I'm after a decent pair of sunglasses. Don't want to spend daft money. Seen a few of the fortis range but not sure what they are like, anyone have any recommendations?

In reply to Post #1
dna just released a set of polarised glasses made from recycled line

In reply to Post #2
I'll have a look at them 👍🏽

In reply to Post #2
£65

In reply to Post #1
I have had two pairs of Fortis, normal polaroids and the Switch version, the switch tend to make my eyes ache after a while i have no idea why tho. Also a Pair of ESP which were nice i just find angling orientated shades dont last !

I now use Sungods polaroids ( skiing brand ) a bit more money wise, but lifetime guarantee and customisable.

They just replace them once sent off and approved if you have any issues. Very comfy for wearing for any length of time optically and physically i have both the 4KO and 8KO polaroids and can highly reccomend them.

In reply to Post #5
What's the difference between 4ko and 8ko?

I got a pair of maui Jim Polaroids on eBay (basically new) for about £40. There's always a few pairs knocking about on there. Just gotta wait for some that don't look too ridiculous. They're miles better than any carp branded nonsense.

Is there any difference performance wise between fishing branded poloroids and the polarised Oakleys or Ray Bans I already own? Some of these fishing glasses cost more than designer ones

In reply to Post #8
I wouod be very surprised if any are going to be as good
As oakley. Make their own lenses, in house.
I use VR28 black iridium for driving and fishing sunny days
And bronze for the rest.

Maybe some high end yank sight fishing brands might have better optics. But I've never tried them.

As a Driving instructor I have to tests people's eyesight
And I will always beat a youngster with 20/20 using my
Polarized prescription oakleys.

In reply to Post #9
Undoubtedly. They'll also be way more durable. Just use your Oakley's!

Always used maui jims and im yet to find anything better and ive had most of the big named brands. Ive got them in rose, brown and grey lenses and they are superb. As mentioned you can pick them up on ebay a lot cheaper as they are around £140 new. Think i only paid £55 for my grey ones and they were brand new.

I much prefer an amber lens for looking into the water. The cheap Fortis wraps do me fine and if they go over the edge of the boat it's not a disaster.

I don't think any of the more spendy brands do an amber as you would look like Bono walking down the street.

Not a fan of the South African Special OPS Rugby fan look that you get from a pair of Oakleys.

In reply to Post #1
Have a look at Eyelevel polarised sunglasses.
Various tackle shops sell them at sensible prices, but they do sell direct I think.

For some reason when I add Web link it 'loses' the url, but copy and paste should take you to Eyelevel

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://eyelevel-uk.com/collections/polarized-sports-glasses-1&ved=2ahUKEwiu-LzA65r2AhWITsAKHYiRAsgQFnoECCMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1nhRNqIDw-D_iuYk7gvfsA

In reply to Post #5
I like the fortis aviator style. Had the mat black ones around £25 then when I broke them got the switch ones, tbh I couldn't see any ‘switching' going on so when I broke those I got the cheaper mat black ones again

In reply to Post #9
Cheers Sundance, I'll stick with my Oakleys and continue to look like a special ops South African rugby fan

In reply to Post #15
Lol. As you no doubt know Oakley have about 300 designs
I think the uninitiated are thinking of the ones cricketers wear

In reply to Post #16
Or cyclists, or snow boarders. so many hideous designs to choose from
The ones I had looked alright, I wasn't particularly impressed with the lenses tho
I didn't find them particularly durable either

In reply to Post #1
Flyingfisherman glasses.

https://www.garryevans.co.uk/flying-fisherman-calcutta-sunglasses-173-p.asp

In reply to Post #1
You can find several Oakley polarised sunglasses between £90 and £140, which is less than an average carp reel. For that you get quality in the lens and frame, plus the ability to replace any part of the glasses via Oakleys spares. That's all way better than buying cheaper, fishing branded crap. Buy cheap, buy twice.

In reply to Post #8
Big difference. Oakley actually do fishing specific lenses on several of their ranges - I do a lot of lure fishing and having good lenses makes a huge difference to results. I can see much further into the water with my Oakleys and whilst they allow you to see better in bright light, they don't darken the image you see that much. Get the Prizm Polaroid lenses and you'll not regret it. I have four pairs for different conditions, all Oakley Flak 2 XL's. which are just awesome. Highly recommended.

