Polarized Glasses - Any Science To Compare Them?

[xbacksideslider]

As I understand it, diffuse light hits the water from all directions but it is largely re-aligned when it is reflected off the water and transformed (from our viewpoint) into a largely horizontal band - glare.  Polarization uses a vertical filter to reduce that horizontal band of light while allowing the vertical band of light through to our eyes.

 

How effective is one lens compared to another, is there a rating? an industry standard? 

 

This link explains how Land invented it and how his company made, and makes it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_(polarizer)

 

How do I know whether brand X offers better glare reduction than brand Y? 

Are there preferred materials or methods of manufacture?

Glass vs plastic? 

 

If the polarization, brand to brand, is consistent, then it's all about the lenses themselves, curvature and thickness, subtle distortions, light gathering . . . are there industry standards here?

 

Sunglasses cause our pupils to dilate more.

Is there, then, a harmful effect when stray light enters our eyes by getting in from the sides or reflecting up from under?  I notice diminished perception, light blinding sort of, when glare reflects in the side.  Ever notice how folks tilt their head and look askance so the glasses can catch the glare that if they were looking straight ahead would be coming in the side?

 

Bottom line - I'll pay for the best but I can't tell high class junk from yeoman value.

[mc6524]

You really have no way of comparing them. A couple of things to consider is to make sure you get hydrophobic lenses, and price is not always a good indicator. In my opinion you can get a good pair by not spending more than $80-$100.

[flyfisher]

The only way to tell what is best is to try them out.  Generally speaking a glass lens is always going to be better than plastic as it is easier to have a uniform lens.  Lens color also comes into play as does the type of water you are fishing.

 

I have tried just about every pair of sunglasses out there (working in an outdoor retail store and fly shop has its advantages) and the best i have found are the costa del mar 580g in green mirror.  There is no distortion like you get with plastic lens, think oakley, native and smith. 

 

As far as opening yourself up to additional UV exposure by wearing you are probably right to an extent but it still a whole lot less than if you didn't wear anything and remember that sunglasses are as much about protection from flying objects as the sun.  I know mine have saved me a few times from overhanging trees floating the river or hooksets that didn't hook..  Also if you wear contacts like i do there is a good chance your contacts prevent UV exposure.  I know mine do, or at least that is what the label says.

[Scott F]

Take two pair of polarized glasses. Turn one 90 degrees from the other and look through both pair. No light should get through. I've done this with $10 glasses and $200 models. The cheap ones blocked the same amount of light as the big dollar models. If there was a difference in the quality of the polarization, I'd think it would be visible. You can use the same test to see if any pair of sunglasses is polarized. Just make sure one of the pairs is known to be polarized. If the light isn't blocked, the second pair are not polarized.

[stevec328]

The only way to tell what is best is to try them out.  Generally speaking a glass lens is always going to be better than plastic as it is easier to have a uniform lens.  Lens color also comes into play as does the type of water you are fishing.

 

 

 

 

Something to consider -- when you hang your bait and give it a yank to release it, there is frequently a lead missile flying through the air in your direction. I wouldn't want to be wearing glass lenses if that lead missile hit my sunglasses. While I agree that glass is going to be a more uniform lens, I'll take a polycarbonate lens for the safety aspect. I have had polycarbonate lenes in my prescription glasses for years and if there is distortion, it is not noticeable. JMO

[xbacksideslider]

Thanks guys.

 

Flyfisher, I'll check out those Costas. 

Maybe cheap polycarbonate lenses are more likely to distort and that's what we pay for upscale polycarbonate.

Glass can't be easy to make the right shape, consistently, either.

 

On stevec328's point on kinetic protection, I don't know, I imagine that tempered glass is universally used.

To make a pair of sunglasses out of regular glass would be criminal, or ought to be.

Tempered of course does not make shards when it breaks, it sort of crumbles.

I once tested polycarbonate lenses with a BB gun - BB went right through, can't say that's comparable to a fishing weight.

 

Good idea Scott about turning one pair at right angles to another pair to verify polarization, or not, as well as any differences in effectiveness of that polarization.

 

Still, it seems that the industry is hiding the ball since AFIK there are no standards and none of them make any technical or scientific claims.

[flyfisher]

I have cracked a few pairs of glass lenses but only one from a fly hitting them and none of them broke into pieces.  My understanding is that they have a film inside the glass that prevents pieces from breaking free if cracked.  

[QUAKEnSHAKE]

Here is a video of some glass vs poly from Oakley

 

[Loop_Dad]

I haven't bought any sunglasses except for the cheapo for long time. I get one of those from like $20 BPS one. I just wear them for awhile and replace when they get scratched up. Are $200 glasses that better? When I wear at the store, it is kind of hard to tell the difference...I also wonder about the colors.

[SirSnookalot]

I've been wearing prescription eyewear for more than 50 years, haven't had a pair of glass lenses in at least 30 years, maybe more.  The technology in plastic lenses has improved steadily, much of the difference is due to weight, and various coatings, polarization is a thin film.  I haven't seen much difference in the actually polarizing effect between my $10 flip ups compared to my Cocoon $20 flip ups, compared to my $400+ prescription polarized sunglasses that I recently bought.  Personally I prefer flip ups on my prescription glasses for several reasons, I start fishing long before the sun comes up, depending how the light is hitting the water I sometimes see better without them, I flip them up while tieing a knot.  No denying some glare does enter from the side but I hardly pay any attention to it.  

Eyewear is one of the more marked up items I can think of.  I used to buy my glasses wholesale from friends in the business, the cost of both lenses and frames is no where near what we pay for them retail.

[LVLDVL]

Polarization quality can be seen. Cheap lens with cheap polarization layer will make things look unclear especially when your head is moving. It's not like blurry vision, but it's more like a super-micro fuzz. In some people, this could lead to headaches and eye aches.

 

If you are looking for cheapo $10 shades, I would recommend you get a pair with UV protection and no polarization. At the end of the day, protecting your eyes from UV rays and hooks/lures are more important than seeing fish and cover in the water (which is d**n nice though). You don't need ANSI certified impact lens; you just need a barrier that will reduce the impact of a flying lure/tackle should it head right towards your eye balls.

 

I wear Ironman Athlete shades. These are d**n fine and most models are ~$30-$40. Repels water, dirt, UV protection, scratch resistant, and all have good polarization quality. The frames are crazy tough materials I was surprised! If it's built for them crazy Tri-athletes swimming, running, biking, you know it's good for anything.