Which lens are these?

[dr.chop]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, yes. The sheets never state what the base is. You have faith in what O-review has, I'm going with a repeatable empirical approach. And yes, the bases are what they are regardless of what I - or you - think, we just differ on what they are. I'm sure we can both live with that.

I am stating what O Review has, not saying it's also my definitive source lol. A very very good friend was a long time (well in today's standards anyway) employee there. He was a national tech rep, as well as holding many other positions there over the years. I also know a few others out in the actual world of lens manufacturing, optometry and so on...It's a joint effort of information...but we can certainly agree to disagree. I can say, I have in front of me at this moment, a pair of Revant Elite HC3 Fire Red Fuel Cell Lenses, and that is basically their rendition of Ruby. They are on, as they call it "HC3 Slate Grey" base lenses. In other words, grey. They too have the variations to the edges just like Oakleys, they too are a taper optics corrected lens, just like Oakley's, and they shift from grey to blue as you shift the position of the lens from left to right. I also have their Midnight Sun (equivalent to Oakley Positive Red) standard series lenses for the Monster Dog...They are on a "Slate Grey" base, although non Elite, so no taper correction and such. They also shift the base tint to the more blue hues, just like in the Oakleys. It's in the actual science of light transmission through the mirror and so on that creates the issue of base shift. Here is some more info to help understand what goes on...Dielectric coatings and metal coatings, depending on what actual substances are used, can create all sorts of varying appearances, effects and so on...I found this gif of how the color of light transmitted through a dielectric mirror shifts as you tilt it...it's the science, not the base lol.

View attachment 179677

 

[Carrera1963]

What I don't get with ruby, if it's a grey base, is why no green is transmitted, just blue. It doesn't reflect green cos it never looks brown at any angle of incidence. I'm sure we can agree ruby reflects red end (and some indigo for older lenses) of the spectrum, so I don't know what's happening to the green - looking through ruby looks very blue. Unlike ruby clear, which has turquoise flashes, which is a blue-green.

 

[jdd32]

Here's my theory based on my observations from my collection:
Ruby is reflecting red and yellow on neutral base. Thus the red, yellow and greens are muted and you end up with blue.
Violet is reflecting red and blue on neutral, thus you get the green hue.
Jade reflects green and blue on g26, thus you get red + g26 and makes a skewed red hue.
Fire reflects red and yellow on amber, thus blue goes through amber which end up green hue.

 

[SiRacer420]

Being color blind makes this all so much easier for me!

 

[OakleyOneKenobi]

Hello All,

So I am a cricket player and Oakley are my go to pair whenever I am out playing. Recently, I was watching cricket and this player that is sponsored by Oakley (Virat Kohli) was wearing a pair that I would love to add to my collection. I tried asking guys at the Oakley Vault and the Oakley store, but kept getting different answers.

Here are a few pictures, and if you couple please tell me what lens they are (shape and color) and what frames they are, I would greatly appreciate it!! I am referring to the yellow frame and the greenish yellowish lens.

Pictures:
View attachment 177178
View attachment 177179
View attachment 177180
View attachment 177181

Oakley Flak Jacket Sunglasses Replacement Lenses in HIGH INTENSITY YELLOW IRIDIUM | Oakley Most likely these.

 

[OakleyOneKenobi]

Oakley Flak Jacket Sunglasses Replacement Lenses in HIGH INTENSITY YELLOW IRIDIUM | Oakley Most likely these.

Meaning, they were probably this colour and made specially for him.

 

[kronin323]

...or the correct answer was given in post #2 of this four page thread...

 

[Carrera1963]

@dr.chop, @kronin323 just proved empirically in another thread that you were right all along. I can only apologise for vehemently taking the contrary position, the reality is just so counter-intuitive.