Eyelevel link.

I couldn't add it on my phone, but can on my tablet.

Eyelevel glasses aren't silly money, you are probably looking around £20 tops for a decent pair.

In reply to Post #21
Eyelevel look great and are cheap but they break very easily, ive broken two pairs just cleaning the lenses, the frames are brittle as anything.
So after 3 pairs of them im after something more robust.

In reply to Post #22
If its just for fishing, the ridgemonkey glasses (pola flex) are hard to beat for £60.
I find I reach for them over my ray-bans unless I want to look smart

In reply to Post #22
I honestly don't know what you do to get them to break, the pair I've got I have had for over a year, and wear them for driving, outside and fishing.

I am tough on glasses myself, and Eyelevel have lasted longer than fishing makes, and at the budget price aren't bad if I do break or lose them.

Had a pair of Fox for about 20 years now. No idea where i got them or what price.

In reply to Post #25
Another thumbs up for the Maui Jim's. I was lucky enough to be given a pair in work. They are used by the commercial bluefin harpoon guys in the States. These guys make their living, or part of it, from being able to see and pick out the specific fish they wish to target.

The Maui Jim glasses are superb - and knock RayBans (I have three pairs for general use - and have tried using them in France for fishing) into a cocked hat.

In reply to Post #26
I think the Maui Jim sunglasses are a joke
yes they may be the best
but the cheapest I could get a quote for a prescription pair made was just shy of £800 no flipping way IMHO could they possibly be £650 better than my £150 pair made by my local optician

In reply to Post #24
Cleaning the lens with a soft cloth frame broke around the lens on 2 pairs. I wont be getting another pair. Shame as they look good.

In reply to Post #28
If you push them up onto your head when not using them you bend and weaken the frames and hinges, cleaning the lenses might then apparently break them.

I clean my lenses while driving and have not broken a pair yet, however I have had to bend a pair or two back into shape after pushing them up onto my forehead or higher when I don't need them on.

In reply to Post #29
Are you seriously bigging up a brand of sunnies that break if you wear them on your forehead Nick?

In reply to Post #30
It happens with most metal framed sunglasses. Anytime you misshape and bend the frame you weaken them.
I've done it with Eyelevel and goodness knows how many pairs of Aviators I've had.

I'd much rather replace a £20 pair of sunglasses that I've bent and broken than a £60 pair.

My current Eyelevel sunglasses are a couple of years old.

In reply to Post #31
Bought my aviators in 93 and used them until about six years ago as I needed prescription glasses. They were used every time the sun was out mainly for driving and often push up but never broke them my prescription glasses in both clear and sun glasses are aviator style metal framed gless lens and again not broken them. Either your heavy handed or buying market copies fakes.

In reply to Post #31
The eyelevel sunglasses ive had are not metal frames , mine are some plastic mix that snaps of you look at it wrong. Think we are talking different glasses.
Eyelevel clippers mine..

In reply to Post #31
The eyelevel sunglasses ive had are not metal frames , mine are some plastic mix that snaps of you look at it wrong. Think we are talking different glasses.
Eyelevel clippers mine..

In reply to Post #1
I bought a pair of Polaroid PLD Glasses for £30 from duty free. Lovely pair for all day use and great in these bright conditions.

https://www.visio-net.co.uk/sunglasses/polaroid

In reply to Post #32
. Either your heavy handed or buying market copies fakes.

I'm heavy handed!

In reply to Post #29
Seriously, how wide is your forehead for that to happen?

In reply to Post #1
Oakley Splitshot Prizm Polarised - designed for fishing (hat compatible) and come with a removeable clip-in retention lanyard - really comfy, great visibility wear them all the time not only for fishing so quality & value IMO

https://www.oakley.com/en-gb/product/W0OO9416?variant=888392374677&size=M

Shop around some good deals for these at the moment almost half the RRP

In reply to Post #39
Don't waste your money on expensive glasses. Just get some fortis switch wraps. I'm a glasses tart (have oakley shallow water, costa glass in green, amber and yellow, maui jims). I have spent hours with friends testing them side by side on lakes and rivers and there is nothing in it at all (except a lot more
money left in the bank when buying the fortis).

