1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to see less ads, post topics, browse Oakleys, make friends and more!
    Register Now

Want to see less ads, post content and the ability to buy & sell Oakleys?

Register Today or Login

Discussion in 'Oakley Sunglasses Discussion' started by Jay-Da, 3/4/16.

  1. Jay-Da


    Why is Oakley's literature regarding their light transmission rates so conflicting!? It's maddening...

    All the in store stuff I've seen has 24K at 11%, yet the website says 23%...! That's such a difference...

    Light Transmissions... - upload_2016-3-4_9-16-41.png

    Light Transmissions... - upload_2016-3-4_9-17-20.png

    Shade Station Oakley Sunglasses

    Register to Not see this ad
  2. nlgrav182


    Where did you see the 11% part? It's definitely 23%; black iridium is down near 11%.

  3. Jay-Da


  4. kronin323

    kronin323 Premium Member

    Try o-review's lenses database.
    Wavecloud Customs likes this.

  5. flyer


    There are some anomalies there as well, but it's the best we have.
    I've been attempting to measure transmission through various tints with a light meter, and trying to rationalize the numbers.
    It's a work in progress...
    Wavecloud Customs likes this.

  6. reswob


    The lens chart that came with my Flaks says 24K Iridium is 13%. Irritatingly, it seems new pairs no longer come with the chart, and Oakley has taken it off the website.

  7. Jay-Da


    A new lens guide is now available on the website... Under Mens > Sunglasses > Lens Guide..
    max4321 likes this.

  8. max4321


    Damn, I hope they're not killing off persimmon. Also, I don't understand Oakley's rationale behind which lenses are released for each frame. I.e. you had the full spectrum for the flak 2 only a couple of months after its release, but it has now been over a year and the selection for the jawbreaker (with switchlock) is still pretty poor.

  9. Jay-Da


    Yeah I don't get it either... I hope they aren't replacing VR28 BIP and OO BIP... that would be a shame.

  10. ucdavis4PT0gpa


    Up until this thread everything I've ever seen about 24K has said 13%. I can attest to the fact that there's no way any 24K I've used is 23%- I'm sensitive to anything above 16% and I'd know if it was 23%. Now, that said? The lens table clearly states its 77% filtration- so perhaps they've redone 24K

    Which is possible- I don't know what Oakley is up to the last couple years but they seem hell bent on decimating their lens lineup: killing Emerald for Jade (don't think Emerald is dead?- it's not even in the lens table anymore), slowing killing off VR28 BIP (not in the table either) and Violet from what I'm seeing.... and don't think for a second that Ruby is safe- do we really think they'll be keeping Torch AND Ruby in the lineup? I doubt it.

    Plus they apparently think all their consumers are half blind and don't need sunglasses to actually you know...block the sun- Jade at 17%, Sapphire at 20%, this 24K if it is revamped at 23%, Torch 17%- and marking all of those for Bright Light. Really? When the company used to classify 12% or 13% for Medium to Bright suddenly 20% or up is for Bright Light? I can wear 13% when if cloudy and raining- no way 17 to 23% is for Bright Light.

    But yeah- it looks like they may have redone 24K and nearly doubled the light it lets through now; that's a shame given it's among their 3 best tints overall in looks and performance. Well...it was.

Share This Page