Does Zenni clip-on have UV protection?

So I plan to switch to CR-39 for my next glasses. Which lenses does not provide 100% UV protection. Which I don’t consider a problem normally, but would like 100% protection when using sunglasses clip-ons. But I don’t find any info either about what material these clip-ons made nor if they contains any UV protection.

Does anyone have info about this? Or maybe someone already checked their Zenni clip-ons for UV protection?

So based on fb group recommendation I asked Zenni directly and they answered in a few minutes (I’m just not used to fast and correct support :slight_smile: ).

Based on the answer the clip-ons provide 100% UV protection, and all of them is polarized.



Also Zenni has a clip-on finder service.

Good info. But it doesn’t matter that the clips block UV, since the eyeglasses lenses also do. No lens really blocks 100%, unless it’s tinted. Someone here tested the cr39 from zenni and it cut off at 400nm. Good enough.

Sure, but there are some which blocks more and some which are blocks less. When you use not tinted glasses I think it’s totally irrelevant. Why? Because our eyes evolved without UV protection :slight_smile: It would be a bad thing if UV light would destroy it and we would see a lot of blind people and animals out there (the reality is the opposite: any kind of glasses seems to make your eyes less healthy, although they should do good to you because of the UV protection).

But when you use tinted glasses it’s a different beast. Your pupils gets diluted which is unnatural in the given (light) situation. In this case I think the UV protection is important because you deceive your eyes and so they does not behave how they should, so you should give them extra safety measures. And there is a reason why they say CR-39 does not gives 100% UV protection, nor glass lenses.

So yeah, they may good enough without tints. But that does not necessarily means they are good enough with tints. I would be not surprised if the whole “UV is bad for your eyes” would stem from the first sunglasses which were not providing correct UV protection (but still makes your eyes more open than they should).


I agree with everything you write and will add that sunglass marketing is a whole thing.

But there are also tints that are barely perceptible, like the so-called blue blocking lenses. They block a lot more (of an already diminishing residual spectrum) of UV. But is it really necessary? Probably not in most cases. I always found them uncomfortable.

My point was, CR-39 clear lens UV blocking is good enough overall.


@FMR Sorry to jump in, but I’m not sure I’m following the arguments in the recent posts here. I think that tinting and UV protection are entirely independent features (UV is not part of the visible spectrum after all), and in fact, there exist cheap tinted lenses that have no particular anti-UV coating, which as pointed out are more dangerous than not having any tint at all, due to the dilated pupil allowing in more UV rays.

@halmadavid I agree that we didn’t evolve to need glasses or UV protection, but I prefer to err on the side of caution with regards to cataracts/glaucoma (and also because who knows if our modern lifestyles make us more susceptible to certain UV-caused maladies); in any case UV rays (incident from the side or reflected from the back of the lens) still enter the eyes even while wearing glasses anyway. (Some lenses have UV coatings only on the front side, while others on both sides.)

OTOH though, I try to get about 30mins each week of full-body sun exposure (daytime swimming), in the belief that the body produces not just Vitamin D, but also its synergists and whatever undiscovered goodness, from some sun exposure.

@ryanO_O, for the most part yes. Sunglasses tints have nothing to do with visible light. But certain antirelective coatings/tints block more UV/blue. They’re sold as computer glasses at zenni.

Oh, those gimmicky PC lenses block some UV too? I see. I assumed they are merely very light pink tints, just as I’ve been assuming that “myopia-control glasses for kids” are merely progressive lenses mystically (strategically) renamed.

For what it’s worth, I prefer having warm lights at home and using f.lux, to being deprived of blue light throughout the day. Moreoever, some daylight (incl. blue light) at the early part of every day is good to recalibrate the biological clock.

1 Like

Exactly. I’ve never understood why people think blue blocking all day is a good thing. I wake up much-much better with natural light, if I would get up, go to the office with mostly indoor lightning and watching a screen with blue light blocker, I would sleep back in no time.

Sure, no blue light in the evening helps a lot to get sleepy*, but all day?

*though the better solution for that is don’t look at screen before going to bed. I sleep much better since I stopped looking at screen (or only for a few minutes) 1 hour before going to sleep and reading books instead (paper book, or kindle without backlight). No f.lux or nightmode or whatever helped as much as this.

1 Like