Seek Optics - Aftermarket Oakley Lens Review?

[Saintz]

Seek needs to get in the lab and show us some optical facts.

Well reasoned post. I don't have the equipment to test lenses, but if anyone does and is willing to test a few Seek lenses, I have some spares I can donate:
Seek polarized polycarbonate blue mirror, has a hairline scratch and delaminated corner but should be good enough to test.
Seek polarized triacetate black mirror, I won't wear triacetate lenses so I have no use for them.

If anyone will test these, PM me.

My review and experience with Seek lenses is here: Best Non-OEM Replacement Oakley Lenses in General

 

[DArnold]

I recently purchased a set of SEEK Fire Irridium polarized lenses for my new Flak 2.0's. I am actually quite pleased with their contrast and clarity. My area of expertise is not in optometry, and I do not have access to the needed test equipment to provide any quantitatively derived statistical analysis. What I have done is read through this forum, and conducted some further literature review, in order to better understand the optical parameters that I should be aware of and demand to some decent degree. That extended literature review gave me some idea of what other Oakley wearer's found with various lenses which lead me to try the SEEK's. I wanted to try the Ikon's but I couldn't find them for these frames, nor do I remember seeing them for my Fast Jacket frames, a pity. I thought about the Fuse but I didn't like the idea of not being able to get most of the features I wanted in an Irridium polarized, Zeiss (sp?) lense. I also considered the Revant HC3's but the price point didn't make sense. If I wanted to spend nearly $50 for lenses why not just find deals on Oakley's for an additional $15-$25???

So I purchased the Fire Irridium lenses from SEEK, and began my own structured, but subjective test. I compared them back to back with my fresh Oakley polarized lenses and I couldn't tell a difference in clarity between them. They both have what I've typically referred to as the "Oakley 3D Pop". I haven't experienced that from the Revant Polarized lenses that I have bought, which is why I tried SEEK. I tried the polarization "test" suggested on this thread out of curiosity and sure enough, I could NOT read the monitor when I oriented them as prescribed. From what was posted, the indication is that these stand a good chance of being polycarbonate instead of the distortion causing triacetate. It is also interesting that SEEK claims that their lenses have passed the three tests that make Oakley's so optically outstanding from my limited data. Of course a company can say just about anything so this doesn't mean that SEEK lenses are as good as Oakley's by any means, so I take that with a grain of salt. I would also like to see some published comparison test data. It is quite possible that all SEEK had to do to "pass" the three optical clarity tests was to meet some minimum standard, much like UV ratings. This would allow SEEK or any other company to claim they are as good while possibly being even beyond statistically significantly lower in performance than Oakley lenses. Who knows?

For me the pattern of my Oakley lenses going to pot soon after the warranty expired pushed me to find a less expensive alternative as a daily lens, and for the last 1.7yrs those lenses were Revant ( I also had two previous pair of half jackets before my Fast Jackets that I got a year ago). What I really noticed was that the Revants just didn't compare to my Oakley's and the shavings weren't worth it. The "3D Pop" just wasn't there with my second pair of Half Jackets and especially my Fast Jackets. However at this point I am happy with the performance of these SEEK lenses. For the month that I've had them they have been the only lenses, other than my Oakley's, that I can actually play my golf rounds in without taking them off, and, that I can leave on all day. It actually feels like my eyes relax when I wear them, which is what my Oakley lenses feel like, but that is a subjective account. For now, they are a winner that also provides the extra benefit of increasing the longevity of my Oakley lenses. That is allowing me to use the Oakley lenses for special occassions and less worries of damaging them.

If the SEEK lenses go to pot before I've gotten at least 10mos of use out of them, or either of the two sets of polarized lenses I plan as a future purchase aren't as good as this first set, I will definitely report back. When I get the additional lenses I will do the same comparison with each of those sets to my Oakley's that I did with these initial lenses. I will also do the "polycarbonate test" just to make sure that SEEK hasn't slipped from my first impressions with inconsistent quality control since the report here is that there may be some spotty batches of triacetate polarized lenses being distributed. Until then, it SEEMS to me at this point that I have found a suitable replacement option that I can live with.

