Northern Ireland Outdoors Forum - Hiking, camping and more
General => Gear Questions, Information, Reviews and Competitions => Topic started by: surfnscenic on April 16, 2013
-
I need new sunglasses and am wondering what is the choice of NI Wilders. 8)
I want them mainly for driving but also for casual wear and when in the hills. Hope I'm not asking too much from one pair? :-\
For your thoughts and recommendations as to source. ;)
Thank you.
-
I will be listining in on this as I'm in the market for a new pair myself as my old pair turned into a pair of Jack Duckworth's at the easter camp.
-
I have a pair of "farmani" I picked up on a beach in Barcelona
And my cycling glasses - that's about it!
-
You can buy sporty ones nice and cheap in TK Max.. I bought a pair of Fila ones for £8, I also own a pair of bloc winter sunglasses, got them cheap in Cotswolds for when I was skiing, they are great but you can't drive with them on.
-
I bought the cheapest pair i could find at boots
-
A pair of the Tenerife Looky-Looky man's finest.
-
Flip I'm sure they weren't cheap in boots!
-
Had a pair of Julbo before - were nice fit and good polarisation, but I scratched them up.
Replaced with a pair of Bloc that have a brown Cat3 lens. These are probably my best sunnies. Superb contrast and detail. I find i can wear them even when it is quite dark. Great for driving. A brown tint is really hard to beat for an all-rounder.
Bought some cheap Cat4 (not for driving) glasses in Chamonix for the glacier, but it's just a grey filter. Bit flat, nothing special.
Recently got some Rohan sunnies in their sale for £32. Very flexy plastic frame, high quality optics, quite nice polarising tint... although I get a strange rainbow effect on some reflecting surfaces which is slightly off-putting on the bike (surface glare). Otherwise they seem pretty high-spec and designed to be impact resistant.
Got some cheap Polaris multi-lens glasses for the bike. They are frame-less and the lenses have top vent to help stop steaming. The clear is handy for night or bad weather, the dark tint is good for sunny days, and the orange tint is epic for dull or rainy days as everything seems lovely. They work well in that regard, but the optics of the lenses are not even. There is noticeably distortion as you look down the lens (or look forwards and move them up and down) which i think gives a disconcerting feeling when trail running or mountain biking as you need to judge very accurately what is close to you. Shame, as these are the two activities that I planned to use them for.
-----------------------
We sell Oakleys in work, and I'd definitely love a pair but it would take some saving! We had the rep in and he showed us all about their optical precision, how much the frames can bend, and the eye protection they provide (can probably see the videos on their website). I held a lens that had been shot with a shotgun... it was scrap, but nothing got through. Seems you do get what you pay for.
Any polycarbonate lens will give full UV protection, even a clear lens or your £8 pair in a chemist (but these will be more likely to have distortions and shatter on impact from the cheap materials or processes). RayBan and Maui Jim also still use a lot of glass lenses, which give great clarity, but again are not good where impact or debris might be an issue.
I think it's hard to ignore the value v performance of Bloc or Julbo for activities. There's obviously others out there, but I don't know anything about them. Well, our Uvex SGL 203 seem to fit a lot of people who have trouble getting a good close-fitting sunglass!
-
I had a great pair of Bolle Marine wraparounds made up to my prescription (my sister is an optician) but they were nicked on a train.
Would definitely get another pair though, just need to save up :-(
-
Wow Craig, I never really thought about sunglasses to that level, best ones I ever had we're a fiver from the scout shop, they might not have had all the stuff you mentioned, but they sat well on my head and didn't fall off when I used them for skiing :) so for me comfort is most important.
-
Bought a pair of bolle's about ten years ago still have them bought of a site from the states really good quality ..
-
Oakley Radars at the minute. I would go as far as saying there isn't a better pair of shades out there.
-
I have a pair of Oakleys at the moment that were a gift, I'd never pay that sort of money for sunglasses, it's not worth it unless you like to impress.
This is worth a read:
http://cheapiosity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/truth-about-sunglasses.html
-
Flip I'm sure they weren't cheap in boots!
I don't think they where any more than a fiver, I couldn't buy a pair of oakley's, sunglasses are always the first thing to break. Some 'sitting on them incident' or something like that. :(
-
I have a pair of Oakleys at the moment that were a gift, I'd never pay that sort of money for sunglasses, it's not worth it unless you like to impress.
