Sunglass preferences

[Kirk Gittings]

Just an observation........

I always wear sunglasses. I prefer Oakley M frames with the nuetral grey unpolarized lenses, because they do not distort my view. On my way to England I lost my Oakleys and had to grab some others from the nearest sporting goods store. In a hurry i picked up some Natives which were warm toned and polarized. For the entire trip I was initially seeing every shot unrealistically until I removed the glasses to duck under the dark cloth, each time being shocked by how different the real scene looked. For me I think I will go back to the Oakley nuetral lenses, because initially when previsualizing, I need to see the scene as it is. On the other hand I could see why people might prefer the polarized/warm view of the world if that were close to how they shoot chromes.

Any thoughts?

[matthew blais]

Personally I never cared for the "look" (style) of Oakelys..I went with Maui Jims and the clarity was wonderful. When they got lost/stolen whatever, I found a different pair at Sam's club for less than half the cost ($60.00) with the (purported) same coatings/lenses as Maui's. They're great. Brand name is "Pacific Traders".

[robc]

In the days when I skied a lot, the glasses of preference were Vuarnet's. The reason was quite simple. The coating was designed to give max contrast in flat lighting on snow where it can become impossible to see the terrain you are skiing over. For general use the PX2000 lens is fine and for the black and white photographer it will help previsualise the contrast you can obtain from a scene. Especially helpful for seeing what contrast there is in an ovecast sky which may look totally flat to the naked eye.

http://www.vuarnet.com/

I guess oakleys have something similar but vuarnet glass lenses are of very high optical quality.

[Eric Leppanen]

I own two pairs of Oakley wrap-around glasses: a dark pair with an iridium-coated polarized lens, which I use when driving and hiking in bright sunlight; and a lighter, unpolarized pair which enhances contrast (it has a semi-red tint like shooters' glasses) for use in twilight and low-light conditions (I also use it when playing golf). Frankly, my overriding goal is eye protection (don't want those UV rays to give me cataracts later in life...) so I just roll with the punches regarding any compositional issues. I do wear a really broad-rimmed hat outdoors, so taking the glasses off for brief periods usually doesn't expose my eyes to direct sunlight if I feel the need.

I've noticed the additional contrast provided by the polarization, but I guess I have learned to ignore it. I do tend to be almost exclusively a "golden hour" shooter (even though I shoot both chrome and B&W), so perhaps the effect is not as pronounced for me.

I do like the Oakley’s for their light weight and lack of distortion. I also live fifteen minutes away from Oakley corporate headquarters, where I can pick up replacement lenses or frames (in my experience these items tend to break roughly once a year or so) for considerably less money than buying a new set of glasses.

[Frank Petronio]

Ha, Rob C reminding me of my ski bum days too (early Reagan era). Vuarnets were REQUIRED ;-) They really were better.

But they kind of sucked once I got into landscape photography because nothing looked as good once I lifted my sunglasses off.

[robc]

Yup, life looks sunnier through a pair of Vuarnet's...

now if you could get that coating on a camera filter...

[Bruce Watson]

Mine have to be made to my prescription. I'm using a lens neutral gray lens that blocks about 80% of visual light, nearly 100% of UV, and is polarized.

While the polarization does make some things look different under the dark cloth it's not much so. It's usually just sky and water that look different, and neither of them bothers me much.

The thing about polarized sun glasses though is driving. Polarization is like a stress reliever - I'm much more relaxed after driving all day with Polorizied lenses than I was without.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I usually just buy the cheapest sunglasses I can find- never more than 9.99 at a discount store. All glass will filter out UV, which is what matters to me. Usually, a new pair will have several deep gouges in the glass by the first road trip I take them on. I would much rather worry about my important glass that goes on the front of the camera, and save the money for new examples. You can buy great lenses for the price that some people are spending on sunglasses!

[400d]

I own 3 pairs of sunglasses. The first one is given to me as a gift from my wife..it's an Oakley polarized. Jezzzurprise..it costs $200! I was like: wtf?! I ain't wearing that running around! NO! That thing is so good looking and chic, but I am too much of a badass that I know it won't stand well under my abuse. So yea, I got it since October and I haven't worn it once.
The second pair is Uvex, some I-dunno brand I got from ebay, it costs like $30 bucks. It claims it features the Melanin. As long as it's some brand rather than brand-less chinese made, I am comfortable with it.

The third pair isn't really sunglasses. But polycarbonate does block out like 99% of UVA and UVB, crap, I did research on that on google :P And polycarbonate will stand up to more impact then your body does. You can get these safety glasses for well UNDER $20 with shipping, what a deal!
3M is the industry standard, you can have your faith with it, I bought my first pair from 3M and I lost it...
Scroll down to the bottom you will see some nice flashy style:

http://www3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/...er/output_html

The second pair I bought:
Pyramex, pretty much same spec as 3M's. Mine is clear lens.

http://store.pksafety.net/pyxsggl.html

[Josh Z.]

I've noticed that my smiths make everything more unreal as well... So I wear a hat, and leave the glasses at home. Better skin protection as well