J
JamesGregory
New member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 4
Thank you all for your suggestions!!
pcray1231
Well-known member
Yup. No question about it. (though, I'm talking about good glasses in general, I don't have experience with Ray Ban).
Nice. Been interested in the Smith LLI myself, but can't seem to pull the trigger. Interest is there but the need isn't high enough. My trio:
- MJ Peahi in glass. HCL bronze lens. My favorite all round pair of glasses. High teens on VLT. An online MJ table said 18%, but they have since taken that down and I can't vouch for it's accuracy.
- Costa Fathoms in 580G green mirror/copper base. 12% VLT. A little dark for most of my fishing but they do get used in super bright conditions.
- MJ Twin Falls in MauiPure (basically Trivex). HT color (high transmission). VLT is in the mid 20's. They still get some use during bad weather, or early morning/late evening trips. But the plastic MJ's don't hold a candle to the glass, and the Peahi's effectively do almost as well in low light and much better in high light, so they get used more.
Then a smattering of cheapies that get used as safety glasses for mowing, weedeating, shooting, etc.
fly_flinger
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 497
Couldn't agree more. My wife looks at me funny when I put my yellow lens glasses on when it's raining. "It's not even sunny" she says. It's amazing how much clearer everything is with them. The mist from cars in front of you seems to disappear.
ryansheehan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,520
Love my maui jim spartan reef redside, HCL bronze lenses. Didn't know what I was missing until I went to glass. I own many pairs of MJ's but only one pair of glass. I wear the others for daily use, the glass are for fishing only.
krayfish2
Well-known member
Smith low light ignitor is a fantastic lens. Got a pair earlier this spring and I'm glad I did.
Pat,
I'm pretty sure Smith honors warranty on discontinued models from below out places like STP. I got mine from a retailer in OR and they were $90 off.
Pat,
I'm pretty sure Smith honors warranty on discontinued models from below out places like STP. I got mine from a retailer in OR and they were $90 off.
DGC
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 870
pcray may not like the results of the monitor test for the LLI. I have two pair (like them that much and wanted a backup), and neither go all the way black on the test, though very close. On the other hand, I see this as a tradeoff of the high VLT of the LLI. It is quite a feat that they are as well polarized as they are at 40%.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
I have yet to talk to someone that doesn't rave about the Smith LLI. Here's an article to read:
http://afgmag.com/low-light-polarized-lens/
http://afgmag.com/low-light-polarized-lens/
pcray1231
Well-known member
Yeah, I had read that.
I'd note that he says he was wearing MJ HT's prior. Article was published in 2014 and he said he had them 6 years.
I'd note that the HT color was introduced in late 2008 only for the basic polycarb lenses. See the price range below, which restricts it to the lowest level of polycarb only.
http://www.visionmonday.com/business/suppliers/article/maui-jim-introduces-new-lens/
It says they were to add Maui Evolution (higher grade plastic for prescription only) later that year. They finally offered HT in glass some time later (I don't know what year exactly, other than to say it was at least 2010).
Hence, while he didn't give the model or the lens material, if he was honest about the time period then he is comparing MJ HT in polycarbonate to Smith LLI in glass.
The LLI "walking all over" MJ thus doesn't surprise me in the least. ALL glass, from any of those brands, will walk all over polycarb, from any of those brands! And the fancier plastics fall somewhere in between. i.e. the massive difference he is seeing is very real, I can confirm, and it's glass vs. polycarb, not brand vs. brand. This is true for all brands.
That's not to diminish the LLI's. Smith's Techlite glass indeed stands up very well to MJ and Costa glass. I won't say it beats them, but nor does it lose. Frankly I haven't really seen any differences between glass offerings from various companies other than color and style preferences.
And yes, the LLI color has higher VLT than anything either of the other companies offer, with good contrast, and thus may outperform them for certain situations even if comparing glass vs. glass. There's just no "walking all over" when comparing glass to glass. There's "this color is better for this situation, and this color is better for this situation".
