A/R Coating?

[OakleyFrankFMJ]

Is it similar to that brilliant blue color I described in my first post regarding the Ikon's, or is it something else? I'd really like to find out that my factory lenses are coated, just as I would expect them to be.

If you could post a pic of what your's look like, that would be awesome.

No. Not brilliant blue. But it's slightly noticeable.

I like having no color on the backside of my lenses.

 

[871JZ]

No. Not brilliant blue. But it's slightly noticeable.

I like having no color on the backside of my lenses.

Gotcha. Next time I'm at the Vault I'll inspect a few pairs and see if I can find what you're seeing. You would think Oakley would use it on all their lenses, but maybe not.

 

[OakleyFrankFMJ]

Gotcha. Next time I'm at the Vault I'll inspect a few pairs and see if I can find what you're seeing. You would think Oakley would use it on all their lenses, but maybe not.

I don't know if they use it on all their lenses. Could be they don't.

 

[871JZ]

I don't know if they use it on all their lenses. Could be they don't.

You're right. For the price I'd expect them to, especially when there are lenses a third the price that do, but who knows. Can't come up with a reason why they wouldn't, though. Thanks for chiming in.

 

[ucdavis4PT0gpa]

You're right. For the price I'd expect them to, especially when there are lenses a third the price that do, but who knows. Can't come up with a reason why they wouldn't, though. Thanks for chiming in.

I can- the one word that describes everything Luxley does: MONEY.

Regardless of that- this topic seems to get floated every couple years around here- sometimes some people assert a definitive answer (all the lenses have it) and some assert it's not consistent across the board.

My stance? Based all I've read and know, some Oakley lenses have it, some do not have it. An example of where it was heavily marketed as being there were the original lenses issued on at least Gen 1 of the Pit Boss. Why? Who knows. To me, it's not really a matter of does a lens HAVE it or SHOULD it have it as much as does a lens NEED it, in other words does a lens in testing minus an A/R coating exhibit tendencies that an A/R coating would fix.

My answer to that is most Oakley lenses either a) have it or b) don't need it. Why? I'm highly light sensitive, very aware of what I'm experiencing/seeing/perceiving with my eyes and worn literally thousands of different Oakley lenses over the last 2+ decades. I've NEVER encountered an instance where I thought "yup, these either need an A/R coating or whatever it's got of it isn't doing the trick".

So Oakley, for it's part, to whatever extent they're applying or not applying A/R coatings in this wearers experience is doing whatever they need to do to prevent reflection from occurring.

 

[871JZ]

I can- the one word that describes everything Luxley does: MONEY.

Regardless of that- this topic seems to get floated every couple years around here- sometimes some people assert a definitive answer (all the lenses have it) and some assert it's not consistent across the board.

My stance? Based all I've read and know, some Oakley lenses have it, some do not have it. An example of where it was heavily marketed as being there were the original lenses issued on at least Gen 1 of the Pit Boss. Why? Who knows. To me, it's not really a matter of does a lens HAVE it or SHOULD it have it as much as does a lens NEED it, in other words does a lens in testing minus an A/R coating exhibit tendencies that an A/R coating would fix.

My answer to that is most Oakley lenses either a) have it or b) don't need it. Why? I'm highly light sensitive, very aware of what I'm experiencing/seeing/perceiving with my eyes and worn literally thousands of different Oakley lenses over the last 2+ decades. I've NEVER encountered an instance where I thought "yup, these either need an A/R coating or whatever it's got of it isn't doing the trick".

So Oakley, for it's part, to whatever extent they're applying or not applying A/R coatings in this wearers experience is doing whatever they need to do to prevent reflection from occurring.

I couldn't agree more on the Lux money comment. Also agree with the fact that a few members try to definitively state that ALL Oakley lenses have the coating, even without posting anything to back that assessment up. Also, as you stated, I can't find a reason why they would incorporate it into some models, but not all.

What I don't agree with is that Oakley is doing whatever it is they need to do to avoid reflection from occurring. Along with another member who posted earlier in this thread, I too, can see my own reflection once in awhile in the backside of my lenses. Sure, not a big deal, really, but it does cheapen the feel just a bit.

In my opinion, for the cost and quality associated with the Oakley name, I don't see where it would hurt for them to incorporate some form of anti-reflection technology into all their lenses. Even if some wearers, like yourself, don't really see the need for it. It's one of those additional features that I perceive as adding to the overall quality of a lens, even if it's not often needed. For the price, it may be a feature many buyers would prefer to have, than to not.

The way I see it, it's not often I feel it's necessary, but it certainly can't hurt to have it. In these cases, at least in my opinion, it can't hurt to include it. Why not?

 

[Litos]

I couldn't agree more on the Lux money comment. Also agree with the fact that a few members try to definitively state that ALL Oakley lenses have the coating, even without posting anything to back that assessment up. Also, as you stated, I can't find a reason why they would incorporate it into some models, but not all.

What I don't agree with is that Oakley is doing whatever it is they need to do to avoid reflection from occurring. Along with another member who posted earlier in this thread, I too, can see my own reflection once in awhile in the backside of my lenses. Sure, not a big deal, really, but it does cheapen the feel just a bit.

In my opinion, for the cost and quality associated with the Oakley name, I don't see where it would hurt for them to incorporate some form of anti-reflection technology into all their lenses. Even if some wearers, like yourself, don't really see the need for it. It's one of those additional features that I perceive as adding to the overall quality of a lens, even if it's not often needed. For the price, it may be a feature many buyers would prefer to have, than to not.

The way I see it, it's not often I feel it's necessary, but it certainly can't hurt to have it. In these cases, at least in my opinion, it can't hurt to include it.

Get some Dillon Lenses...

You'll never ever get reflection

But I'm kind of joking, because it's extremely difficult to source Dillon lenses...

Only 3 or 4 members on this forum have Dillon lenses cut for their XMetals...

 

[871JZ]

Get some Dillon Lenses...

You'll never ever get reflection

But I'm kind of joking, because it's extremely difficult to source Dillon lenses...

Only 3 or 4 members on this forum have Dillon lenses cut for their XMetals...



View attachment 304816

Not familiar with them? What makes them so special? They look cool as hell, though.

 

[Litos]

Not familiar with them? What makes them so special? They look cool as hell, though.

NIR Lens Technology

THE DIFFUSE REFLECTING LENS™
So what is NIR Lens Technology? It is a polarized diffuse reflector that reduces internal reflections within the lens allowing for noticeably sharper clarity. Why hasn’t this been done before? Two reasons; 1) the technology wasn’t obvious and, 2) it wasn’t easy to do.

Dillon Optics entered the highly competitive sunglass marketplace for the first time in the spring of 2008. Making it to market, however, has not been easy. Dillon first conceived the idea for NIR Technology in 1986 at a family owned machine shop in Scottsdale Arizona. The idea was to create a lens having clarity superior to anything else by diffusing and eliminating reflections within the lens. It took many years to get it right.

By summer of 1987 testing on the new lens produced results that suggested the concept might work but it was far from perfect. In order to produce a working lens many new methods of manufacture had to be developed – and they were. Weeks turned to months and months turned to years. In 1990 Dillon produced, for the first time, a lens that proved the concept worked. The only problem was that the method used to create this lens was far too complicated to manufacture. Making lenses is not easy – especially when new methods of manufacture have to be developed every step of the way. It took a long time to put the lens into production but the results are amazing. A lens with true high definition clarity. Try on a pair of Dillon NIR sunglasses and you will see the difference. NIR lens technology represents a radical departure from what you’ve come to expect, a departure that does not disappoint.

The diffuse reflecting technology is enclosed within the lens to protect it from scratching or exposure to harmful environmental conditions. NIR lenses have oleophobic coatings on the front and back surfaces to resist oil and moisture and to make cleaning easier. The result is a durable lens with outstanding optics and a unique satin finish appearance. NIR lenses are made of CR-39™; they block 100% of harmful UV light and meet the optical and impact resistance requirements of ANSI Z80.3. Only the highest quality frames are used in the Dillon product line. All plastic frames are made of the proven high quality material Grylamide TR90.

NIR Lens Technology / Dillon Optics

 

[871JZ]

Those Dillon's look very interesting, especially if they're as goodoes as they claim
I love the fact that they are grease/oil safe. No worries about delaminating or anything else.

Didn't see lenses available on their site. How would one go about finding donor lenses?