Ventruck
I am Jim Jannard...
- 8,409
- 3,243
Depends on which timeline you'd go by: Goggles (which was like late 2014 iirc), or sunglasses which took off more during the R1 2015 release.
Thought about this lately as the idea of Prizm was to be a functional upgrade regular lenses. Leaves me to wonder if users were actually found that to be the case and perhaps had the lenses move up in their rotation. I've only had experience with Prizm Road and Baseball/Outfield, and used the former for its intended purpose in cycling very frequently since the R2 release.
My initial thoughts of Road were that it was "nice". It kinda made sense in making details like cracks and what not standout more, and it works across a range of environments and lighting. In my Jawbreaker review I even said something along the lines that if I could only have one lens for cycling, Prizm Road would be it, but I can still say to this day: had the lens never existed, I wouldn't look for it. I sometimes swapped in Jade and Sapphire for rides, and my visual acuity and whatnot didn't seem to change for better or worse.
But as of late it's the only lens running in my cycling pair. I'm starting to realize that I'm not as prone to take long blinks during the harder stretches of rides and my eyes adjusted to off-hue tint for perceived neutrality. In simple terms, I just find it to be a more comfortable option for cycling. With most neutral lenses, I can spot details without real issue, but it seems that it comes with less effort with Prizm Road — it just stands out. So while I already would've considered Road Oakley's top option for cycling, I've taken the level of preference further in saying I really don't want to use other lenses for the activity. Pretty sold that Oakley got the formula right.
Right now, I can comfortably use any near-neutral Iridium as well as Fire for casual use, but I do wonder if Prizm Daily will successfully grow on me like Road for cycling...
Thought about this lately as the idea of Prizm was to be a functional upgrade regular lenses. Leaves me to wonder if users were actually found that to be the case and perhaps had the lenses move up in their rotation. I've only had experience with Prizm Road and Baseball/Outfield, and used the former for its intended purpose in cycling very frequently since the R2 release.
My initial thoughts of Road were that it was "nice". It kinda made sense in making details like cracks and what not standout more, and it works across a range of environments and lighting. In my Jawbreaker review I even said something along the lines that if I could only have one lens for cycling, Prizm Road would be it, but I can still say to this day: had the lens never existed, I wouldn't look for it. I sometimes swapped in Jade and Sapphire for rides, and my visual acuity and whatnot didn't seem to change for better or worse.
But as of late it's the only lens running in my cycling pair. I'm starting to realize that I'm not as prone to take long blinks during the harder stretches of rides and my eyes adjusted to off-hue tint for perceived neutrality. In simple terms, I just find it to be a more comfortable option for cycling. With most neutral lenses, I can spot details without real issue, but it seems that it comes with less effort with Prizm Road — it just stands out. So while I already would've considered Road Oakley's top option for cycling, I've taken the level of preference further in saying I really don't want to use other lenses for the activity. Pretty sold that Oakley got the formula right.
Right now, I can comfortably use any near-neutral Iridium as well as Fire for casual use, but I do wonder if Prizm Daily will successfully grow on me like Road for cycling...