This is worth a read:
http://cheapiosity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/truth-about-sunglasses.html
I'd say with those fashion label names, brand is the main difference in the price as they just outsource production to add product range to their collections. Just because that company now own Oakley or Rayban though, doesn't mean they're putting 'different stickers' on those products. Those companies are probably bought over and benefit from bulk raw materials and distribution channels that Luxottica can offer, but continue design and production as they always have. Certainly if you just want to cut UV and light level, any cheap pair will do, but in many applications optical factors and physical protection are important, not to mention fit and style.
A £5 watch will tell the time accurately just like a £200+ watch, but is it waterproof, shockproof, backlit, tells the tides, stylish... I think it's false modesty to consider sunglasses any different than our other purchases... many will buy something needlessly expensive for their needs (lying on a beach), or for perceived value (fashion, Prada etc), but there are actual values to be had when needed (eg. Oakley). Now whether the market forces on production/research costs associated with these gains actually require such a premium for the company to survive and profit, would take some research. The quantity of the premium may be questioned but the fact there is a premium can't in these cases.
-
I'm not sure that the comparison to a £5 watch is a fair one. Watches perform a plethora of functions whereas sunglasses fulfill a much smaller set of requirements. I think I'd like to know what the actual difference is in a pair of Oakleys that makes them worth 4x the cost of a decent pair of non-designer brand sunglasses from a quality company, I know I was peeved at how quickly mine scratched and I didn't find the build quality any better.
I have a pair of Oakleys at the moment that were a gift, I'd never pay that sort of money for sunglasses, it's not worth it unless you like to impress.
This is worth a read:
http://cheapiosity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/truth-about-sunglasses.html
I'd say with those fashion label names, brand is the main difference in the price as they just outsource production to add product range to their collections. Just because that company now own Oakley or Rayban though, doesn't mean they're putting 'different stickers' on those products. Those companies are probably bought over and benefit from bulk raw materials and distribution channels that Luxottica can offer, but continue design and production as they always have. Certainly if you just want to cut UV and light level, any cheap pair will do, but in many applications optical factors and physical protection are important, not to mention fit and style.
A £5 watch will tell the time accurately just like a £200+ watch, but is it waterproof, shockproof, backlit, tells the tides, stylish... I think it's false modesty to consider sunglasses any different than our other purchases... many will buy something needlessly expensive for their needs (lying on a beach), or for perceived value (fashion, Prada etc), but there are actual values to be had when needed (eg. Oakley). Now whether the market forces on production/research costs associated with these gains actually require such a premium for the company to survive and profit, would take some research. The quantity of the premium may be questioned but the fact there is a premium can't in these cases.
-
For work I was advised to get the best pair I could - so I bought a very expensive pair of Raybans, which broke a few months later. Then I just bought cheap pairs that broke after a week or two at a time.
Eventually, whilst going through the airport one day I spotted a good looking pair of 'bloc' sunglasses for £25, which have sustained many drops for months and show no signs of stopping.
-
I'm not sure that the comparison to a £5 watch is a fair one. Watches perform a plethora of functions whereas sunglasses fulfill a much smaller set of requirements. I think I'd like to know what the actual difference is in a pair of Oakleys that makes them worth 4x the cost of a decent pair of non-designer brand sunglasses from a quality company, I know I was peeved at how quickly mine scratched and I didn't find the build quality any better.
I did outline the number of functions watches 'can' perform, but it's not much more than what a user might ask of performance shades where vision & precision can be life or death.
Regarding scratching...that's an issue with all lenses and screens. We are careful with camera lenses, so should treat glasses the same. I'm not sure whether it is because they are so light that we are all careless with them, or is it just because we don't actually get enough sun in this country to form familiar habits with them ;D
Regarding price... as I say, I know why they are dearer, but don't know why so much. Realistically all sunglasses should cost <£20 and all computers should cost >£5,000 considering what goes into them, but they don't. Why is one tent £20 and another £300... no matter the design there isn't a lot different in the construction. Do the materials really warrant the premium? I think my main point was we could apply this valid question to any product but sunglasses are getting picked on more than most.
-
Fair enough but it all just sounds like marketing. If someone can point me in the direction of something that explains why Oakley are worth 4x the cost I'll happily change my opinion, other than that people seem to be saying they must be good quality because they're more expensive and popular.
