Unsure About the Fit of Flak 2.0 XL's / Should I go Bigger?

[azchapman10]

Hello All and Thanks for the Help!

I recently purchased some Flak 2.0 XL's after a few weeks of research into which Oakley sunglasses I wanted for working outdoors. So...I noticed when I wear them I can basically look down and fully see underneath the lenses. I'm not sure if the frames just don't fit my face properly, but I am just curious if the bottom of the lenses are meant to fit close to the face, or if other people can almost "see under the lens" like me. I'm pretty sure I'm just going to return them and possibly get the Radar EV's anyway since I probably need more coverage. Thanks!

 

[Inkkoonce]

Get a Kato and your problem is solved. Or a Sutro/Sutro Lite

 

[KarlBlessing]

Get a Kato and your problem is solved. Or a Sutro/Sutro Lite

Or even a Clifden, some extra vertical coverage, though the Flak 2.0 XL I have, have a tad more horizontal coverage, only seeing the little nubs on the left and right. Though the Clifden will not wrap around the face like the ones Inkkonce said, so you get a bit back glare if you choose to remove the side blockers (those are easily removable and placed back on, much like the nose bridge, giving you an almost rounded holbrook look)

The other thing to consider is the nose pads, as you may have noticed they come with two different sizes, one of them when I tried them put them too high on my face and I could easily see under the lens, the others brings them down lower on my nose and fixes that problem.

 

[azchapman10]

Or even a Clifden, some extra vertical coverage, though the Flak 2.0 XL I have, have a tad more horizontal coverage, only seeing the little nubs on the left and right. Though the Clifden will not wrap around the face like the ones Inkkonce said, so you get a bit back glare if you choose to remove the side blockers (those are easily removable and placed back on, much like the nose bridge, giving you an almost rounded holbrook look)

The other thing to consider is the nose pads, as you may have noticed they come with two different sizes, one of them when I tried them put them too high on my face and I could easily see under the lens, the others brings them down lower on my nose and fixes that problem.

Yeah, I did swap out the nose pads hoping it would help a bit, but it unfortunately didn't help. I'll probably just have to return them and get something with more coverage because my face just wasn't suited for the Flaks...Bummer hah! Thanks for the responses

 

[KarlBlessing]

Yeah, I did swap out the nose pads hoping it would help a bit, but it unfortunately didn't help. I'll probably just have to return them and get something with more coverage because my face just wasn't suited for the Flaks...Bummer hah! Thanks for the responses

I'd probably say the Sutro (Lite), Radar, or EVZero (Blade/Path) if you don't want to go as crazy as the Kato. Also consider if frame edges has an impact on how much it annoys you or not. For example Seeing the frame at the bottom of the Sutro may be more comfortable than seeing the edge of the lens in the Sutro Lite.

There's also the M2 Frame XL (and likewise M Frame) which may seem similar to the style of the Flak 2.0, but with more vertical coverage on the lens (or least without that concave edge).

 

[Lopaka KaMars]

IMO, that's the problem with half frames. I don't think the lenses were meant to sit on your cheeks. Perhaps change to a frame that covers the bottom.

 

[KarlBlessing]

IMO, that's the problem with half frames. I don't think the lenses were meant to sit on your cheeks. Perhaps change to a frame that covers the bottom.

They don't sit on my cheek either unless I scrunch my face up like a sourpuss lol, but I imagine some people have much more peripheral sensitivity than others, especially if they're not usually wearing glasses in general.

That was sort of the problem I had with the Wire Tap 2.0. While the lens did seem sufficiently sized, looking down at any point was a little disorienting because of the way they cut a groove into the lens for the nylon wire to hold the frames in, it was a distortion right at the edge. But seeing the edge of my Flak 2.0 XL isn't as bad because it's just a matte end to the lens, no distortion/ripple/etc it just ends. The Savitars felt smaller, but wasn't as bad because the frame edge acted in the same way, it just cuts off, there was no play/distortion of light seeing the edge.

OP is probably has much more vertical peripheral sensitivity than I do.

 

[azchapman10]

They don't sit on my cheek either unless I scrunch my face up like a sourpuss lol, but I imagine some people have much more peripheral sensitivity than others, especially if they're not usually wearing glasses in general.

That was sort of the problem I had with the Wire Tap 2.0. While the lens did seem sufficiently sized, looking down at any point was a little disorienting because of the way they cut a groove into the lens for the nylon wire to hold the frames in, it was a distortion right at the edge. But seeing the edge of my Flak 2.0 XL isn't as bad because it's just a matte end to the lens, no distortion/ripple/etc it just ends. The Savitars felt smaller, but wasn't as bad because the frame edge acted in the same way, it just cuts off, there was no play/distortion of light seeing the edge.

OP is probably has much more vertical peripheral sensitivity than I do.

One of the things that concerns me is light or glare coming up through the bottom of the glasses, for instance when fishing. I love the look of the Flaks, so I was just trying to see if it was something fairly normal or if they just didn't fit my face properly.

 

[azchapman10]

Also, I love my Holbrooks but am starting a new job working outside in AZ, and they don't do very well when it comes to staying place while sweating, hence why I thought the Flaks would be perfect.

 

[KarlBlessing]

One of the things that concerns me is light or glare coming up through the bottom of the glasses, for instance when fishing. I love the look of the Flaks, so I was just trying to see if it was something fairly normal or if they just didn't fit my face properly.

I imagine it's probably a face/tolerance thing. Flak 2.0 (XL particularly due to higher lens height) tends to be recommended for fishing such as by SportRX etc.

The Split Shot might be another one to look at with similar amount of light blockage from the sides, and maybe more coverage from the bottom (particularly with the frame going all the way around the lens).

Also, I love my Holbrooks but am starting a new job working outside in AZ, and they don't do very well when it comes to staying place while sweating, hence why I thought the Flaks would be perfect.

I really like my Holbrook XL especially with either Prizm Shallow Water Polarized or Prizm Tungsten Polarized. But I noticed there's a fair bit of difference between the Woodgrain XL frame I have now, and the Matte Black XL frame I used to have in terms of how it feels on my face, especially when I was getting very sweaty on the trail. The woodgrain is just textured o-matter with that woodgrain look, but it does a fair bit better staying on my face than the matte or glossy o-matter frames. You wouldn't think it'd be that big a deal.

That being said, the Flak 2.0 XL I have, it's not so much the nose pad that keeps them on my face when it gets warm, but rather the temples/ear-socks that are also unobtanium. But I find my Holbrook XL to be more comfortable and more breathing even if it doesn't block nearly as much light from the sides as the Flak 2.0 do.