I was testing out my sunglasses sitting by my garden pond, I always believed polarised were supposed to give vision through the water, but seems I was wrong.
My old Teeny Nymph Company ones from USA : was advised by optician to bin them as it was not clear whether they afforded any UVA/B protection. I keep them in my van for "emergencies" (whatever that may mean
). Didn't give me much vision though the water. Binned.
My ESP ones had broken, the frame was very thin over the lenses and resisted all attempts to glue or hot weld. Didn't give me much vision though the water so decided against choosing them again. Binned anyway.
My missus's RayBans didn't give me much vision though the water.
My Bolles (ski glasses I believe) didn't give me much vision though the water.
Overall, for vision through the water I was better off without any glasses. So my conclusion is that best to wear a pair to protect eyes against harmful glare, but jury is out as to whether they would be any good for fish spotting - but where I've been fishing the last few years there's not much chance of fish
............ Also these look alright for under a tenner, no carp tax
I'm very sceptical about cheap glasses. Since my optician warned me against using my old ones as the UVA/B protection was doubtful, would one trust anything that cheap? even if the far-eastern manufacturer put UVA/B protection on their listing?
The ones you show, I googled and they returned "Wish" - makes me even more dubious.
Might be wrong though ..............