or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › $90 Replacement Oakley Lenses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

$90 Replacement Oakley Lenses - Page 3

post #37 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Oakleys are the only sunglasses I can wear while golfing.  Flak Jackets with the G30 lenses.  I keep them in my golf bag, they're only used for golf.  I have a small scratch in one lens and you're right, the replacement lenses aren't cheap.  I'm holding out for a second scratch before I replace them! 

From a pure sunglasses/cost perspective, they're still a heck of a lot cheaper than the Maui Jims I wear for every day though.  Those puppies are just stupid expensive.......but, as with a lot of things, you get what you pay for.
I absolutely love my Flak Jackets. How beneficial are the G30 lenses? I have the black polarized lenses I just put on a few moths ago.
post #38 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckeyeNut View Post

 

$90......for polarized replacement lenses.  Sheeesh....I thought that was high, but it beats buying a new pair from scratch....

Number 1 - why not be more explicit in your thread title?

Number 2 -You are also paying for things like Bubba's "cool" hovercraft.

Number 3 - If it was really "BS" you wouldn't be buying them. Supply and demand.


Edited by Shorty - 7/6/13 at 5:50pm
post #39 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturday View Post

I absolutely love my Flak Jackets. How beneficial are the G30 lenses? I have the black polarized lenses I just put on a few moths ago.

The thing I like about the G30 lenses is that they strike a good balance. Dark enough for bright light, but good contrast and not so dark that you want to pull them off with a little cloud cover. I have some darker lenses, thinking that those would be the ones I'd use on really bright days, but as it turns out, I never change lenses. As mentioned above, they're not polarized, so if you prefer a polarized lens for golf (I don't) they won't work for you.
post #40 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

The thing I like about the G30 lenses is that they strike a good balance. Dark enough for bright light, but good contrast and not so dark that you want to pull them off with a little cloud cover. I have some darker lenses, thinking that those would be the ones I'd use on really bright days, but as it turns out, I never change lenses. As mentioned above, they're not polarized, so if you prefer a polarized lens for golf (I don't) they won't work for you.
Thanks man, I was curious because I find my polarized lenses are a bit too dark for golf. I might have to try out these lenses now! Thx
post #41 of 61
Thread Starter 

I see many interesting comments...

 

I prefer quality eyewear because it makes a difference to me.  The Oakley half-jacket frames fit like a glove, and there's absolutely no slippage even if it's a steamy hot day when the sweat is flowing. The frames rest on the bridge of my nose exactly how I want them to.... the quality of construction is obvious to me, and it matters.  For other people....I suppose a discount brand at K-Mart is good enough.   For me personally...I don't like those glasses. 

 

The lenses?....I prefer polarized lenses!!  The reduction in glare and the enhanced contrast is a big benefit. Most manufacturers sell lenses with excellent UV protection. I honestly don't worry about safety with cheaper lenses because most offer excellent UV protection. I found a couple nice replacement lens options on the web for $30-40 and I'm sure are good quality lenses.  My main concern is.......are they too dark?...and can I see as well wearing them?   For $35....I'd might give them a try.  If I don't like them....it's a throw-away decision. This time around, I decided to get the real thing.  I wore them yesterday and today on the course and they are not too dark.  I've owned Oakleys years ago that were to dark for golf, so darkness was a concern when I ordered these lenses.  The new black Iridium lens isn't an issue....I actually expected they'd be darker.  They aren't that dark, and they are great for golf.  If I was looking for a dark lens for a beach or ski-slope application, I'd probably opt for something darker.   

post #42 of 61

I'll tell you what's worse.

You nneed prescription sunglasses and buy the ones you want and then they chuck out the expensive lenses and put in the cheaper prescriptions that don't always fit properly.

And.....if you want to wear something like the Oakleys there aren't many that take the Rx lenses and you pay an absolute fortune.

I'd love to be able to just walk into a shop and get the exact glasses I want for golf.

post #43 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

I'll tell you what's worse.

You nneed prescription sunglasses and buy the ones you want and then they chuck out the expensive lenses and put in the cheaper prescriptions that don't always fit properly.

And.....if you want to wear something like the Oakleys there aren't many that take the Rx lenses and you pay an absolute fortune.

I'd love to be able to just walk into a shop and get the exact glasses I want for golf.

 

I solved that problem by wearing contacts the days I might need to wear sunglasses.

post #44 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

I solved that problem by wearing contacts the days I might need to wear sunglasses.
Same here.

I found it way too expensive to get rx lenses from Oakley and don't trust what's out there on eBay. Only downfall obviously with contacts and golf is when they get dry as hell..
post #45 of 61

I don't use Aimpoint, I've never heard of a course being offered in my area, maybe I'll try to make the trip to Ottawa or Toronto next time one is being offered.