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
More info on Smith LLI:
Our newest lens technology, ChromaPop, exemplifies the above and beyond. It doesn’t use polarizing film to polarize—there’s no lamination. Rather, it’s a treatment given to the lens, which, because that treatment is distributed evenly throughout the lens, can never become unlaminated. In a laminated lens, everything that’s “put together” can technically become “un-put together”; if you’ve owned cheap lenses you know what I’m talking about. And so with our ChromaPop lenses, there’s no optical haze introduced by layers of polarizing film or the optical glues that hold these laminations layers together. So it’s both exceptionally, exceptionally clear and very light. It’s not glass, and it’s not polycarbonate. It’s actually 10 percent lighter than polycarbonate, 50 percent lighter than CR 39.
http://midcurrent.com/gear/let-there-be-light/
Our newest lens technology, ChromaPop, exemplifies the above and beyond. It doesn’t use polarizing film to polarize—there’s no lamination. Rather, it’s a treatment given to the lens, which, because that treatment is distributed evenly throughout the lens, can never become unlaminated. In a laminated lens, everything that’s “put together” can technically become “un-put together”; if you’ve owned cheap lenses you know what I’m talking about. And so with our ChromaPop lenses, there’s no optical haze introduced by layers of polarizing film or the optical glues that hold these laminations layers together. So it’s both exceptionally, exceptionally clear and very light. It’s not glass, and it’s not polycarbonate. It’s actually 10 percent lighter than polycarbonate, 50 percent lighter than CR 39.
http://midcurrent.com/gear/let-there-be-light/
pcray1231
Well-known member
The ChromaPop is nothing new.
It was originally coined to highlight Smith's color enhancing technology. Costa and MJ also do this, though I am not aware of anyone outside of those 3 doing the same. They each do it a little differently, of course, because there are patent rights to avoid! But the end effect is the same. Costa's "580" and MJ's "PolarizedPlus2" denotes the same. Since MJ's naming is the least descriptive, they also throw in the marketing mumbo jumbo about rare earth elements and making colors brighter and all that fun stuff.
Basically what it does is completely block specific wavelengths of light. Costa's "580" denotes 580 nm, the wavelength of the light it fully blocks (which is near yellow), for instance. In nature, light is a continuous spectrum. But our eyes only see 3 specific colors, the primary colors of light red, green, and blue. Colors that aren't quite those primary colors only partially fire the cones in our eyes and end up confusing the brain, as it says, "ok, green rod, you're firing weakly, do you see a little bit of true green, or do you see a lot of something that isn't quite green?"
What these glasses aim to do is block those in between colors, and leave us with just the red, green, and blue. Then our brains can recombine their intensity and interpret the in between colors. The result is that reds look redder, greens look greener, and blues look bluer, and everything in between looks better too because it's our brain making the color instead of being incumbered by our imperfect eyes.
TV's do the same thing. Red, green, and blue pixels, nothing in between. They can make colors brighter that way. Your dog, though, would interpret the colors on that TV screen very differently than we do!!!!
The weird thing is that the effect is not replicated in photographs, because film and or digital is not limited by three types of rods in it's eyes. It has no problem interpreting the entire spectrum. Millions of people have wanted photographic filters replicating what these sunglasses do, but it just won't work.
One issue I have with Smith's Chromapop is that as far as I know, they don't offer that particular technology in glass. Only their high end plastic. Both MJ and Costa offer this in glass too. That said, I think the whole "color enhancing" thing is cool but ultimately of low importance for a fisherman. Clarity, contrast, and good polarization are what's required for a fishermen. And all 3 of these brands offer that with glass being the cream of the crop for all 3, whether or not it has any color enhancing stuff going on.
"It's not glass, it's not polycarbonate". Well, kinda like Costa's 400P and 580P (P for plastic, not polycarb, cause it's not polycarb). MJ's Maui Evolution, MauiPure, and now MauiBrilliant (3 varieties of high end plastic, yay for marketing). Kaenon's SR-91. Everybody's Trivex. Even Oakley tries to join the game with Plutonite (though Plutonite, unlike the others, is AWFULLY close to being standard polycarbonate).
And hey, Smith DOES make polycarb too. They call it Carbonic. Without the coatings they call it "Suncloud" brand. So does MJ. They call it polycarbonate (marketers took a break I guess). And so does Costa. Branded "Native Eyewear".
As for polarizers, Smith polarizes like anyone else. It's true that cheapies laminate the film on the outside, which can peel off. Because they're buying pre-made, unlaminated stamped polycarb lenses.
But in glass, all decent brands if the lens is glass they sandwich the polarizing film on the inside between 2 glass lenses, not on the outside. And if the lens is plastic it's injection molded. So the film sits in a mold and they put liquid plastic in there, and it solidifies with the polarizing film inside.
