Glacier Glasses

[skyclimb]

In your opinions what are the best pair for the money. Obviously some pairs fit better than others, but as far as lens and durability goes what is your choice??

[Bronco]

Oakleys with a non reflective coating on the inside of the lense. Worn up and down Rainier and some other volcano and glacier stuff with no problemo. No sideshields either mounties!

 

I had some low end Julbo's that were "glaicier glasses" and I got mild snow blindess twice on day trips. Garbage can!

[ExtremoMtDude]

i prefer a good pair of reflective ski goggles any day of the week. they are multifunctional, and gosh darn, i look good in them! LOL

[Attitude]

Wrap duct tape over your eyes and cut a horizontal slit with your knife.

 

Works great.

[sobo]

Julbos. They make you look like an some old antiquated polar explorer. And the chicas dig 'em!

[lummox]

skyclimb said:

In your opinions what are the best pair for the money. Obviously some pairs fit better than others, but as far as lens and durability goes what is your choice??

those cheap ass ones that make ya look like ya just came from the eye doctor. you know what im talking bout?

[mattp]

I could be wrong, but my impression is that it doesn't matter that much as far as protecting your eyes is concerned. You can use the most expensive Nikons, the styling Julbo's, or cheapest glacier glasses from REI or even the drug-store ones and they will all block the UV. I use side shields only in the most extreme conditions, like climbing at truly high altitude or when spending an entire day on a south-facing snow slope or something, and I have never had any noticeable ill effects (though a friend of mine said that I could have done long-term damage without knowing it). So buy what you want, and for the once a year that you climb Mount Rainier you can put duct tape on the sides if they don't come with side shields.

 

There are other issues, though. Do you care about style? Buy what your friends are wearing, or buy something that is definitely NOT what your friends are wearing. You have to decide for yourself.

 

Toughness? You probably can't beat some of the industrial grade safety glasses for toughness, and some of these come with tinted lenses.

 

Cheap vs. Expensive? Expensive sunglasses may not actually cost as much more as you might think - in the long run. If you are like me, you will take care of the expensive glasses but the more moderately priced ones may end up tossed into your pack flap without use of the glasses case or sitting in the sand at your campsite or whatever.

 

Tint? Rose colored glasses make everything look really cool. Yellow is supposed to cut through the fog better, but I really can't say that I could ever tell the difference.

[JoshK]

If you are me, cheap is better. I break and lose so many pairs of sunglasses it isn't funny.

[snoboy]

JoshK said:

If you are me, cheap is better. I break and lose so many pairs of sunglasses it isn't funny.

 

MEC has cheap glasses with good optics. Lots of sizes and shapes too.

[Beck]

i gotten a few prescription sunglasses for a hundred bucks a pop at lenscrafters.... its a great way to go if you wear glasses

...otherwise, most julbo glacier glasses readily take Rx ing.

 

[Thinker]

I like my Julbo Colorados

 

I'm typically on Rainier 3 or 4 times a year, Baker a couple, etc, etc, etc.... If I were to go climb in Alaska or the Himalaya I'd defininitely get glasses that block more light. The Julbos seem just about right for the Cascades, IMHO. I pop the side shields when I need more ventilation and let them hang on the side bars.

 

Bronco, which cheap Julbos caused you problems?

[iain]

I made the mistake of hanging out in an avalanche seminar w/o wearing my sunglasses on a bluebird day at around 7000'. I'll never, ever make that mistake again. I woke up the next day with my eyes almost swollen shut. After that, my eyes have been sensitive to strong sun on snow, to the point one will get red if exposed too long.

[Bronco]

Thinker said:

 

Bronco, which cheap Julbos caused you problems?

 

I think they were called the Julbo Sherpa or something like that, they retailed for $29.99 or $39.99 what ever the cheapest glasses in the line were.

 

Now that iain mentoins it, my eyes were real sensitive immediatly after I stopped working out on roofs year round. I'd get headaches from just being out on a bright day mowing the lawn or whatever, right about that time. Could have been me, but, I wouldn't go above tree line without some quality glasses, snow blindness is so suck!

[iain]

yeah it was really scary to not be able to see when I woke up and not knowing if it would go away. I'm sure I received some substantial permanent damage from that (and a few other times).

 

Also I would be careful with the gas station sunglasses. I guess there are some really cheap sunglasses out there that do not do a good job of blocking UV, but block natural light so your pupils dilate and actually cause a great deal of damage.

