Oakleys are great if you can afford them ... a good second choice is Costco brand Kirklands. $100 or $30, and my ophthalmologist says they are both adequate and safe. I've got both, if I might lose them easily I wear the Costco brand.
Oakleys are great if you can afford them ... a good second choice is Costco brand Kirklands. $100 or $30, and my ophthalmologist says they are both adequate and safe. I've got both, if I might lose them easily I wear the Costco brand.
Nah..no speculation. This is definitely not an argument. This is an awesome debate. I love to welcome those who think I'm lost and required a knowledge whip lashing. Like I said before, I don't wear cheap glasses. I truly believe in proper pairs of protective eye glasses. I went as far as taking the so called polarized lens in the past to universities such as UCR and UCI to do photometry tests using available UV equipment in the physic labs when I was attending. The polarized lens were not more effective than the lesser expensive ones. Just making things a tad darker. The optometrists indicated that the darker the lens, the larger your retinas have to open to compensate for the darken filter. When the darken retina is continually being bombarded between sudden exposure to intense light and the darken lens, degradation increases. My near-sightedness was stabilized when I was in highschool. I used the Oakley's brand darken lens because my eyes were very sensitive to sunglight (and no..I'm not a vampire). The life long optometrists couldn't understand why the stabilized eye-sights kept on degrades so quickly until they correlate between the darken lens and eye-sight degradation after further studies. Once I switched from the darker lens to the lighter lens that has the UVs protection, the eye-sight stabilized again. Major correlation there
Originally Posted by i feed fish
So basically your are just speculating all of this? trust me plutonite lenses are not a gimmick. I think the fact oakley is the only sun glass manufacturer in the world to have ANSI certification should be proof enough to the qualit. Not sure if you are aware of this or not but you eyesight will more than likely degrade over time regardless of whether or not you wear sunglasses and I can assure you wearing oakley polarized lenses will not speed up the degradation of your eyesight. Wearing low quality lenses that are optically distorted could very well cause degradation and fatigue in your eyesight but thankfully that is not an issue with oakley lenses
that makes since. its not really how cheap the glasses are but the glasses themselves. because your eyes would adjust to lower light, then to be quickly exposed to higher level of light. kinda like standing in a dark room then when you turn on the light abruptly. except in this case its like doing it several times.Nah..no speculation. This is definitely not an argument. This is an awesome debate. I love to welcome those who think I'm lost and required a knowledge whip lashing. Like I said before, I don't wear cheap glasses. I truly believe in proper pairs of protective eye glasses. I went as far as taking the so called polarized lens in the past to universities such as UCR and UCI to do photometry tests using available UV equipment in the physic labs when I was attending. The polarized lens were not more effective than the lesser expensive ones. Just making things a tad darker. The optometrists indicated that the darker the lens, the larger your retinas have to open to compensate for the darken filter. When the darken retina is continually being bombarded between sudden exposure to intense light and the darken lens, degradation increases. My near-sightedness was stabilized when I was in highschool. I used the Oakley's brand darken lens because my eyes were very sensitive to sunglight (and no..I'm not a vampire). The life long optometrists couldn't understand why the stabilized eye-sights kept on degrades so quickly until they correlate between the darken lens and eye-sight degradation after further studies. Once I switched from the darker lens to the lighter lens that has the UVs protection, the eye-sight stabilized again. Major correlation there
If your too busy to go fishin; YOUR TOO BUSY!!!!!!
I don't think you understand the purpose of the polarized lenses. It's not meant to be more effective in reducing the UV that hits your eyes, but it's intended to reduce the glare off reflective surfaces. And I'm not sure what lenses you were using for testing, but inexpensive sunglasses that use a cheap process to polarize the lens can actually distort/blur your vision.I went as far as taking the so called polarized lens in the past to universities such as UCR and UCI to do photometry tests using available UV equipment in the physic labs when I was attending. The polarized lens were not more effective than the lesser expensive ones. Just making things a tad darker.
Once I switched from the darker lens to the lighter lens that has the UVs protection, the eye-sight stabilized again. Major correlation there
I believed you mentioned that you used the Oakley lenses in your field of work. From what I understand, the 'plutonite' gimmick is already incorporated in all of their lenses, in order to protect the users from UV rays and for impact protection.
Basically it's like this...I can use my Oakley XLJ Flak Jackets (which have the plutonite lenses) during fishing and know that my eyes are protected from UV light, however it's difficult to see underwater because of the glare. Then I immediately switch to my Oakley XLJ Half Jackets with the polarized plutonite lenses (non-hydrophobic) and my eyes are still protected from the UV light, but now I can see the fish under the surface. Major correlation there too
Anybody know if they make the Bootsy Collins glasses in polarized?
How about the Malcolm Xs?
I haven't seen anyone even rockin the Oakley OVER THE TOP glasses on the water...guess cuz those aren't polarized either..
http://www.oakley.com/products/1238
Bomb!
winner! Lol!
Bomb!
Last edited by TimelessFSR; 05-24-2011 at 11:12 AM.
Love those glasses..especially the full helmet goggle with the girl..not staring at the upper goggles though
I do have a series of M-Frame exchangeable lens, with a balance of darkness to prevent me from squinting, but not enough to prevent my irises from overly expanding due to the darken filtration, with wide bream hat covering quite a bit of sunlight from above.
I fully understand the uses of the polarized lens. I used the old Oakley's and a few other polarized lens makers before the "plutonite" came into the market. Newer technology brings about newer design, and claims. Who knows what "plutonite" can do until it's put through a series of tests done by 3rd parties and show the public what it can and cannot do. The anti-glare patterns simply remove more of the lightwave spectrum, and increasing the bands of light responsible for the optimal clarity. However, being bombarded between full light spectrum and the filtered spectrum (if you're not wearing a hat or glasses that are not fully covering your eye sockets), your eyes will suffer in the long run. If you're an avid hat wearer that shield you from the lights being introduced from different angles, such as that girl in the photo, you're in good shape. However, we can't protect light from entering in different angles every moment we're wearing our glasses. So, the chance of full light spectrum hitting your eyes is quite high, unless you purchased a pair of glasses that pretty much house your entire eye socket like those odd looking spiderman glasses.But..I'm just speaking from my experiences.
depending 0n how big your face is, I have a spare pair of oakley's i would be willing to sell. Slightly used but I think 50.00 is a fair price.
Reply With Quote
