Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vision distance blurrier in tinted sunglasses vs clear lenses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Robert_S View Post
    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.
    www.DanielLivingston.com

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Robert_S View Post
      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!

      :giggle:

      Comment


        #33
        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.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Elvis Is Alive View Post
          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.

          Comment

          Working...
          X