are stress patterns in the tempered glass. Well, the lens just in front of your polarizing filter is stressed too, but more consistently stressed, so you don't (or shouldn't) see a pattern, but there's still some scatter of what was originally polarized light. Injection molding and proper choice of materials is designed to limit this stress, but it doesn't totally eliminate it. I think the difference between my Costa's and MJ's is glass vs. plastic. Both companies make lenses in both glass and plastic, so it may not be a company difference here. I have not seen a plastic lens that 100% passes the monitor test, nor a glass pair that fails it, and I think this is why. As the plastic sets in the injection molding process, it ever so slightly shrinks, adding mechanical stresses.

And I'm guessing this is also why the tightness is different between lenses. If you have some stress, glare gets slightly unpolarized, so you need a looser pattern to try and capture it. It's purposeful. If you have no added stress, you can make a tighter pattern and still be fully polarized.

Second, having both eyes perfectly aligned with one another, and the polarization angle to be identical throughout all parts of a curved lens. That's not easy to do, but most name companies get it right. I had a pair of cheapies that, in the monitor test, had each eye act differently. I had another pair where different parts of the lens acted differently, so some areas showed bright and others were blocked. I have seen good and bad cheapies in this regard. Of the name companies, though, I haven't seen a bad one. They may not go fully dark at the ideal angle, but they are rather uniform within and between lenses.
 
pcray opined: "I had a pair of cheapies that, in the monitor test, had each eye act differently." - Many moons ago, I was foolish enough to buy cheapies without running a monitor test. Actually, in those days, there weren't any monitors, or even the big CRTs. I devised an in-store test where I would take a second pair of polarized glasses and turn it 90 degrees while wearing one pair. You could see the lenses go dark as you rotated the second pair. If they didn't darken at the same angle, I would find another pair to buy which behaved properly.

The misaligned cheapos that drove me to testing future candidates would give me headaches on the stream as my eyeballs fought each other for dominance since a given angle would only polarize for one eye at a time.

 
I have a cheapy pair of Field and Stream glasses I use. Ive set a new record -Ive had em for 3 months now and havent lost them yet.
 
I use cocoons w/ amber lenses over my prescription glasses. Not the "coolest" look but does to job.
 
The misaligned cheapos that drove me to testing future candidates would give me headaches on the stream as my eyeballs fought each other for dominance since a given angle would only polarize for one eye at a time.
Click to expand...

This right here is another big reason why I want to get a nice pair. I noticed this year with my new cheap sunglasses that I would get headaches/dizziness out on the stream.

Just got back from the store where I tried on a bunch of sunglasses and ended up going with Smith Touchstone's with Techlite Polarchromic Copper lenses. They fit and look great, can't wait to get out on the water with them. Thanks for everyones help!
 
bdfish wrote:
I use cocoons w/ amber lenses over my prescription glasses. Not the "coolest" look but does to job.
Click to expand...
X2
 
I fish the smith grey/green chromo pop lens for most of my fishing. I love these , ive used Oakleys and maui jins as well. The smiths are much better. I also have the techlite smith lens (glass) in yellow or whatever it is called for low light and nothing but good things about them as well.I do a decent amount of sight fishing for carp so I need to see fish all the time and find that smiths are the way to go. I have not tried Costas but would be open to see how they perform as many people love them.
 
http://www.steepandcheap.com/gear-cache/fly-fishing-sale

Lots of sunglasses with big discounts on that link. Saw some Costa's with amber lenses.
 
i just ordered these from sierra http://www.sierratradingpost.com/smith-optics-precept-sunglasses-polarchromic-glass-lenses~p~9749h/?filterString=sunglasses~d~8%2Fsmith-optics~b~1950%2F&colorFamily=01 for $90 in the ignitor lense. havent gotten them yet so i cant give you my review but these were recommended to me by a few diehard's
 
Any polarized sunglasses lens is a significant improvement over non-polarized. Most any sunglasses lens is an improvement over nothing. Except, in my opinion, in the waning hour of the day, or where it's really dark and shady. At that point, it becomes more important for me to track the drift of my leader and fly than to read the water.

I like Maui Jims a lot. They put a little bit of a psychedelic vermillion-violet tint on the water at some angles. and I like that a lot. Kaenon has yellow lenses with the most light transmission, for fishing in the headwater hollows, etc. Both cost a small fortune for prescription lenses. But I'm at the point where it's worth it to me to buy a pair of sunglasses at a price equivalent to that of a fly rod (actually more than any of mine, lol.). So much of the experience has to do with checking out the glorious scenery, both below and above the water line. I've been laser corrected to around 20/40, but there's nothing like having crisp 20/20 vision at a distance.
The other thing I like is having a narrow vertical height in the lens frame, so I can glance underneath to do close work like tying knots. Like using reading bifocals, except that I do fine with my uncorrected vision up close. (So far.)

Important warning: some of the most highly regarded lenses are VERY sensitive to contact with various liquids: sunscreen, windex, oils, rubbing alcohol, even salt water. Polarized glasses made with a laminated film can be completely ruined from being exposed to them, especially if they aren't thoroughly cleaned and rinsed immediately afterward with fresh water. I once picked up a used pair of Kaenons for next to nothing; the lenses looked pretty fogged up, but I thought I could clean them up. No dice. The embedded film was split and streaked like shattered glass. Do a search on bad/ruined sunglasses lens some time, with the brand you're interested in; you'll see what I mean. I know some Kaenons are vulnerable to this; iirc, so are Costas, and several other brands. I think it voids the warranty, too.
I don't have any idea whether this is an issue with glass lenses. Which are the best in terms of vision quality, undeniably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top