Glass still beats plastic in terms of optics. In terms of clarity and chromatic aberration, the high end plastics do come close to glass. Close, they don't meet, though many human beings are unable to tell the difference, and some aren't. Depends on your vision. But plastics are polymers and not crystals. Anisotropic. Clear in one direction, not in another. And they flex. Flexing does two things. First, it destroys clarity. Second, it changes the polarization angle of incoming light before it hits the polarizer. So light that should be blocked, doesn't get blocked. Because of this a sturdy frame that prevents flex is more important in plastic than it is in glass (though more common in glass for protection reasons, and most plastic frames are shooting for lightness over optics and thus are less sturdy).
It was originally coined to highlight Smith's color enhancing technology. Costa and MJ also do this, though I am not aware of anyone outside of those 3 doing the same. They each do it a little differently, of course, because there are patent rights to avoid! But the end effect is the same. Costa's "580" and MJ's "PolarizedPlus2" denotes the same. Since MJ's naming is the least descriptive, they also throw in the marketing mumbo jumbo about rare earth elements and making colors brighter and all that fun stuff.
Basically what it does is completely block specific wavelengths of light. Costa's "580" denotes 580 nm, the wavelength of the light it fully blocks (which is near yellow), for instance. In nature, light is a continuous spectrum. But our eyes only see 3 specific colors, the primary colors of light red, green, and blue. Colors that aren't quite those primary colors only partially fire the cones in our eyes and end up confusing the brain, as it says, "ok, green rod, you're firing weakly, do you see a little bit of true green, or do you see a lot of something that isn't quite green?"
What these glasses aim to do is block those in between colors, and leave us with just the red, green, and blue. Then our brains can recombine their intensity and interpret the in between colors. The result is that reds look redder, greens look greener, and blues look bluer, and everything in between looks better too because it's our brain making the color instead of being incumbered by our imperfect eyes.
TV's do the same thing. Red, green, and blue pixels, nothing in between. They can make colors brighter that way. Your dog, though, would interpret the colors on that TV screen very differently than we do!!!!
The weird thing is that the effect is not replicated in photographs, because film and or digital is not limited by three types of rods in it's eyes. It has no problem interpreting the entire spectrum. Millions of people have wanted photographic filters replicating what these sunglasses do, but it just won't work.
One issue I have with Smith's Chromapop is that as far as I know, they don't offer that particular technology in glass. Only their high end plastic. Both MJ and Costa offer this in glass too. That said, I think the whole "color enhancing" thing is cool but ultimately of low importance for a fisherman. Clarity, contrast, and good polarization are what's required for a fishermen. And all 3 of these brands offer that with glass being the cream of the crop for all 3, whether or not it has any color enhancing stuff going on.
"It's not glass, it's not polycarbonate". Well, kinda like Costa's 400P and 580P (P for plastic, not polycarb, cause it's not polycarb). MJ's Maui Evolution, MauiPure, and now MauiBrilliant (3 varieties of high end plastic, yay for marketing). Kaenon's SR-91. Everybody's Trivex. Even Oakley tries to join the game with Plutonite (though Plutonite, unlike the others, is AWFULLY close to being standard polycarbonate).
And hey, Smith DOES make polycarb too. They call it Carbonic. Without the coatings they call it "Suncloud" brand. So does MJ. They call it polycarbonate (marketers took a break I guess). And so does Costa. Branded "Native Eyewear".
As for polarizers, Smith polarizes like anyone else. It's true that cheapies laminate the film on the outside, which can peel off. Because they're buying pre-made, unlaminated stamped polycarb lenses.
But in glass, all decent brands if the lens is glass they sandwich the polarizing film on the inside between 2 glass lenses, not on the outside. And if the lens is plastic it's injection molded. So the film sits in a mold and they put liquid plastic in there, and it solidifies with the polarizing film inside.
Glass still beats plastic in terms of optics. In terms of clarity and chromatic aberration, the high end plastics do come close to glass. Close, they don't meet, though many human beings are unable to tell the difference, and some aren't. Depends on your vision. But plastics are polymers and not crystals. Anisotropic. Clear in one direction, not in another. And they flex. Flexing does two things. First, it destroys clarity. Second, it changes the polarization angle of incoming light before it hits the polarizer. So light that should be blocked, doesn't get blocked. Because of this a sturdy frame that prevents flex is more important in plastic than it is in glass (though more common in glass for protection reasons, and most plastic frames are shooting for lightness over optics and thus are less sturdy).
DGC
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 870
Serengeti calls its color management "spectral control," and may have been the first one out there to do that.