[Bronco]

well, I didn't actually go blind like that, both of my expereiences were just very watery, swollen eyes that felt like I had sand stuck all over them and blinking just made it worse. At least I could still see!

 

Reminded me a lot of flash burn from watching someone arc weld.

[Fence_Sitter]

ExtremoMtDude said:

i prefer a good pair of reflective ski goggles any day of the week. they are multifunctional, and gosh darn, i look good in them! LOL

 

if you wanna bake your ass off and fog up in 90 + degree temps... not a good idea...

[Fence_Sitter]

i would look at the julbo sherpas they are cheaper have good colorization (you can see features in snow like crevasses) and they have been pretty hardy... ma 2 cents

[ski_photomatt]

Tint? Rose colored glasses make everything look really cool. Yellow is supposed to cut through the fog better, but I really can't say that I could ever tell the difference.

 

This year I switched to rose colored ski googles after years with yellow and they are much better in fog. Black and white photographers use red filters to increase contrast; your eyes compensate for the color difference but are able take advantage of the enhanced contrast. Yellow (amber) filters block out blue (cool) light and warm the light somewhat. But in fog, most of the light is blue (scattered).

 

My sunglasses (cheap $16 glasses) are polarized with an amber tint. The polarized lenses will tend to cool the light somewhat, the amber compensates. In sunny meadows, the polarizer cuts the glare off the heather and flowers and the amber makes the green look almost flourescent Added bonus: by turning my head on its side, I can decide whether I should put a polarizer on my camera for a photo.

[Dru]

FITOVERS

 

www.fitovers.com

 

$40 CDN at MEC. current pair have lasted me about 4 years and are still not too scratched up despite plastic lenses

 

you look like an old geezer though

 

but I think its the best solution if you wear eyeglasses

and probably even if not.

 

i've worn em for 7 days straight on snow and glacier, no eyeburn, they are definitely high performance just not high price.

[jordop]

Mec Cirque glasses will fit over most small glasses.

 

Fitovers=senior citizens from the future William S. Burroughs pushing a shopping buggy in that stupid U2 video

[A7U]

I wear Rx glasses. I got my 1st pair of Rx glacier glasses in '79. The tint was a very neat rddish-purple. I was doing a lot of LSD at the time and it fit well.

 

One day on a glacier I was roping up. (NO, LSD was NOT in use that day!) We had 2 rope teams. Our ropes looked entirely different but both had purples, reds, and oranges in them. I tied into the wrong rope and even when someone called bullshit on it I could not tell the diff between the 2 ropes. Scared the hell out of me. I immediately had another pair made by a diiferent provider.

[Dru]

jordop said:

Mec Cirque glasses will fit over most small glasses.

 

Fitovers=senior citizens from the future William S. Burroughs pushing a shopping buggy in that stupid U2 video

 

Fitovers = virtual reality goggles. Useful on scary pitches: "It's only a Matrix, its only a Matrix"

[daler]

I surprised nobody has addressed light transmission. pretty much all sunglasses are 100% uv protective but its the % of light transmitted that will get you. For recreational use- I.E. not guiding 8-10% transmission should be fine for the cascades. This will not do you if you are going to Alaska or are going to be spending long trips on the glaciers in WA. I guide alot so I use a pair that has 6 % transmission, but I still carry a pair of smiths for the appoach and as a backup pair.

Mattp- Just because you have not had any short term affects from not wearing side shields does not mean you have not been doing damage. Sure would suck to go blind at 50.

 

My 13 cents

 

dale

[mattp]

Daler-

 

That's kind of what I was hoping to hear about. What do you know about the possibility that failing to wear side shields, or using "inferior" sunglasses for that matter, might cause me to go blind at 50 (that's coming up pretty fast, I might add)?

 

I've always read that it was UV that we should worry about, and how it was transmitted through the clouds even on overcast days, etc. Years ago, all the books said you HAD to wear glass sunglasses because plastic ones would not block the UV, and then I believe it became standard thought that ALL glasses did an adequate job of blocking the UV. I'm not an optometrist and I have never read in any climbing books about this possibility of long term damage, only about "snowblindness" (shamefully, I will admit that I haven't read the last several editions of Freedome of the Hills, though).

 

Mattp

[Cpt.Caveman]

Cheap ones that cost less than 12 bucks. Usually seen at the local gas station or on some ghetto cornerstand.