 

[Saintz]

I wanted to try the Ikon's but I couldn't find them for these frames, nor do I remember seeing them for my Fast Jacket frames, a pity. I thought about the Fuse but I didn't like the idea of not being able to get most of the features I wanted in an Irridium polarized, Zeiss (sp?) lense. I also considered the Revant HC3's but the price point didn't make sense. If I wanted to spend nearly $50 for lenses why not just find deals on Oakley's for an additional $15-$25???

I agree the Revant HC3 are not priced well. Ikon doesn't have any half frame at this time. Fast Jackets are hard to fit, Ikon and Fuse are out, Revant and Seek are the best bets for the Fast. The Fuse Zeiss I think are inferior to the Fuse Ion, I would try those as your next pair to compare to the Seek.

I tried the polarization "test" suggested on this thread out of curiosity and sure enough, I could NOT read the monitor when I oriented them as prescribed. From what was posted, the indication is that these stand a good chance of being polycarbonate instead of the distortion causing triacetate.

That is very interesting. If Seek went back to polycarbonate, they are great lenses. The Fuse Ion (and Ikon) have A/R which I prefer, but the Seek polycarbonate are the most smudge and water resistant lenses I've seen. Really good stuff if you spend time by the water or hate cleaning your glasses.

 

[DArnold]

I agree the Revant HC3 are not priced well. Ikon doesn't have any half frame at this time. Fast Jackets are hard to fit, Ikon and Fuse are out, Revant and Seek are the best bets for the Fast. The Fuse Zeiss I think are inferior to the Fuse Ion, I would try those as your next pair to compare to the Seek.



That is very interesting. If Seek went back to polycarbonate, they are great lenses. The Fuse Ion (and Ikon) have A/R which I prefer, but the Seek polycarbonate are the most smudge and water resistant lenses I've seen. Really good stuff if you spend time by the water or hate cleaning your glasses.

Awesome advice. Thank you. I'll go back and check out the Fuse Ion series.

 

[DArnold]

Saintz, I read some of your posts regarding the Zeiss blanks that appear to be used by Oakley, Fuse, and a number of other high profile companies, thereby endowing a number of lenses with great clarity and distortion free properties. Do you know if the SEEK and Revant HC3 lenses are also made from Zeiss blanks?

Considering the fact that SEEK names the same three tests that are commonly attributed to Oakley (Metyometer- clarity, Prism- light distortion, Optical Distortion Test- focus distortion) it could be that SEEK also uses a Zeiss blank that Oakley, Rayban, Fuse and others are using. To be fair, I'm not sure which standards are used for ANY company's lenses due to multiple standards, and lack of manufacture specification.

This is an important point because the XDO, XYZ technology that our Oakley lenses use seem to point to Prism and Optical Distortion Tests respectively, but further clarification would be nice. A summary of the white paper from the first link below shows that there are several standards for testing lens distortion along with several "company program specifications" that utilize differing standards.

The Imatest program for example, uses the SMIA standard; while the Image Engineering specification uses the SMIA 13 standard. There is a European Broadcasting Union (EBU) standard which will give figures that have a relational value of twice the SMIA values that constituted the "TV" standard. The I3A (that is a capital I, not a one [1], lol) is another standard that other specification programs utilize. For instance DXO Labs uses BOTH the SMIA and the I3A standards in their specification. Furthermore, there appears to be a new standard known an the Entrance Pupil (EP) standard that is gaining popularity.

So when Oakley users ask for comparison test regarding optical clarity we have a little more of a dilemma then we may realize since there may be multiple standards which different testing programs and lens providers utilize. LOL. For instance, it is possible that the XDO parameter, if it indeed measures light distortion via the Prism Test may also include Metyometer calibration for Optical Clarity since the Metyometer measures optical transparency for a lens in order to determine the clarity (distinctness) of its image representation. I think I recall reading somewhere on this site about a "Stenograph" test, but I have not been able locate that terminology again (still searching).

