Fact: you do your research when it comes to your ski & bike & trail gear. But what about your sunglasses and goggles — the gear that literally determines how well or how poorly you’ll be able to see? Julbo CEO, Dave Crothers, makes the case that there’s a whole lot more to lens technology that you ought to be considering, and … that lenses are not all pretty much the same. You’re definitely going to want to hear him out.
TOPICS & TIMES:
- Julbo & Dave’s background (4:08)
- The Eyewear Industry Today (17:55)
- Differences in Lenses (20:10)
- Photochromic or Photochromatic? (30:51)
- Evolution of photochromic lenses – (33:06)
- “Categories” (36:23)
- Polarized lenses (38:43)
- Forte of photochromic lenses?
- “High Contrast” vs “Light Amplifier”
- Closing Remarks: DYR (50:27)
- What We’re Celebrating (53:03)
RELATED LINKS:
That was the most informative podcast I have heard on Gear 30. At least the most important personally. My eye health is way more important to me than any ski I can buy or bike. Thanks for doing that. Julbo has a new customer because of the podcast.
Hey Corey, thanks for tuning in!
I debated posting this as a comment, but I can’t say that Julbo has won me over as a potential customer. I have had moderate myopia and slight astigmatism since second grade, and have worn glasses for the supermajority of my waking hours. On top of that, sport sunglasses tend not to fit me too well due to my Asian facial features. I’ve long accepted that my choices in sport eyewear is extremely limited, and that my particular demographic will be underserved for the foreseeable future. Dave’s faith in Julbo product infuriated me though.
In the context of prescription sunglasses, Julbo’s claim of their photochromic lenses being superior in versatility, I am supremely skeptical. Of the photochromic lenses I’ve used, they all suffer from not transitioning enough to be usable for driving. If I am spending 600+ dollars for a prescription that is likely out of network with vision insurance, it had better be usable in more than just outdoor sports use. I refuse to spend an extra 200 dollars for yet another pair of glasses to keep track of, especially if the fit of the sunglasses is adequate. I’d even argue that polarization follows that same vein. Sure, it may not be worth the extra amount for those that don’t need an Rx, but it helps maintain that versatility to a wider range of usability, particularly if you are sensitive to glare.
Which brings me to other product claims that Dave seems to be making. Interchangeable lenses are exceptionally valuable for someone in my position, as that means that I only have to pay for lenses when my prescription changes or when I break a lens, as opposed to having to spend another $400+ for both a frame and lens. Trivex is not a wonder material that is superior to polycarb in all contexts either. It costs more, is often thicker for stronger prescriptions, and doesn’t always bear the weight savings suggested by it’s specific gravity.
I am a happy owner of Julbo Sunglasses with sight correction and a photochromic [sic] 2-4 lens.
Loved the podcast and sent it to all my friends who pride themselves on buying cheap sunglasses by the dozen on AliExpress.
I was told the photochromic lens does not work in cars because the wind screen filters out the UV light that the photochromic lens reacts to (ergo it doesn’t react).
Hey Luke, psyched to hear you’re rockin’ the REACTIV 2-4 lens! You’re correct, the lenses won’t react to their darket VLT percentage due to a layer of UV protection built into vehicle windshields. They will react but just not to the darker VLT range.
Been wearing Julbo Shields (photochromic 2-4) for years and won’t touch anything else. It’s always the perfect tint for my eyes in all conditions. I just wish the lenses were more durable / scratch resistant.
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your comment! Super interesting case here, and so you’re aware, Julbo manufactures low bridge fit specifically Asian profile faces. This could be a good fit for you.
In terms of photochromic lenses reacting behind a car windshield, there is a layer of UV protection built into windshields so UV activated sunglasses (Julbo’s REACTIV) won’t reach their darkest VLT percentage because of that layer. They will react but not to their darkest VLT percentage. In regards to Polarization, I believe this is subjective to everyone’s need/preference. If you’re not in situations where minimizing glare is necessary then we don’t recommend it. If a customer still wants Polarizations for the outlier days where they may want it, we totally understand but it’s not something we regularly push on our customers. Polarization distorts screens, can cause distortion during performance sports at speed we don’t find it necessary for most people’s general needs.
Trivex is very much a superior material over polycarbonate. The optical quality alone sits much higher on the abbe index than polycarbonate. Trivex is nearly as good as glass in terms of optical quality which creates much sharper central and peripheral vision and significantly less color fringing than polycarbonate lenses.
I’m completely happy to continue discussing with you and even send you a pair of our Rx sunglasses to test out. Send me an email and we can connect, david at julbousa dotcom. Thanks again for the discussion!
Hi Dave,
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me, especially after my less than polite post (apologies are in order). Regarding the low bridge fit availability, I will say that it is not immediately obvious that this is an available option on the Julbo Rx website. I am curious to know whether the frames are reshaped as well, or if it is just a nose bridge adjustment/extension.
With regard to the points made regarding polarization, I can only speak to my personal experience that the only performance deficit I’ve noticed with my pair of polarized oakley flak 2s is that my depth perception is slightly reduced in darker areas, but has made driving during the day much more comfortable to deal with, as the reduction in car/office building glare has been very noticeable. I agree with the subjectivity over its need, but I do end up using that pair of sunglasses/lenses for almost every activity involving the outdoors when the sun is out.
