We should be wearing sunglasses throughout the day and especially while kiteboarding! Why aren't we?

[Matteo V]

Don't give up, pulley! You can do way better than this.

The pic is only " focused " on the back surfaces showing the lenses colorful reflex to indicate what to "look" for in quality sunglasses
Yes the rest is blurred behind the lenses
So to all of you out there if you want to see better through sunglasses make sure white light does not reflect white but with a "color" on the back surface

So kind of like you can tell how a car rides by what kind of rims it has??? Can you maybe link this a little more to why I need to spend $200 vs $1? Pretty color reflections off the lens means....that...there....is....good...anti...reflective....coatings....and thus worth paying $200 for?

Do you own a good pair of binocular ? Not ElCheapo kind
Well all the glass lenses that makes a good pair has coated optics....yep ...anti-reflective treatment on both surfaces of all of them
Transmittance ends up being near 95%....if there was no AR the transmission can end up as low as only 65% of the light reaching the eyes...so it's a must to SEE
Light goes through so many lenses that you would lose way too much light transmission once it got to you eyes....plus you get ghost imaging
That's the light trapped between the front and back of each lenses reflection bouncing back and forth inside....every lenses has a thickness ...so AR takes care of that

Yep! I get it. Multiple glass lenses benefit noticeably from optics coatings. And it is odd that you would bring this up as I had some experience in the past with this.

About 15 or so years ago when I was still into other outdoor sports, I was sold on the "expensive optic" thing. But I did not want to wrap up too much money in my optics so I opted for mid level pricing. As my first purchase I choose $350 10x50 Nikon binoculars. Much more pricey than the $80 store brand, but not quite in the thousands of dollars like the Zeiss optics. For back up and my work vehicle, I choose a pair of the $80 store brand optics. And there was a difference! BUT IT WAS SO FRIKIN SMALL THAT I WAS P.O.ed that I had just blown an extra $270 for no discernible difference in functionality. So that led me to try some friends and acquaintences Zeiss and other top end brands. And again, I could still see fine through the $80 pair, pick up every detail, and use them in any situation - the same as a $2000 (yes I said $2000) pair.

Now back to the first part of my response. Multiple glass lenses in a magnifying optic that needs to take a very small amount of light and magnify it (the whole high school physics thing about distance from a light source thing) for our eye to see very far away from it's source, often times at dusk or dawn, ARE NOT SUNGLASSES!

And this is the why of the "$200 sunglasses are a waste of money" thing:
1. They are not glass
2. They do not magnify light from a distance
3. They are used at times when there is too much light anyway.

So I just caught you making a comparison to optics meant to magnify the available light vs sunglasses that are meant to simply decrease the amount of light while filtering out the UV. These two things are as close to opposite as you can get.

What the reader has to ask themselves now is - "should I pay $200 for plastic sunglasses when there are perfectly functioning $100 binoculars out there?" I mean, those two things are obviously different in technology required, and materials and labor put into them. Should any really pay more for the little piece of plastic with no dials or adjustments?

So pulley, you get another thanks for bringing to light (pun, again, intended) just another reason to feel bad about getting swindled by marketing that was not even that great.

Look at your binoculars if you have some...or camera...or telescope...the lenses will have a color reflex reflection under white light
Only glass is used because it has low reflectance and crisp optics...........polycarbonate would not work..high reflectance and poor optics

Ok. So are you an advocate of glass sunglasses? Are we talking about glass sunglasses now? Or are you making my argument for me by blurting out how your previous comparison to binoculars (magnifying optics) is not related to the topic at hand?

[dice]

Let me get it straight: when experiencing fogged windshield in the car, I have to blow combined AC and heat airflow onto the front windshield, or have to run some electric current via the wire embedded in the back glass. If there is rain I have to turn on wipers. But somehow a magic coating or "antifog" label on $200 glasses solves these problems?

That's a weird comparison, you can use vinegar on the inside of the windshield and rain-x on the outside of the windshield.
Won't completely solve the issue, but it will help a lot. Just like the guy is trying to explain with his $100 glasses.

[PullStrings]

$200 sunglasses is not much if you use them 180 days a year....or 360 per 2 year....or 480 per 3....etc
Matteo just curious how much did you kite with $1 glasses ?
1- this week
2-this month
3- this year
4- since you started

Yes for the other poster ...sunglasses are not telescopes to let in maximum available light ...or binoculars
Sunglasses have generally a mirror front surface to reflect light away and make the lenses darker to the viewer
Back surface being dark tinted acts like a mirror to the viewer so it has to have an anti- reflective multi layer coating to see right through the lenses effortlessly
15% of visible light usually in sunglasses transmitted to viewer's eyes

It is a fact that having a no glare treatment on the back on sun lenses will give up to 20% better contrast sensitivity
An other fact :
It will eliminate distracting glare (ghost images) providing 7X more comfort than a Polarized Lens without backside No-Glare Treatment
Polarized lenses eliminates 100% blinding reflective glare
Polarized lenses with back-AR are worth every pennies of their $200 cost

[Matt Air]

So Pullstrings

U have obviously done your research! Which specific sunglasses do you recommend for kiting?

Thanks!

[jakemoore]

Don't give up, pulley! ....

Ok. So are you an advocate of glass sunglasses? Are we talking about glass sunglasses now? Or are you making my argument for me by blurting out how your previous comparison to binoculars (magnifying optics) is not related to the topic at hand?

https://www.costadelmar.com/us/en/perfo ... 580-lenses

People really like these 580g glass lenses a lot. And people who have had rx glasses made out of glass will seek out an optician who will do glass lenses because they like how well they see.

My opinion is that any of the polymer lenses are safer.

[PullStrings]

So Pullstrings
U have obviously done your research! Which specific sunglasses do you recommend for kiting?
Thanks!

