Recommended polarized lens color?

[pcray1231]

Didn't know Native and Costa were same company. Probably be my next pair with multiple lenses.

Co-owned doesn't always mean co-made. They may or may not be the same lenses, made in the same places, to the same specs, etc. i.e. yes, CDM owns and operates Native as it's mid-tier brand. I do not know if the lenses are made the same and in the same place. Some brands are just that, brands, and no other differences, they just slap on different labels. Others retain largely independent supply chains and technology and operate as a nearly independent company under a larger conglomerate.

Common in the sunglass industry.

Smith's are made by Safilo. i.e. Polaroid, Carrera, Hugo Boss, Gucci, Fossil, Liz Claiborne, Banana Republic, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. All the same company. Smith was largely independent until fairly recently, but is now going "fully integrated", meaning it's plant in Idaho is closing and they'll be made in the same facilities as all of the above. Kinda sad, as one of the R&D big boys is being eaten up by a conglomerate with the business model of cut costs and sell the brand name.

Marchon Eyewear = Nike, Calvin Klein, Nautica, Nine West, X-games, Valentino, etc.

Marcolin = Guess, Harley Davidson, Swarovski, Montblanc, Timberland, CoverGirl, Kenneth Cole, Rampage, Skechers, etc.

Luxotica is the mega-giant who makes Oakley, Revo, Ray-Ban, Persol, Oliver, Armani, Chanel, Prada, Ralph Lauren, and a bunch of others, not to mention owns Lenscrafters, Sunglass Hut, Pearl Vision, Bright Eyes, Sears Optical, Target Optical, and a bunch of others. I always laugh at the Oakley vs. Ray-Ban argument.

Maui Jim = Zeal Optics. They have a distributorship with Luxotica stores, but Luxotica was trying to buy them and Maui has been resisting, and threatening to break ties totally. Not sure where this stands today. But this group is pretty serious about their independence and technology and believes they have a better mousetrap, so I'd hate to see them go the way of Smith.

And as was said, Costa Del Mar = Native Eyewear which became Costa Inc, which was recently bought by Essilor. Probably a good merger as Essilor is a heavy R&D company and sharing of IP will likely be good for consumers. Heavy focus on coatings, materials, and transitions. Essilor has traditionally focused in the prescription market. Yet to be seen whether any manufacturing changes are in store, as right now, Costa still makes all the lenses for the sunglasses.

Kaenon = independent. Another good company.

Personally, I like R&D and competition to push the envelope forward. As such, Costa, Native, Kaenon, and Maui Jim are all good by me in terms of their focus.

 

[KeithS]

Patrick,
What brand did you get?

 

[Skeet6]

Thanks, everyone for the great recommendations. Some perhaps didn't see that this was for prescription lenses, I am going to have them made with my script. I have plenty of older frames. My old set is about 4 prescriptions ago, too weak, and have a clip on set of polarized lenses that are delaminating. I will call the Dr today and see what she can make me for decent money. I was thinking the bronze/brownish color as that was my last pair. If I don't get the transitions ($$) what percent tint? Say 15-20%?
Thanks again, all.
Mike B

 

[pcray1231]

I haven't bought a new pair recently.

I have a pair of CDM's I bought last winter. Glass, the copper base with the green mirror, 580 glass. Love them. And Costa's "Fathom" frame fits me really well. But lenses too dark for many situations, including morning, evening, heavily overcast, small streams under heavy canopy, etc.

Currently I have a pair of light rose Sea Strikers (cheapo brand) as my low light lens. But am strongly considering getting a high quality pair for low light. I'm between Maui's HT lens, CDM's sunrise, and Smith's Low Light Ignitors.

I must be more sensitive than most, but holy heck glass just appears so much better to me. Even in the store and putting them on, it's just night and day. I was the same way when I wore glasses, the optometrist said I needed high ABBE value lenses (glass). But my vision got bad enough that glass had to be too thick, and no glasses would do the trick, so I wear contacts which seem to do well for me. Of the above sunglasses, the Maui Jim HT lens is the ONLY one that comes in glass. But I'm not all that impressed with any of the Maui Jim frames that carry this lens. And I also have about $300 of Cabelas bucks saved up, so I wanna buy through Cabelas, and Cabela's only offers 1 model with this lens, which of course, doesn't fit me very well.

CDM does sell their sunrise frame in the Fathom's which fit me well. But CDM sunrise is a plastic lens and it shows. For me, anyway. Not terrible by any means, but neither are my Sea Strikers. Just not sure I wanna drop that kind of coin on a plastic lens that's only marginally better than the cheapo's I got.

The Smith's, I haven't got my hands on yet. The 40% VLT impressed me. It's basically just polarized, no tint, and the highest VLT any truly polarizing filter is capble of. Vs. 25-30% VLT for the other low light lenses here. Really would be a low light specialty, but perhaps less useful for all around use. Would need to fit out their frames.

So, I'm on the fence, but it's probably between those. Go for the awesome lens with a poor fit, or a good fit with a worse lens, or for the real specialist in the group?

 

[krayfish2]

My Smith polarchromic lenses are glass. I think they have 13%-18% VLT. The Native sportflex lenses look like the might be real good in low light / heavy canopy situations.

 

[pcray1231]

At least currently, Smith does not offer a photochromic lens in glass. They offer one in Trivex (termed NXT by Smith), which is pretty good.