As for the optical qualities of Trivex, I am surprised that Trivex is supposed to have better central and peripheral vision, as I have had 2 pairs of glasses made with Trivex of the same prescription where I felt I had exceptionally poor focus-ability and degraded peripheral vision, before switching to high index PC. I am willing to accept that they were poorly cut and not up to spec to the prescription, but I can’t say I have noticed any particular difference with color fringing or color perception. That being said, I haven’t had golden eyes since I was a kid.
I appreciate the offer to test out Rx sunglasses, but will decline the offer. I’m just a bit tired of trialing different sunglasses, and have landed on a “good enough” solution for the time being. When it comes time to replace my current pair, I will probably end up doing more research on Julbo to see if it fits my needs then.
Thanks again for entertaining the discussion!
Julbo is currently my go-to for sunglasses, both recreational and mountaineering. I had a Skydome goggle that I really liked, but was stolen. For the PNW, I found that the Julbo photochromic lens stayed a bit too dark, as we could be overcast, with flat lighting, while still getting a fair bit of UV. Ended up switching back to Oakley Flight Deck as the Skydomes were out of stock at the time. Using a Lowlight lens with the oakleys definitely provided more fidelity and covered 80% of the lighting conditions perfectly.
Im interested in the range and clarity of the new Secret lens, but would also like for a goggle 1/2 size bigger than the skydomes. The Oakley Flight deck just fits better
“I found that the Julbo photochromic lens stayed a bit too dark…”
Just curious, Aaron, do you know if the photochromic lens you were using was their category 2-4 lens? As opposed to their lower-light category 1-3 lens?
They were the 1-3 lenses. My replacement lenses (After those goggles were stolen) are the Oakley High Pink, which “should” be darker at 41%VTL. However, they were subjectively brighter than the Julbos (i also had a pair of Aerospace 1-3 goggles to compare against).
I mostly ski at Stevens Pass, WA, and frequently at Whistler. I have no means of collecting actual data on it, but my thought is that the diffuse and flat lighting we get on overcast days can still have a fair bit of UV compared to darker storm clouds that may be more common elsewhere. This results in the lenses getting a little too dark for our average day.
Also, the lighting tends to stay pretty consistent throughout the day. If it clears up, that usually occurs around noon. if you need to swap lenses, just do it at lunch, otherwise one lens will be good for most of the day (though you may want to err on the lighter side for some of the denser glades).
I will say that the Oakley PC lens is a bit soft and more susceptible to scratches than the Julbo lenses. Though on the other hand, the Oakley face foam and antifog is better, and the Flight deck and Flight Path goggles are slightly bigger than the skydome and generally fits my big head better.
I am interested in trying the new 0-4 lens from Julbo, but have to justify ANOTHER goggle when I have 2 pairs of newish Oakleys for different conditions.
Hey Other Aaron,
It’s usually too many Dave’s in the room, not so much Aaron’s! Do you know if your 1-3 lenses were the amber tint (High Contrast) or yellow tint (Light Amplifier)? The original Skydome only had the Light Amplifier which we found to be limiting in overcast snowy conditions, the High Contrast is much better in low light, overcast days. That said, our lenses are UV activated so that means even in cloudy conditions they’ll still be active as clouds don’t filter UV. They won’t react to their darkest VLT percentage but they will react. We have the same weather conditions as you do in Vermont, I’ve pretty much exclusively switched to our High Contrast REACTIV lens and that has done the trick on those overcast days.
They were listed as Black/Red with REACTIV Performance 1-3 HC Lenses. I think the residual UV through clouds is the main culprit, as mentioned. I might see what I can do about picking up a pair of the new 0-4 lenses, but I have 2 pairs of newish goggles already.
If the skydomes could be bumped up in size to match the Oakley Flight Deck, they would be a shoe in for most people.
Great podcast, very informative and appreciated the comments on the polarized lenses, I definitely wandered over to the Julbo site to take a look at their offerings, however I have to disagree with Dave on the value of interchangeable lenses. I find myself in a huge variety of conditions and one pair simply will not cover my needs, from a 5am pedal or ski to a sunset session this can be drastically different. In eastern Canada we experience huge weather, light and temperature fluctuation (not unlike New England), it can be snowing overcast in the morning to rain to sunshine in one day, and listening to the comments on which lenses suit a persons needs depending on where they live or what the activity is, one pair just wouldn’t do it. With all this being said, Ive never tried the Julbo lenses and Im intrigued but I wonder why there’s resistance in producing a multi lens pair, durability?
Hey Patrick,
Certainly can’t argue with you here, some people just prefer interchangeable lens systems and that totally fine. We do believe our lenses will cover most users needs especially our clear to dark (0-3) and 1-3 REACTIV lenses. We’re based in Vermont so we know the weather swings well! Very familiar with sunny one minute and snow the next. It makes us appreciate the good weather when we get it! Thanks for chiming in, I always enjoy the conversations.
Wich model would you suggest for Southern California as well as mammoth and Tahoe conditions.
I am look at the Julbo Aerospace for new ski goggles. How would I decide on the 1-3 HC vs. the new 0-4 HC ? I would assume I should go with the 0-4 HC since that will cover an even wider range of conditions, but am I missing something and are there circumstances where the 0-4 HC won’t work as well as the narrower ranging 1-3? Thanks!
Dave,
this was a great podcast and upgrade to the Julbo Cyrius HC 0-4 flash infrared. I had no complaints during the Australian season, but I was lucky not to have had the classic whiteout conditions. I have just got back from Japan where I had a couple of whiteout days. Like “Other Aaron” I swapped back to Oakley High Pink and my eyes felt they were “lighter”. These weren’t super cold days (-5 to -10C).
I would be interested in your thoughts here?
Thanks
Paul