If I remember correctly, the term seemed to be in context with describing clarity, and if so it may be that it is used in a similar fashion as the Metyometer for determining optical clarity. Saintz, was able to find information which indicated that Zeiss actually may be/is the supplier of blanks for a number of companies, including Oakley. If this is the case, and I do not doubt his findings, then our Oakley lenses are not as proprietary as we may believe. Of course it must be remembered that a lens' proprietary innovation has absolutely nothing to do with its performance level; the two aspects are independent of each other; although they can be related because of R&D. Thus we can enjoy the awesome performance of our Oakley lenses, but we shouldn't think the level of performance is due to technology that is exclusive only to Oakley.

As a result, it is possible for third party (aftermarket) lens companies to offer lenses that are equal in performance to our Oakley's, and to do so at a lower cost via lower overhead and reduced R&D budgets (think frames here). This would especially be possible if a major company provided the blanks to multiple vendors, of which Oakley was one. Of course it could be possible for such a company to have a performance tier for their blanks in which Oakley and other top tier brands purchase the highest quality blanks while third party vendors purchase lower tier blank, and I would think that this happens as well. It is also probable that Oakley and other top tier Sun glass companies perform an in-house quality control process in which received lenses must be within a prescribe tolerance factor because even computer controlled manufacturing still produces some "lemon" (see the second link); and the third party companies may not do this. Who knows?

The point of course is that aftermarket lenses are capable of being as good as Oakley lenses and it "seems" that maybe the SEEK, Ikon, Fuse Ion, and Revant HC3 lenses are doing so. This is quite probably being done by their utilization of the same blanks that Oakley, Rayban, and others have been using for some time, which contain all of the awesome technology that we have grown accustomed to. My thought, based upon much of the Oakley use experience that I've poured through on this site is that the standard Revant's, Wellunza(sp), and many other aftermarket lenses are NOT using the Zeiss blanks, which is why they are so horrible.

I know that my regular Revant's simply became intolerable, and I was always leery of trying the Wellunza(sp?) brands. Even worst, I've noticed on Ebay that there are a number of "no brand" lenses that offer zero specifications about their lenses. Yikkesss. That is why the only way to KNOW we have that technology is to buy Oakley lenses. However, we can also do the trial and error "test" of aftermarket lenses, to see if we can find the possible good ones by submitting them to at least a comparative analysis with our Oakley lenses, and possibly an even greater objective tests (again see the second link).

Here is a link on a white paper concerning lens distortion standards:
International Standards about Distortion

Another site that offers further insight towards the clarity and distortion body of knowledge, and it even provides a step by step method for possibly "testing" your own lenses. It can be found here:
How to Test Your Lens

-DA

 

[DArnold]

Saintz, I read some of your posts regarding the Zeiss blanks that appear to be used by Oakley, Fuse, and a number of other high profile companies, thereby endowing a number of lenses with great clarity and distortion free properties. Do you know if the SEEK and Revant HC3 lenses are also made from Zeiss blanks?

Considering the fact that SEEK names the same three tests that are commonly attributed to Oakley (Metyometer- clarity, Prism- light distortion, Optical Distortion Test- focus distortion) it could be that SEEK also uses a Zeiss blank that Oakley, Rayban, Fuse and others are using. To be fair, I'm not sure which standards are used for ANY company's lenses due to multiple standards, and lack of manufacture specification.

This is an important point because the XDO, XYZ technology that our Oakley lenses use seem to point to Prism and Optical Distortion Tests respectively, but further clarification would be nice. A summary of the white paper from the first link below shows that there are several standards for testing lens distortion along with several "company program specifications" that utilize differing standards.

The Imatest program for example, uses the SMIA standard; while the Image Engineering specification uses the SMIA 13 standard. There is a European Broadcasting Union (EBU) standard which will give figures that have a relational value of twice the SMIA values that constituted the "TV" standard. The I3A (that is a capital I, not a one [1], lol) is another standard that other specification programs utilize. For instance DXO Labs uses BOTH the SMIA and the I3A standards in their specification. Furthermore, there appears to be a new standard known an the Entrance Pupil (EP) standard that is gaining popularity.