In reply to Post #40
I tend to agree Frosty. As I'm a prescription glasses wearer
And also operate a Driving school. I spend a lot.of.time wearing shades.

My dealer lol, will send me Bolle and oakley lenses to try
I've tried all different types of polarized colours, tints etc

And elevation , wind, position make.much more difference when we have tried them at the lake.

I.choose oakley polarized for driving really. Something with warm tones to pop.contrast. but.mostly cos they last for years
And feel like you aren't wearing glasses.

In reply to Post #40
Same even goes for the difference between Fortis and cheap Aliexpress glasses. I wear the latter more often than my Fortis. Compared many and never noticed any real difference.

In reply to Post #40
Agree.
I've had Oakley, Costa, Bolle, Smith, Ray Bans, Fortis and Fox.

The polarisation on all of them was identical.

What made the difference to fish spotting was the tint, especially in low light conditions. I literally can't see any more fish with my Costas than my £20 Fortis - either in lakes for carp or chalk streams for wild trout.

Which looks better when not fishing is a different matter!

In reply to Post #43
I couldn't disagree with that, but there are differences between brands.
I've often recommended the polarised glasses boots sell, but this year I've had 3 pairs where the lenses have delaminated after a bit of sal****er spray,and a £200 designer pair I bought the mrs went the same way, where my ray bans and even the spunkmonkey glasses have survived.

In reply to Post #44
Fair enough. Someone can always make a #@£% product whether cheap or expensive!

In reply to Post #40
With all due respect mate, buying high end is hardly a waste of money. Your eyes are pretty important things and you don't wear sunglasses just to see better in bright conditions - I do a lot of predator fishing from boats and even in overcast conditions I wear them - primarily to protect my eyes from getting hit by my boat partners lure - has actually happened a couple of times and of course, to see further into the water and to reduce strain on the eyes. The more expensive sunglasses are better at many things - I use Oakleys, but other brands like Costa are as good. My sunglasses are impact resistant, can be worn all day with no comfort issues, they cut out glare - yet still give you a bright image and of course, cut out UV. Cheap ****ty things are just that. People will spend a ton of money on rods and reels, then spend 40 quid on some sunglasses - reason - they don't understand how important they are for fishing. Mind you, this is a carp forum, so I doubt many would get it - same thread on a pike and predator forum and well, they do get it.

In reply to Post #46
Polarising is polarising, whether in glasses or camera filters there's bugger all difference between the cheapest and most expensive in terms of polarisation

You'll be hard pressed to buy a pair of polarised glasses without uv400 protection

If impact resistance is that important you should look at bolle, there main products seem to be safety glasses, the Polaroids aren't bad at all

The only magical properties you'll find in the premium brands are aesthetics and a logo that shows they were expensive,

In reply to Post #47
I think the higher end glasses tend to have more optically correct lenses to be fair, i have costas, maui jims and fortis and i can definitely see slight irregularities in the fortis ones, i had some esp ones years ago that magnified slightly too lol! As for the polarising qualities i can definitely see deeper with the costas perhaps its due to the quality of the lenses but its quiet noticable over the fortis and they're similar colour lenses. I remember being at yateley south lake many years ago in the winter and i was fishing the back bay snags. I'd seen a big group of fish just milling about in there with my costas on but my mate who had his old fox 300series on couldn't see them at all, we swapped glasses and it was shocking how much difference there was.

My colour vision is a bit off, so need all the help I can get. I have a pair of fortis wrap type glasses and my mate has a set of Costas. When fishing together last year on a bright day I borrowed his Costas, and swapped between the two. I have absolutely no doubt that i could see way more clearly with the Costas and just to double check as like I say I struggle a bit with some colours, he did the same and confirmed the Costas were noticeably better to him as well. I dont know the reason, whether its because the Polarising is better, although plenty on here say thats impossible, so maybe the actual lenses are better quality. I dont know, but I was left in no doubt whats so ever that the more expensive glasses performed better.

In reply to Post #49
Will the costas perform better in different conditions too? One afternoon doesn't seem nearly enough to draw conclusions.

Optilabs