 

However, one big take-away from reading about Aimpoint on here is I use my feet far more often than my eyes now and I have to agree that it gives me a distinct advantage over my friends who don't listen to their feet. I NEVER have to GUESS about the direction of break which I see people doing all the time, break is too subtle to figure out by eye? They flip a coin so to speak. I walk my line and feel it quite distinctly. My True shoes really help as well.

post #46 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post


I walk my line and feel it quite distinctly.

Please don't do that..... b1_ohmy.gif

Agree though, the feet are very important, even for us non-Aimpoint guys in determining subtle breaks.
post #47 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


Please don't do that..... b1_ohmy.gif

Agree though, the feet are very important, even for us non-Aimpoint guys in determining subtle breaks.

LOL, sorry, I went with brief instead of clear.

 

I don't walk right on my line, nor do I trample the lines of others. I just feel it out while going to pull the pin. I may stand behind the hole on occasion and feel the break but that's no different than looking at your putt from behind the hole. I highly doubt most people even realize what I'm doing, unless it is a very tricky putt they probably just think I'm very courteous for tending the flag for my group.

post #48 of 61

I'm going to make some people mad with this, but it's my opinion. 

 

From an optical point of view (no pun intended), I think Oakley's are really overrated. Don't get the wrong, the frames are really cool and comfortable, and they are made well. But I don't think the lenses (much less the polarized lenses) are nearly as good as other glasses in the same price range. I've had three pairs of Oakleys over the past 10 or so years, as well as two pairs of Ray Bans, a pair of Maui Jims, and two pairs of Costa del Mars. I think Costa and MJ have the best polarization. And since Costas are generally cheaper than MJ's, they're now my glasses of choice. 

 

To the OP's point about scratches, Costa makes a glass lens that's much more scratch resistant than any polycarbonate (plastic). Some say they are heavier than plastic lenses, and I'm sure they are, but I can't tell the difference when wearing them. Visual quality is top notch though. 

post #49 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post

I'm going to make some people mad with this, but it's my opinion. 

 

From an optical point of view (no pun intended), I think Oakley's are really overrated. Don't get the wrong, the frames are really cool and comfortable, and they are made well. But I don't think the lenses (much less the polarized lenses) are nearly as good as other glasses in the same price range. I've had three pairs of Oakleys over the past 10 or so years, as well as two pairs of Ray Bans, a pair of Maui Jims, and two pairs of Costa del Mars. I think Costa and MJ have the best polarization. And since Costas are generally cheaper than MJ's, they're now my glasses of choice. 

 

To the OP's point about scratches, Costa makes a glass lens that's much more scratch resistant than any polycarbonate (plastic). Some say they are heavier than plastic lenses, and I'm sure they are, but I can't tell the difference when wearing them. Visual quality is top notch though. 


Exactly.  Oakley is a very well-marketed brandname and people buy into the Oakley brand because its Oakley, without really knowing or understanding WHY they are buying into the brand.

post #50 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer View Post


Exactly.  Oakley is a very well-marketed brandname and people buy into the Oakley brand because its Oakley, without really knowing or understanding WHY they are buying into the brand.
All the cool kids have them though......
post #51 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer View Post


Exactly.  Oakley is a very well-marketed brandname and people buy into the Oakley brand because its Oakley, without really knowing or understanding WHY they are buying into the brand.

I own a pair of Maui Jims for driving but I'd never wear them for cycling or running.  The Oakley brand gained its reputation because of their use by athletes. I've been wearing Oakley Flak Jackets for 5 years, I still use the first pair I bought with original lenses because they are so well built, fit great, are lightweight and treated with anti-fog, I've had no reason to replace them. 

 

I have since bought another pair of Flak Jackets with G30 lenses for golf and Radars with black iridium lenses (for cycling) because of the experience I had with the first pair, marketing had nothing to do with it.  For non sports related activities I agree there are other / better options, but for golf, running and cycling Oakley is my choice.  

post #52 of 61
Yep! Just like Mizuno for you
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer View Post


Exactly.  Oakley is a very well-marketed brandname and people buy into the Oakley brand because its Oakley, without really knowing or understanding WHY they are buying into the brand.
post #53 of 61

Now now, people.

 

Are Oakleys overpriced? Yep.

Are people willing to pay the price, for some reason - fashion, "keeping up with the Joneses", etc.? Yep.

 

I own two pair of Oakleys. I didn't pay for them. :) One lens has a scratch RIGHT in the center of the lens. It's small enough I don't notice it too much. So I wear them as is.

 

I could replace the lenses for $90 and I'd have two pair of Oakleys with five lenses for $90 or so. I haven't yet, so… that may tell you where I end up on the "value" proposition. :) If I played more golf than I do now, or taught outside, that may change. As it is now I wear them once every few weeks.

post #54 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Yep! Just like Mizuno for you

 

Hardly a good comparison. I would say people that buy all Nike would be more applicable. Mizuno isn't really a "cool kid" brand.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › $90 Replacement Oakley Lenses