So when Oakley users ask for comparison test regarding optical clarity we have a little more of a dilemma then we may realize since there may be multiple standards which different testing programs and lens providers utilize. LOL. For instance, it is possible that the XDO parameter, if it indeed measures light distortion via the Prism Test may also include Metyometer calibration for Optical Clarity since the Metyometer measures optical transparency for a lens in order to determine the clarity (distinctness) of its image representation. I think I recall reading somewhere on this site about a "Stenograph" test, but I have not been able locate that terminology again (still searching).

If I remember correctly, the term seemed to be in context with describing clarity, and if so it may be that it is used in a similar fashion as the Metyometer for determining optical clarity. Saintz, was able to find information which indicated that Zeiss actually may be/is the supplier of blanks for a number of companies, including Oakley. If this is the case, and I do not doubt his findings, then our Oakley lenses are not as proprietary as we may believe. Of course it must be remembered that a lens' proprietary innovation has absolutely nothing to do with its performance level; the two aspects are independent of each other; although they can be related because of R&D. Thus we can enjoy the awesome performance of our Oakley lenses, but we shouldn't think the level of performance is due to technology that is exclusive only to Oakley.

As a result, it is possible for third party (aftermarket) lens companies to offer lenses that are equal in performance to our Oakley's, and to do so at a lower cost via lower overhead and reduced R&D budgets (think frames here). This would especially be possible if a major company provided the blanks to multiple vendors, of which Oakley was one. Of course it could be possible for such a company to have a performance tier for their blanks in which Oakley and other top tier brands purchase the highest quality blanks while third party vendors purchase lower tier blank, and I would think that this happens as well. It is also probable that Oakley and other top tier Sun glass companies perform an in-house quality control process in which received lenses must be within a prescribe tolerance factor because even computer controlled manufacturing still produces some "lemon" (see the second link); and the third party companies may not do this. Who knows?

The point of course is that aftermarket lenses are capable of being as good as Oakley lenses and it "seems" that maybe the SEEK, Ikon, Fuse Ion, and Revant HC3 lenses are doing so. This is quite probably being done by their utilization of the same blanks that Oakley, Rayban, and others have been using for some time, which contain all of the awesome technology that we have grown accustomed to. My thought, based upon much of the Oakley use experience that I've poured through on this site is that the standard Revant's, Wellunza(sp), and many other aftermarket lenses are NOT using the Zeiss blanks, which is why they are so horrible.

I know that my regular Revant's simply became intolerable, and I was always leery of trying the Wellunza(sp?) brands. Even worst, I've noticed on Ebay that there are a number of "no brand" lenses that offer zero specifications about their lenses. Yikkesss. That is why the only way to KNOW we have that technology is to buy Oakley lenses. However, we can also do the trial and error "test" of aftermarket lenses, to see if we can find the possible good ones by submitting them to at least a comparative analysis with our Oakley lenses, and possibly an even greater objective tests (again see the second link).

Here is a link on a white paper concerning lens distortion standards:
International Standards about Distortion

Another site that offers further insight towards the clarity and distortion body of knowledge, and it even provides a step by step method for possibly "testing" your own lenses. It can be found here:
How to Test Your Lens

-DA

Came back to this later and wanted to edit some things (phraseology, spelling, clarity) after looking things over again but the edit timed out. LOL. LOL. The edits I tried to make are in bold. For the most part I only included the sentences where changes were made, however I did leave three sentences where no changes were made for contextual clarity. Thanks everyone for all of your insights throughout the site. If anyone has anything to ad or help me to more accurately know and understand please do so. Thanks again. -DA
----------------------


This is is an important point because the HDO, XYZ technology that our Oakley lenses use seem to point to the Prism and Optical Distortion Tests, but further clarification would be nice. A summary of the white paper from the first link below shows that there are several standards for testing lens distortion along with several "company program specifications" that utilize differing standards.

So when Oakley users ask for comparison test regarding optical clarity it looks like we have a little more of a dilemma then we may realize since there are multiple standards, and there may be different testing programs lens providers are utilizing. LOL. For instance, it is possible that the HDO parameter, if it indeed measures light distortion via the Prism Test may also include the Optical Distortion Test as well. The Metyometer calibration for Optical Clarity may be a part of Oakley's XYZ test since the Metyometer measures optical transparency via light linearity measurements in order to determine the clarity (distinctness) of its image representation. NOTE: The next two sentences would have been deleted.