A point I'd like to note about some of the Costa frames are vents on the cheekbone edges of some models that allegedly reduce fogging. In my experience, they do ineed work, or at least help quite a bit in comparison with other frames.
Smith Chromapop and Chromapop+ are strictly plastic, whereas the LLI is strictly glass and does not use Chromapop's color management and probably not its polarization technique.
Smith, frankly, is frustratingly convoluted when talking about its own technology. I always thought Chromapop meant Trivex with color management, but looking at the Smith site now, they seem to be calling Chromapop "carbonic" and Chromapop+ "polymer" (which I guess means Trivex). They even assert that Chromapop+ has greater clarity than their glass!
Scroll down to Lens Platforms: Smith Lens Technology Summary
The LLI is not the only Smith glass I own and I have tried Chromapop+ and have no doubt that Smith glass is clearer/sharper.
A point I'd like to note about some of the Costa frames are vents on the cheekbone edges of some models that allegedly reduce fogging. In my experience, they do ineed work, or at least help quite a bit in comparison with other frames.
Smith Chromapop and Chromapop+ are strictly plastic, whereas the LLI is strictly glass and does not use Chromapop's color management and probably not its polarization technique.
Smith, frankly, is frustratingly convoluted when talking about its own technology. I always thought Chromapop meant Trivex with color management, but looking at the Smith site now, they seem to be calling Chromapop "carbonic" and Chromapop+ "polymer" (which I guess means Trivex). They even assert that Chromapop+ has greater clarity than their glass!
Scroll down to Lens Platforms: Smith Lens Technology Summary
The LLI is not the only Smith glass I own and I have tried Chromapop+ and have no doubt that Smith glass is clearer/sharper.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Right. That's a weakness of Smith. And it's probably not that they don't want to, but rather that they legally can't due to patents on color management for glass lenses (and they found a hole in patent coverage by doing it on some proprietary plastic). It may also be that this is why it's so hard to find out what it is, exactly. Maybe they are concerned they are actually violating a patent and thus making it hard to prove.
But patents don't last forever.
And frankly, the whole color management thing works, but I don't find it terribly important. It's neat. Like a parlor trick. It's not really necessary and doesn't help you see fish, for instance. For that you need clarity, sharpness, contrast, and good polarization. Smith glass delivers that. As do many others.
I don't see that. It says more clarity than the standard chromapop lenses (meaning polycarb).
Yes, that's the case with Costa and MJ too. I have 2 pair of MJ's, one glass, the other "MauiPure" (i.e. Trivex). I also have a pair of glass Costa's. Both glass lenses walk all over the plastic.
When you read reviews, blogs, comparisons, etc, it is not ever, ever fair to compare one brands glass vs. another's plastic. Nomatter how hard the plastic is marketed as being new and great. Forget brand. Glass beats plastic in terms of optics. Period. Plastic beats glass in terms of safety, period.
Oakley takes it a step further. They do optics comparisons, using only the weakest polycarb options from competitors. Then they do shatter resistance comparisons, using only glass from the competitors. Selective reasoning to make your product seem superior at everything!
But I don't think I can say anyone's glass beats anyone else's glass. You may have preferences as far as tints, VLT, and available frames. But I don't think anyone's is clearer or sharper than anyone else's. That probably applies to Ray Ban and Serengeti too, both of which still make glass, I think. Revo may as well. (Ray Ban and Revo are the same company, really, as both are Luxottica).
You are still talking in the neighborhood of $200 for ANYONE'S glass lenses. And getting it in prescription is difficult at best.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Glass > any plastic. Doesn't matter which brand, other than tint preference.
Plastic comes in many varieties. Fancy plastics > polycarbonate. How much better DOES matter which brand. And the current arms race is to develop better and better plastics, though determining reality from marketing is difficult and none hold a candle to glass.
Smith Chromapop = Costa 580 (beyond polarized) = MJ Polarized2Plus (3 rare earth elements...) = Serengeti Spectral Control. Marketing terms for additives which block light at certain wavelengths, attempting to reduce transmission to mainly the primary colors of light. Brain gets less confused and is able to recombine those colors to re-create all other colors. Result is color brightening. Reds redder. Blues bluer. Greens greener. Etc. But it's not really adding sharpness or clarity or better polarization. Just more color saturation.
Smith does not offer this technology in glass, only plastic. Costa and MJ do offer it in both plastic and glass. Reason is patent protection.
Prescription with glass lens. Difficult to find at best. Unavailable at worst.
