Vision distance blurrier in tinted sunglasses vs clear lenses

[AngeHamm]

Yep. Let's be crystal clear - that ancient brochure is NOT part of AIM/FAR regulation. And their "number of reasons" are laughably vague in that context. There are thousands of pilots who DO wear polar lenses, in all manner of fixed wing and rotor craft with no issue whatsoever. It's bad form in the extreme to perpetuate as "fact", or "rule" in this case that the aviation environment specifically precludes any polar lens use. Leave it up to the individual pilot - they'll thank you for it!

You can tell how old this guidance is by the fact that it refers to crown glass as "readily available."

[DanLiv]

Not to hijack, but do you all put a flash coat on the front of your polars?

Nah, flash mirrors are primarily cosmetic, they don't reflect enough light. If I mirror, and I do on maybe 30% of my suns, it's a solid.

I love KBco mirrored blanks because you can surface or generate almost any backside design on them, they are dark, they are inexpensive (since they are not Crizal compatible I sub a less expensive backside AR, and that savings neatly covers the minor extra expense of the mirror. They're cost-neutral so I give away the mirrors for fun a lot of the time), they are fast because you don't have to send out for coating, and surprisingly they are much more scratch resistant (I don't have mirrors rubbing off within a year or two like I do with outsource mirror coatings).

[Elvis Is Alive]

Not to hijack, but do you all put a flash coat on the front of your polars?

Not too often but I probably do 5-10% of Polarized suns with a mirror. Sometimes flash, more often solid.

Cherry's mirrors are excellent. https://www.colsamples.com/

[NAICITPO]

OD: -4.75 - 2.25 x 25
OS: -4.75 - 2.25 x 180
2.25ADD

Lenses #1: Varilux XR 1.67 Transition XTRActive Grey w/ Crizal Sapphire
Lenses #2. Varilux XR 1.67 Tinted Grey 3 w/ Crizal Sapphire

Point of wear measurements are also taken into account.
Customer love vision in lenses #1 when driving but complain that she can't see well out of lenses 2 when driving. No crazy wraps on the sunglasses.

Anybody have an idea of what other things I should be checking for?

Thank you

Maybe check the BC? Do you know the recommended BC for the sun frame? You cannot pre-determine the BC of the X or the XR, the all knowing lab computer software determines that, so a lot of times I end up going with the Varilux Stylstic for wrap frames.

[Robert_S]

Non polarised lenses provide better depth perception, and are better for most people performing most tasks.

Check this: https://www.zeiss.com/sunlens/produc...echnology.html

I can see the argument that polarised is better for driving, but that's simply in terms of comfort, not necessarily clarity (except in certain conditions)

That polarised is always better is a common myth amongst eyesore professionals

[DanLiv]

That polarised is always better is a common myth amongst eyesore professionals

Disagree. There is nothing detrimental about polarization. The only thing Lightpro is claiming it is superior in is "Contrast and depth perception" and that's just because they transmit more light. If any of this is true at all, a non-polarized 15% transmission tinted lens is going to impede "contrast and depth perception" the same as a polarized would. A lighter polarized lens would give that contrast back, so order a polar A if you want. And to kill any thought that this is evidence polarized is in any way inferior, the Lightpro ARE polarized. That polarized is not always better is a common myth.

[Uilleann]

Non polarised lenses provide better depth perception, and are better for most people performing most tasks.

Check this: https://www.zeiss.com/sunlens/produc...echnology.html

I can see the argument that polarised is better for driving, but that's simply in terms of comfort, not necessarily clarity (except in certain conditions)

That polarised is always better is a common myth amongst eyesore professionals

Robert. Dude.

This may be the silliest thing I've read here in a good while! That's a subjective opinion of course, and you're absolutely entitled to it. But absolutely NOT based in optical science in the least!

[Elvis Is Alive]

I worked with several pro golfers, including a British Open champ, and most of them prefer non-polarized lenses for golf course use. Their claim is that it is much harder reading undulations on the putting surface with polarized lenses.

That's the only use case where I mention non-polarized unless a pilot's employer restricts them from use.

[Uilleann]

I worked with several pro golfers, including a British Open champ, and most of them prefer non-polarized lenses for golf course use. Their claim is that it is much harder reading undulations on the putting surface with polarized lenses.

That's the only use case where I mention non-polarized unless a pilot's employer restricts them from use.

I'd bet more than even money that the polar lenses they didn't like were almost certainly Oakleys. Which are definitely and firmly in the optical garbage category - they're also one of the most prominent names in highly visible sporty sports like PGA tours etc. Their marketing department has been on horse steroids for decades of course, but they are bar none the worst polar lenses I've ever had the headache to look through. But seeing Tiger et al, or whoever the famous ball whacker of the moment happens to be wearing a pair, you'll then see them showing up in spades on the links.

I'd be happy to put every one of said "anti-polar" golfers into properly, well made polar lenses such as Costa / Maui / Randolph / AO etc., and have them re-evaluate their visual stance.