Saintz, was able to find information which indicated that Zeiss actually may be or is the supplier of blanks for a number of companies, including Oakley. If this is the case, then our Oakley lenses may not be as totally proprietary as we tend to believe. Of course it must be remembered that a lens' proprietary innovation has absolutely nothing to do with its performance level; the two aspects are independent of each other; although they can be related because of R&D. Thus we can enjoy the awesome performance of our Oakley lenses, but we shouldn't think that every piece of its technology is exclusive only to Oakley.

As a result, it is possible for third party (aftermarket) lens companies to offer lenses that are comparable in performance to our Oakley's, and that they may be able to do so at a lower cost via less overhead and reduced R&D budgets (think frames here). This would especially be possible if a major company provided the blanks to multiple vendors, of which Oakley was one. Of course it could be possible for such a company to have a performance tier for their blanks in which Oakley and other top tier brands purchase the highest quality blanks while third party vendors purchase lower tier blank, and I would think that this happens as well. It is also probable that Oakley and other top tier sun glass companies DO have their own proprietary technologies or implementation formats that are added to their specific lenses alone. This would allow them to out-perform a third party lens even if the third party lens shared the same base blank. Also, it is quite possible that an in-house quality control process is in place with Oakley and other premium eye wear companies in which their received blanks are inspected to ensure that they meet a prescribe tolerance factor, something that third party lenses may not do.

The point of course is that aftermarket lenses may be capable of being as good as Oakley lenses, especially if they can have their manufacturer implement the same type of technologies. To this end it "seems" that maybe the SEEK, Ikon, Fuse Ion, and Revant HC3 lenses are either doing so or closing in on being able to reach the level of premier companies such as Oakley. It is an interesting postulate when you consider that these lenses are also more expensive than the known inferior levels that most of these stated aftermarket companies also sell. My guess is that Ikon, Fuse, SEEK, and Revant are probably utilizing the same quality level blanks that companies such as Oakley, Rayban, and others have been using for some time to achieve this jump in performance that we as Oakley wearer's seem to be experiencing.

My thought, based upon much of my fellow Oakley user's experience after pouring through this site, is that the standard Revant's, Wellunza(sp), and many other aftermarket lenses are simply NOT using the Zeiss blanks, which is why they are so horrible.That is why the only way to KNOW we have that technology is to buy Oakley lenses. However, we can also do the trial and error "test" of aftermarket lenses, to see if we can find possible good third party lenses by submitting them to at least a comparative analysis with our Oakley lenses, and possibly a more structured generic chart test (again see the second link to get an idea of what photographers do to test their lenses, maybe we can do something similar).

Edits Complete-

 

[OkStateJoe]

Nice value-add posts there for people interested in non-OEM replacements.

Some (just a couple folks) won’t be able to read them without getting defensive, but I get it. When I was growing up, I only wanted Jordans to wear to school. Were there other shoes made as well or perhaps better that were also cheaper? Sure…but I had to have Jordans! I actually still love Jordans. The new styles aren’t for me, but most of the first 10-12 styles are great (the 1’s are ugly as hell, but I still had them). But I digress…

Others have stated they are fortunate enough financially to not have to worry about buying cheaper replacements. I would hope so! In fact, I would argue if you can’t afford to get OEMs, you should NOT have purchased Oakleys to begin with… Some people are just open to other very solid options at a much smaller price point, that’s all.

In one of my previous posts, I noted how cheaply sunglasses (including Oakleys) are made. Everything any of us purchase costs MUCH less than what we are paying for it. It’s simple business. There is a ton of overhead to cover, as well as a little thing called “profit” to strive for, so a company isn’t going to spend $180 on an item, only to sell it for $200. As I was writing the comment in the previous post, I remembered seeing a story from 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc. years earlier discussing the exact topic. Well, I found it. Turns out it was 60 Minutes. You can see it here (12 minute clip, so a bit long, but definitely eye-opening/informative):

So, if ANYONE thinks their $500 (or however much they claim to have paid - even if they are prescription) shades cost anywhere north of $70 to manufacture, well, I’ve got a Dell laptop at home I’d love to sell you. I’d be willing to part with it for $10k...

