SummitPost.org

How bad/dangerous are polarized lenses for alpine environment? Comments in various glasses/goggles threads on here suggest there is a danger of not distinguishing between ice and snow or not seeing subtleties on the surface of glaciers that could be hazardous. Is this a serious concern?

I'm asking because I tried on all Jublo mountain glasses and the Explorers fit my face the best. I want photochromic lenses (i.e. Zebra or Camel, NOT Spectrum) but the Explorer only comes with the Camel lens, which is polarized (Zebra is not). Trying to decide to go with Explorer/Camel or just settle for less ideal fit to get the Zebras (Montebianco or Bivouak).

Personally I think polarized lenses exaggerate contours which I don't like, so I don't consider them for climbing (but I like them at the beach or on the water).

I have zebras for my trail running lenses which I like, because I can keep them on without much trouble adjusting to different light levels when coming out or going into the trees. My only problem with them is they aren't as dark as I'd like for high altitude or lots of snow.

The main decision points for me are eye color (mine are steel blue) and what you'll use them for. That's why I prefer darker lenses.

You could get away fine with Zebras unless you are spending time on glaciers and/or high altitude: if that's going to be the case I'd opt for dark lenses.

Also, some of Julbo's "mountaineering" glasses have thicker sidewalls which might cause fogging issues, so maybe that would be worth considering as well.

Woodie

I do love photochromatic lenses in the mountains..scratch that everywhere. First I have heard of polarised lenses hindering the subtleties in snow/ice surfaces.

Ok, so I'm getting the sense that the polarization issue is not that important and more a personal thing. I'll give them a go and if I find it sucks, well, lesson learned.

When I bought Oakley goggles the manager there told me the same thing. I hate polarized because I can't see the stereo screen in my truck with them on.

I actually had a problem with polarized glasses on one trip in Alaska. I sort of had to learn this lesson the hard way. Apparently, polarized glasses cannot be made with 100% UV protection (which is what you want high on a glacier) --- they are usually 80%, 90%, whatever, but not 100%. So I eventually got a mild case of snow blindeness. I was off the map for an afternoon and had to rest it out in my tent until it passed. Weird day really.

Anyway, do some research to see if what I'm saying is correct. I'm almost positive that's what happened, but it was a long time ago... good luck.

The concept of not being able to differentiate ice from snow has to do with the reflectance of the surface and the polarized lens minimizing the reflectance. Conceptually, ice will produce more glare than snow but the polarized lens will reduce the glare, reducing your ability to discern between the two materials. Truth? I don't know.

However, I have use both polarized Costa del Mar and Julbo Alti Spectron 4 lenses on snow routes and found that the polarized lenses did leave my eyes more tired or something. It was weird but I remember thinking I wished I had my Julbo Advance with the Spectron lenses.

I know this is an old thread, but feel like this isn't something I hear about as often as I should. I ALWAYS tend to side with polarization (in my mind, polarized = better in all ways), but the discrepancy between ice and snow is a huge concern. Makes total sense!

I'm in the market for new Oakley goggles (looking at the new Fall line on this list: https://www.otg-goggles.com/2018-oakley-ski-goggles/), but can someone confirm if photochromatic lenses product the same unwanted results? Does photochromatic = polarized?