It's all about the lenses really... assembled in a wrap safety frame...would stay away from glass...polycarbonate or NXT ( trivex type ) are the safest protection
Safety rated frames have deeper or special designed "bevel" in their eyewire to hold the lenses in case of frontal impact..one of temple will have Z87.1 or .2 on it
Sunglass model Typhoon ( which i have never seen in person ) has very nice Zeiss polar lenses with the features you are looking for
They did mention earlier in this thread that they will soon release non-polar lenses for those who object to polar lenses when in the waves under certain type lighting
The only feature not mentioned in product description is the lenses backside anti-reflective ( non glare treatment )
Many high end sunglasses that retail over $200 have the back non glare treatment but don't mention it which is in my opinion strange
Very important feature to have because you will see better even when the lenses have little droplets of water on them even with their super hydrophobic 2 sided finish
Look for a color reflection coming from the back of the lenses....purple...green or other..use overhead white light as you hold the shades to reflect that light

My sunglasses are not kite specific ( $259 retail 2 years ago )...but have all the features needed... including the "purple reflex " to remove the backside lens glare
Xiphos 4.0 is Hydrophobic Oleophobic Scratch resistant
They are restrained with a Croakie Terra Cord Max at the temple tips and from the end of the Croakie leashed with single thin short line to the center top of my waist harness
You can use a piece of old kite line to make the short leash or a thin cut down shoelace like i do....don't have to be long...just over a foot usually works
I've kited 75 days this year with them....had 4 big wipe outs in the ocean...they did come off my head completely...but it was easy to retrieve them from behind my back





Hope this helps you
Thank you for your question

[PullStrings]

You sound like pumpy on this!

Ignore the lies and exaggerations.
$1.00 one piece wrap safety glasses clear or tinted are grossly inferior optically compared to $200 safety wrap polar lenses with all the super high tech coatings

Pully

[Matteo V]

...Back surface being dark tinted acts like a mirror to the viewer so it has to have an anti- reflective multi layer coating to see right through the lenses effortlessly...

...It will eliminate distracting glare (ghost images) providing 7X more comfort than a Polarized Lens without backside No-Glare Treatment
Polarized lenses eliminates 100% blinding reflective glare
Polarized lenses with back-AR are worth every pennies of their $200 cost

Ignore the lies and exaggerations.

Again and again......

It does not "have to have anti- reflective" as most of the sunglasses wearing world gets along fine without. That is your first lie. The idea that there is even an urgent need for anti-reflective in a single lens non-magnifying pair of sunglasses is absurd.

"7x more comfort"? You have got to think people are complete idiots here. Not only is this a ridiculous claim, but I love the "ghost images" thing! Are you saying that when you are wearing regular polarized sunglasses with no AR on them, you see 'dead people'? Frikin absolutely hilarious. So you get off at least one more lie, while the other one could possibly be citing a BS marketing study. Thus for that one, you get off with maybe only exaggeration, but more likely you know you are citing someone else's lie.

And polarized lenses do not eliminate 100% of the blinding glare. They only eliminate the "blinding glare" in the same plane as the polarization. That is your 3rd lie. And this is where we get into why many of us who have enjoyed the benefits of polarized glasses in other outdoor sports, have found polarized sunglasses to be a liability in the waves.

$200 sunglasses is not much if you use them 180 days a year....or 360 per 2 year....or 480 per 3....etc
Matteo just curious how much did you kite with $1 glasses ?
1- this week
2-this month
3- this year
4- since you started

Yes, pulley....if we buy movie popcorn (reported to be the highest markup consumer purchase), we can divide the cost by the number of milliseconds that we enjoy that popcorn and find that we are only paying a tiny fraction of a cent per millisecond of enjoyment. I get it, and some of the above 86 IQ forum participants do too. Sorry for not answering your question, but I just could not stomach you going down that "black hole" of logic. So let me bring things back to reality. If I am looking for my 5 year old $200 sunglasses to put on before I head out on the water, and I find them missing, broken, or scratched severely.........Well now I get to ride a session without sunglasses, and look forward to shelling out another $200 (oops, now they cost $270) when I make it by your kiosk again. So it is not "just a few dollars per session". It is a $200+ bill at what will likely be a financially inconvenient time for a kiteboarder. But in 'Matteo's world', I just pull out a brand new pair of $1 sunglasses that I will likely use for the rest of the season.

And here is another dose of reality! Prescription eyeglasses, ACTUAL PRESCRIPTION EYEGLASSES, cost less than the stuff you are peddling. And if you look up prescription eye-wear frames, they are one of the highest markup consumer purchases as well. So you are telling me that for a few pieces of plastic, not even customized for my vision, I NEED to pay $200 because......um......muh....coatings?

I have got to say that you actually are somehow leading on a few forum participants here. Some seem to be swallowing your "marketing" tactics. I have done what I can, but in the end, it is up to them to decide whether to blow $200 while desperately trying to convince themselves that they did the right thing, or wake up and realize that high end sunglasses are a complete waste of money.

[CaptainCore]

I have done what I can, but in the end,

Surely not...

This can't be the end, there must be so much more bollox you can cut n paste...

So much bandwidth... so little time.

[Matteo V]

I have done what I can, but in the end,

Surely not...

This can't be the end, there must be so much more bollox you can cut n paste...

So much bandwidth... so little time.

Thank you for that assessment, cappy. But the "bollox" claim needs to be backed up with some evidence in order to have any validity. Maybe cite a principle of physics and how it does or does not relate to the situation at hand. Or bring to light a study or statistic you have found. Unfortunately, I am thinking you have little to add to the discussion, as usual. Though we do all appreciate the try.

Still, very much at your service once again, cappy!