Vision distance blurrier in tinted sunglasses vs clear lenses

[phhung95]

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

[drk]

You thought about the Y-axis. How about the X?

Maybe not enough panto on the sunglasses because they're so honking big?

Try holding up -0.50 DCx 180 and see if she smiles.

Or tilt the sunglasses for more panto by putting the temples on the outside of the ears.

[Uilleann]

Tint and Crizal aren't compatible.

Further, I wasn't aware that XR was being offered in pre-tinted 1.67 blanks yet (at least not according to E rep out of Omega Dallas I spoke with). If that's true, you either didn't get Sapphire, or you didn't get an XR.

[PRECISIONLAB]

Check for lens aberrations as I'm assuming extended tinting time in 200 degree tint pot possibly warped lens.

Polarized should always be used for sunglasses.

[Michael22]

There's less light entering the retina, so comparing and contrasting a clear pair to a sunglass pair the optics aren't going to be as good especially if in a tinted window car? Idk that's just what I pulled out of my ***

[DanLiv]

My go-to guess in such situations is the pt is slightly underminused. The sun lenses are so dark the attenuated light reveals the issue, while it is not noticeable in the clear. What drk says: put some minus in front of her and see if that alleviates it. Might also reveal that the clear DV isn't as good as she thought.

Tint and Crizal aren't compatible.

They are in principle compatible, I have had it done. However many labs have discontinued the practice because the tint dye contaminates the TD2 bath requiring it to be changed out, which is costly and time-consuming. But it can be done if you find a lab willing to do it.
But I don't know the policies for sure any more, I haven't tinted a lens in years. Polarized always.

[drk]

I'm not understanding the "polarized always" movement. Can someone sell me on that?

[drk]

For the record, I do not think the pupil size in sunglasses increases very significantly.

[Elvis Is Alive]

Outside of pilots, I havent sold a tinted lens in over 8 years. In Florida, with all the water everywhere, it is a no brainer. Not to mention the huge benefit of dashboard reflections in windshields being eliminated.

Plus we dont have to deal with that Gray 3 solid tint coming back to us in 18 + months because it has turned purple.

[DanLiv]

I'm not understanding the "polarized always" movement. Can someone sell me on that?

My reasons, in order of importance to me:
You can't readily put the best ARs on tint for the reasons I mentioned, so you have to go for more basic "spray it on anything" ARs. Polarized are compatible with Crizal, EX4, Zeiss Duravision
The reduced glare from eliminating surface reflections is literally superhuman vision. Tinted lenses merely obstruct light, they don't reduce surface glare
As Elvis Is Alive said tints do fade and change color over time with exposure to UV. Polarizing filters do not fade.
Matching a sample is a nightmare. Tints often come out too light or too dark for pt preference. Polarized are fixed, so for better or worse pts can't change it.

[optical24/7]

The main reasons that I’ve heard are…Skiers. They need to see the “ice” on their course. Pilots. Old instruments are cross polarized and can blackout/become difficult to read. And golfers. Reflections on the course help to determine the terrain and lay.

[Uilleann]

The main reasons that I’ve heard are…Skiers. They need to see the “ice” on their course. Pilots. Old instruments are cross polarized and can blackout/become difficult to read. And golfers. Reflections on the course help to determine the terrain and lay.

As a skier in Utah, I can tell you from years of direct, personal experience, as well as having fit thousands of fellow skiers and boarders that the "not being able to see ice" thing is nothing but a myth. As an old pilot as well, I have never flown in *any* aircraft type new or old that polar lenses created any issues whatsoever. Further, there is NO AIM/FAR regulation that precludes pilots from wearing polar lenses (unlike the wildly erroneous information given out in numerous ABO classes I've sat through over the years). There are some companies, that will have a corporate rule against polar, usually due to laminated windscreen optics and not instrumentation, but even those are rare.

As far as golf goes - it's a dumb game, and I don't waste my time. Have at it! LOLZ

[optical24/7]

I differ to your expertise Uille, these were the only plausible reasons I’ve heard of, all hearsay, to some degree I’m sure. Though I used to play golf, my game was so bad that magic glasses wouldn’t help, so I can’t comment on that reasoning either.

[iD]

I differ to your expertise Uille, these were the only plausible reasons I’ve heard of, all hearsay, to some degree I’m sure. Though I used to play golf, my game was so bad that magic glasses wouldn’t help, so I can’t comment on that reasoning either.

but at least you can see the ball in the bushes or sand trap better.

[Robert Martellaro]

As far as golf goes - it's a dumb game, and I don't waste my time. Have at it! LOLZ

but at least you can see the ball in the bushes or sand trap better.

Fun, if you enjoy "jerking away in the sand". See Robin Williams explaination of the game below (language).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14NQIq4SrmY&t=104s