Discussion
S11Steve said:
Oakley customer service is also second to none. I've got a number of pairs, including one set of early X-Metal approaching 20 years old that were recently serviced FOC by Oakley UK.
Yes, some of them do look like you are wearing a training shoe on your face, but the Whisker, Plaintiff or Taper range are much more discreet.
Whisker or Taper are the same sort of style I've worn for years.Yes, some of them do look like you are wearing a training shoe on your face, but the Whisker, Plaintiff or Taper range are much more discreet.
Zod said:
Oakley are about show. The lenses are not particularly good. Buy Maui-Jims.
I have to disagree there too - I've had a pair of prescription Oakleys with the ice blue lenses for years now, the lenses are awesome. The glare and reflection reduction on them is fantastic. A lot of the new frames are a bit OTT, I grant you, that's why I've stuck with my Minute 2.0 ones and just get them reglazed if my eye prescription changes.
ETA - I'm not dissing Maui Jim ones though, never tried them - I'll have a look though based on your recommendation.
HereBeMonsters said:
Zod said:
Oakley are about show. The lenses are not particularly good.
Is this actually demonstrable, or just something you've made up because you don't like Oakleys?Zod said:
I have two pairs of Maui JIms, one pair of Serengetis, a pair of Oakleys and a pair of Ray Bans. All, except the Ray Bans are polarised. The Maui JIms and Serengetis give a bright, shimmer-free image. The Oakleys give odd shimmers off metallic suirfaces and water.
That sounds fair. I have to say I fish a lot and found the Oakley polarised lenses to be the best I have ever tried, but then I haven't tried Maui Jims. Might give them a go, they don't look that expensive. Zod said:
HereBeMonsters said:
Zod said:
Oakley are about show. The lenses are not particularly good.
Is this actually demonstrable, or just something you've made up because you don't like Oakleys?To be fair to the Serengetis, they don't fit me properly, so I've not worn them very much. I won't remark on them further.
The M-Js are nice, but have nowhere the glare reduction or optical quality of a good pair of Oakleys. My subjective opinion would be the old Bausch and Lomb (sp?) Ray-Bans were the best optically - the clarity with them is easily the best, and polarised Oakleys with a large lens (I'm thinking Monster Dogs, (old) Straight Jackets or Radar Locks) are the best at glare reduction and reflections off objects.
The M-Js I found to have neither the optical quality of a good Ray-Ban, or the anti-glare properties of a decent Oakley, but then perhaps I should try a few more pairs first - specifically some polarised ones.
8bit said:
Zod said:
Oakley are about show. The lenses are not particularly good. Buy Maui-Jims.
I have to disagree there too - I've had a pair of prescription Oakleys with the ice blue lenses for years now, the lenses are awesome. The glare and reflection reduction on them is fantastic. A lot of the new frames are a bit OTT, I grant you, that's why I've stuck with my Minute 2.0 ones and just get them reglazed if my eye prescription changes.ETA - I'm not dissing Maui Jim ones though, never tried them - I'll have a look though based on your recommendation.
Also, I've got a 14 year old pair of e-wires, besides a couple of scuffs on the frame they are as good as the day I got them, I've got prescription lenses from Oakley in them, very very good bits of kit.
Failing Oakley, Rayban are also pretty good lenses, but they dont do their own prescription lenses (would have to get the opticians own ones in there) so I gave them a miss. If they're good enough for pretty much every pilots peepers on the planet (and maverick) I'm pretty sure they'll work for you OP!
Rayban frames wont be anywhere near as hard wearing as Oakley though. Quite fragile in comparison.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff