Help Identifying Lenses

[Rustpot]

I was hoping to get a set of ball-tipped micrometers from work today but we couldn't find a set, only flat, so I can't get any real measurements.

And my light burned out in my room and I'm too tired to move down to the basement where there's good lighting to take pictures.

But I don't notice a significant difference in thickness, nor does it seem like there is much difference in stiffness against flexing, between my vintage M Frame lenses (Hybrid gen 1, original blue iridium Heater) and my current generation M Frame lenses (Hybrid G30, current VR28-base blue iridium Heater).

 

[BriP]

i have a gen 2 lens mframe, no thickness difference with new gen. if anything, a touch thicker. all my gen1 subzeros also have the thicker lens. I have not seen oakley oem lenses that thin. even my original eyeshades (first sunglass ever made) had thick lenses (same as current lenses). granted it was pre-plutonite, but i have not seen any way oakley ever made lenses that thin. Looks alot like VL or walleva to me. you can test it. i think VL polarises their lenses so check if its polarised (against a lcd screen and rotate) early oakley lenses dont have polarised technology so thats a tell tale sign. even if its not, i think exovista makes non polarised lenses, and you can generally tell those because he base tint is really dark compared to OEM oakley.

overall i call BS on that one. let me know how u go with the tests

 

[Dardonardo]

Thanks a lot guys! The lenses are polarised, and way too thin. I will tell the buy I do not buy his story and to get a refund. I also remember my zeros and subzeros with a very sturdy lens...

You guys are the best!!

 

[BriP]

Thanks a lot guys! The lenses are polarised, and way too thin. I will tell the buy I do not buy his story and to get a refund. I also remember my zeros and subzeros with a very sturdy lens...

You guys are the best!!

yup definitely VL or walleva then. no worries buddy

 

[Dardonardo]

The ebay guy offers me a full refund but still says that they are oakley:

"Send them back for a refund. I will provide full refund. I cut them from an M-Frame +Red Iridium lens that was produced before 2003 and they are thinner lens sheilds."

So, did they do polarized lensed back before 2003? Any of your m frames are from back then?

Thanks!!

 

[BriP]

The ebay guy offers me a full refund but still says that they are oakley:

"Send them back for a refund. I will provide full refund. I cut them from an M-Frame +Red Iridium lens that was produced before 2003 and they are thinner lens sheilds."

So, did they do polarized lensed back before 2003? Any of your m frames are from back then?

Thanks!!

Oakley did NOT do polarised lenses for first gen mframes.in that generation lenses which were iridium coated were as premium as you could get. And even if it was a later gen polarised m frame lens, it should be thicker. Hes damned either way... Its definitely not oakley lenses. Hell, even early mframe lenses were thick!

One more thing, is there a curvature difference between that lens and the other lenses you have in the frame? If it was really cut from an mframe, it would have a flatter curvature. I doubt that is so, because its painfully obvious its an aftermarket lens.

 

[Dardonardo]

I just checked the curvature, and the lenses are LESS curved than the oakleys, the are flatter... So in this regard they could come from m frame lenses...

 

[BriP]

I just checked the curvature, and the lenses are LESS curved than the oakleys, the are flatter... So in this regard they could come from m frame lenses...

But the fact its polarised and THAT thin... I've got mframe lenses... None are that thin. My old stuff is actually thicker than the newer stuff. Anyway return that crap. Even if they were authentic, which they arent, the curvature is off so you dont get xyz optics anymore (the will be distortion)

 

[Rustpot]

2003 isn't THAT old, only 10 years or so.

My oldest M Frames are from 20+ years ago, and there may be a difference in thickness, but not a whole lot.

What we may be seeing is the difference between a Jawbone lens at the edge and an M Frame lens much more toward the center.

+Red was never offered in polarized for M Frames as far as I know, either. I'm not saying it was never made, but to my knowledge they were never sold.

 

[BriP]

2003 isn't THAT old, only 10 years or so.

My oldest M Frames are from 20+ years ago, and there may be a difference in thickness, but not a whole lot.

What we may be seeing is the difference between a Jawbone lens at the edge and an M Frame lens much more toward the center.

+Red was never offered in polarized for M Frames as far as I know, either. I'm not saying it was never made, but to my knowledge they were never sold.

i thought lenses tapered thinner on the OUTSIDE of lenses an were thicker in the centre to correct for distortion? (an this is really minute anyway, nothing as drastic as we're seeing)