For comparison, ABBE values (higher is better):

Crown Glass - 59 - great optics, won't scratch but heavy and not impact resistant.

High index glasses (for Rx) generally 40-50.

Polycarbonate - typically 30, though better ones push into the mid-30's. Light, cheap, and extremely impact resistant, poor optics.

SR-91 = 40 - impact resistant and better than poly.
Trivex = 45 - jack of all trades, master of none.
CR-39 = 58 - nearest to glass, not impact resistant.

Smith:

Techlite = crown glass.
Chromapop = Trivex
NXT = Trivex polychromatic
Carbonic = Polycarbonate
Rx = generally CR-39, but others are available.

 

[gfen]

This has been said dozens of times (because I've said it). You want a longer version, search for it. Otherwise:

Amber reduces blue light and increases contrast, however it will impart a colour cast when you look through it. Amber is still functionally useful in overcast/dusk.

Grey will not effect colours when looked through, its true neutral density. It will however not have an increase in contrast. Grey is counter productive in overcast/dusk.

Grey for fashion, amber for sporting purposes.

 

[AkDan76]

you can get smiths in perscription was my understanding in the polarchromics.

I liked the older frames. The newer frames are a bit boxy/flashy. Guess I'm not style'n lol I went with the backdrops this time.

 

[Swattie87]

gfen wrote:
Amber reduces blue light and increases contrast, however it will impart a colour cast when you look through it. Amber is still functionally useful in overcast/dusk.

This is why the honourable Amber is my favourite while fishing in the harbour.

 

[Chaz]

Not grey, it just makes them useless once the evening comes. Yellow or amber brightens everything. But just as important is the amount of distortion.

 

[gfen]

Chaz wrote:
Not grey, it just makes them useless once the evening comes. Yellow or amber brightens everything. But just as important is the amount of distortion.

No, you should re-read what I've written.

Any form of coloured tinting will reduce light transmitting through it, regardless of what colour it is. The difference is in the wavelengths of light cut.

Yellow/amber/brown will cut more blue light, which increases overall contrast. You're still losing the value, and it's still darker.

Yellow, over all, cuts less visible light than amber. This is why people recommend yellow for dusk/twilight instead of amber. If you're not going to carry multiple sets of glasses/lenses, amber preferable as an actual sunglass and not just to increase contrast/polarized filter.

 

[pcray1231]

gfen is on the right path here.

No lens makes things brighter. An absolutely clear lens with perfect optics, could, in theory anyway, NOT make it darker. This doesn't happen in reality, as even clear eyeglasses pass only 90% or so of light.

Color matters for what color of light passes or gets blocked, but doesn't affect "brightness". VLT is the important measure of "brightness", regardless of color. It is true that yellow lenses tend to be designed with greater VLT's. The reason is that yellow provides the greatest contrast. Contrast is limited in low light. Hence designers determined that these are the times when you need the most help.

Still, you could in theory have a very dark yellow which doesn't pass much light. You could also have a really light gray or amber which passes a lot.

Now, polarization alone, by definition, cuts out 50% of light. So if you ever see a lens with >50% VLT, it is NOT fully polarized.

As most lenses have a loss of about 10% light, 40% VLT is about as high as you're ever going to see in low-light polarized sunglasses that would be good for low light situations. Most low-light lenses come in lower, at 25-35%, which add some utility in somewhat brighter conditions.

Most "protective" sunglasses have more like 8-15% VLT. 15% is a pretty light lens, all told. 10-12% is by far the most common.

 

[Chaz]

I said it brightens things up, I didn't say it lets in more light. Things appear brighter.

 

[troutfanatic]

So I shoot alot and I fish a fair amount too. I have Oakley's military and law enforcement pricing. It helps. Different light conditions and different water conditions rate different colors. This is something that most already hit on. Another factor is eye color. Blue and grey eyes react to light differently than brown and green. This is probably not as much a factor in fishing as shooting, but still relevant. I personally do not tether myself solely to Oakley. Smith Optics are the best deal in fishing eyewear. In contrast, Oakley makes packaged sets of frames with different lenses- most sets are not polarized however, you can get a wide array of polarized lenses.
A style called M-frames has prescription inserts available that are rigged behind the shaded lens. They can be ugly, but effective. I have them, I don't use them. I prefer contacts. For shades, I wear Oakley Gascans. I have black, brown, amber, yellow and VR 50 (dark red orange) lenses. Pricey... but worth it. There is an aftermarket company... I think they are called revamp (Amazon) that sells replacement lenses- polarized and far cheaper than Oakley originals, but just as effective. I have a pair of Smiths in a medium brown color that I use more than anything else. The warranty is good and they work under multiple conditions.

 

[Big-Bass]

Pcray,

I am pretty sure you can still get smith polarchromic (which are photochromic) and made of tech lite glass. Any of the copper mirror or copper are glass. There is no Chromapop option for that color right now.

http://www.smithoptics.com/Root/Men%27s/Sunglasses/Lifestyle/DOVER/p/DRGPLLBK

Btw...when are they closing their Idaho plant? I always thought smith optics were the choice of fly guys out west...when I was in Colorado, you would be hard pressed to see anyone wearing anything else.

 

[krayfish2]

BB is right. My smith riversides are copper mirror, polarchromic and glass lenses.