Still loving my Seek lenses, by the way. I have four sets, all of which are over a year old now and as good as the first day I had them. I actually use one set in my Fast Jackets while playing softball. I dove for a ball Wednesday night (“dove” makes it sound more graceful than it actually was) and my shades hit the dirt (dirt = a weird mixture of play sand and something else that feels like concrete when your body slams against it). The lenses landed face down and slid/bounced one to two feet. No scratches! I was definitely surprised, but I’ll take it.

I have to agree with the assessment of the Revant lenses. I tried some of those before I bought my SEEK lenses. I thought they were dreadful, so I’m glad to hear I wasn’t the only one seeing deficiencies in color, resolution, etc.

Anyhow…nice write-ups. Hopefully they guide people into trying out other alternatives (whatever they may be), assuming that’s a direction they want to go.

Have a good one.

 

[Miren Baines]

I had decided to get two pairs of seek lenses....

For the most part I got mirror chrome for my gascans and purple mirror for my Fuel Cells ---

Their alright so far. I don't get headaches or anything while looking through them and they seem to do the trick. I had to take off Revant's version of "Mid-Night Sun Fire". I found the polarized Revants were hard to keep clean.

 

[MJ]

Yeah, I get all that, but my point is someone who is willing purchase non-Oakley lenses that look/perform great to the naked eye isn't worried too much about making their eyes work harder...especially people who do not wear their shades 8+ hours per day. Again, to each their own, if you don't like them, don't buy them...but to slam them when you haven't even tried them yourself seems weak. I actually tried the Walleva lenses. They were junk. The color was off and the depth perception was different in the lens from top to bottom.

You know, there IS a chance these are solid lenses all around. Since no one has had an optician check them, maybe Mr. Hardaway should do it himself and let the rest of the board know. Seems more logical than someone else having to take them in and pay god knows how much to have their $15 lenses checked. Just because they are cheaper than OEMs doesn't mean they are bad. After all, the frames you have cost between 5 and 10 bucks to manufacture, and you paid 100-400 bucks for them. Perhaps someone is doing the manufacturing, marketing and delivery all on their own...cutting out the many pieces in the middle, including overhead and insane markup for name brand.

Its not a matter of bad or good. Its about optical clarity, impact resistance, scratch resistance and all that other stuff that is desirable or not desirable. You are correct, some people will be perfectly happy with gas station sunglasses. Your buddy (or anyone that buys oakleys or brand name sunglasses) bought oakleys because they wanted that quality, both optically and frame-wise, and to many members here, it seems counter-intuitive to buy cheap aftermarket lenses when you obviously bought oakleys for their name and the other lens qualities that come with the brand name is all.

Speaking optically, eye strain, even for a few hours a day, is a big deal, and combined with tv, your computer, is a fast path to having to wear glasses / contacts /lasix. It is a legit point to have them checked by an optician. There are posts on this board that compare even the best of aftermarket lenses, and they suffer in optical quality compared to oem oakley lenses.

 

[joecool862]

Its not a matter of bad or good. Its about optical clarity, impact resistance, scratch resistance and all that other stuff that is desirable or not desirable. You are correct, some people will be perfectly happy with gas station sunglasses. Your buddy (or anyone that buys oakleys or brand name sunglasses) bought oakleys because they wanted that quality, both optically and frame-wise, and to many members here, it seems counter-intuitive to buy cheap aftermarket lenses when you obviously bought oakleys for their name and the other lens qualities that come with the brand name is all.

Speaking optically, eye strain, even for a few hours a day, is a big deal, and combined with tv, your computer, is a fast path to having to wear glasses / contacts /lasix. It is a legit point to have them checked by an optician. There are posts on this board that compare even the best of aftermarket lenses, and they suffer in optical quality compared to oem oakley lenses.

Linegear lenses have been shown several times to be on par with Oakley in optical testing, but then again, they aren't exactly cheap lenses, lol. You usually do get what you pay for