I'm not sure that the comparison to a £5 watch is a fair one. Watches perform a plethora of functions whereas sunglasses fulfill a much smaller set of requirements. I think I'd like to know what the actual difference is in a pair of Oakleys that makes them worth 4x the cost of a decent pair of non-designer brand sunglasses from a quality company, I know I was peeved at how quickly mine scratched and I didn't find the build quality any better.
I did outline the number of functions watches 'can' perform, but it's not much more than what a user might ask of performance shades where vision & precision can be life or death.
Regarding scratching...that's an issue with all lenses and screens. We are careful with camera lenses, so should treat glasses the same. I'm not sure whether it is because they are so light that we are all careless with them, or is it just because we don't actually get enough sun in this country to form familiar habits with them ;D
Regarding price... as I say, I know why they are dearer, but don't know why so much. Realistically all sunglasses should cost <£20 and all computers should cost >£5,000 considering what goes into them, but they don't. Why is one tent £20 and another £300... no matter the design there isn't a lot different in the construction. Do the materials really warrant the premium? I think my main point was we could apply this valid question to any product but sunglasses are getting picked on more than most.
-
I lied, mine are Jublo and not Bloc..
I must admit I would rather spend a few extra quid on sunnies when I'm working in the outdoors as there is nothing worse than having sore eyes and head due to strain.
-
The more expensive ones DO feel better, look better - and when it comes to sun glare (while driving towards a sunset for example) work better.
However, drop them once and that could be it. I've never been I pressed with Raybans and I have a few workmates break their Oakleys. (Ouch!)
-
For me its all about the Oakley. I just find them a good fit and pretty durable. I have a pair of Oakley Half Wire 2.0 with the iridium fire polarized lenses and had a pair of Oakley Flak Jacket's until I left them in the baby changing room in Heathrow on the way back home this summer. I liked them so much, the next day I went straight up and bought the Half Jacket 2.0's. Granted they are fairly expensive but its not like I am buying them all the time.
(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9189/4601be3ee2d71.jpg)
(http://www.evanscycles.com/product_image/image/2c8/1a4/f5d/73865/product_page/oakley-half-jacket-20-xl-glasses-polished-black-black-iridium-polarized.jpg)
-
Here's 2 videos showing Oakley design benefits:
http://youtu.be/iEjcwvKH5FM (http://youtu.be/iEjcwvKH5FM) - impacts
http://youtu.be/lZuQunJ7GJA (http://youtu.be/lZuQunJ7GJA) - clarity
And for balance, a 60minutes report (only 12mins!) on Luxottica, which also covers why Oakley ended up bought over. It does seem quite a mafia setup, so you definitely have to pay for any product value, perceived or real. Globalisation in full swing. To answer RedLeader... no, they really shouldn't cost 4x as much, but can you find an equal alternative? It's worse than the white goods, which is all 2 big companies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n)
-
Wow that impact test is impressive. I must say that after an accident in university where a carbide tipped lathe tool broke and hit just below my eye and I was being lazy and not bothering with eye protection I wear the best quality safety glasses in work. You only get the one set of eye and I look at them as pretty important so I will always pay the cost to protect my sight.
-
They certainly look impressive from those videos, as long as it's not just marketing. I'm still on the fence, I'd like to see some independent tests, but Oakley do seem to be the best of the pack.
Here's 2 videos showing Oakley design benefits:
http://youtu.be/iEjcwvKH5FM (http://youtu.be/iEjcwvKH5FM) - impacts
http://youtu.be/lZuQunJ7GJA (http://youtu.be/lZuQunJ7GJA) - clarity
And for balance, a 60minutes report (only 12mins!) on Luxottica, which also covers why Oakley ended up bought over. It does seem quite a mafia setup, so you definitely have to pay for any product value, perceived or real. Globalisation in full swing. To answer RedLeader... no, they really shouldn't cost 4x as much, but can you find an equal alternative? It's worse than the white goods, which is all 2 big companies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n)
-
I own 2 pairs of sunglasses, a pair of Oakley Flak Jacket's, these are brilliant for when out on the bike or when running (Don’t really do much of that). But they a really good for when doing sporty activities. My Second pair are a pair of Ray-Ban Aviators, apart from the fact the look cool as f*€k they are great when chilling on the beach and when driving.