MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Thanks to Gareth off the forum for the DX lenses to test
DX lens UV400 tests.
I read the arguments about the cheap DX specs and offered to test the specs to see what UV protection if any they offered.
As these are oakley based specs I followed ANSI Z80.3-2001 which states the following:
The U.S. standard is ANSI Z80.3-2001, which includes three transmittance categories. According to the ANSI Z80.3-2001 standard, the lens should have a UVB (280 to 315 nm) transmittance of no more than one per cent and a UVA (315 to 380 nm) transmittance of no more than 0.3 times the visual light transmittance. The ANSI Z87.1-2003 standard includes requirements for basic impact and high impact protection. In the basic impact test, a 1 in (2.54 cm) steel ball is dropped on the lens from a height of 50 in (127 cm). In the high velocity test, a 1/4 in (6.35 mm) steel ball is shot at the lens at 150 ft/s (45.72 m/s). To pass both tests, no part of the lens may touch the eye.
I didn't do the steel ball shot part of the test as I don't have the equipment, I tried to get hold of a set of oakley's to do a direct comparison test but was unable to get any - It's not that sunny here in ireland.
Glasses tested were:
Decathlon Ti polarised fishing glasses.
Bolle prescription safety specs.
High end fashion prescription specs.
2x DX lenses (1x mirrored finish, 1x dark finish).
The results were interesting.
Decathlon Ti polarised fishing glasses - Met Part A (just), failed Part B.
Bolle prescription safety specs. Met Part A and B.
High end fashion prescription specs. Met Part A and B.
DX lenses 1x mirrored finish. Met Part A and B, had best protection of all specs tested (step change extended out to 430nm @ ~38% absorbance).
DX lenses 1x dark finish Met Part A and B.
All specs displayed very similar profiles, with a sharp drop in absorbance at ~405nm, there was a step for the mirrored specs as mentioned above. The polarised specs was an expected fail due to the nature of the lens, when I bought them they were not advertised as uv400.
thats awesome i was really surprised with how good the visibility in varying conditions the mirrored dx ones were, glad to know they are safe to use too!
might just order another set
Schweet - means my eyes arent slowly dying a slow burning death.
great work
I'm pleased with this as ive got 4 pairs of the things now.
Question: How do you know the sample you tested is a fair representation of the quality of lenses overall? I shouldn't imagine the quality control is that strict at the fake oakley factory.
Thats good.
Only the porn can make me blind now.
😆
Question: How do you know the sample you tested is a fair representation of the quality of lenses overall? I shouldn't imagine the quality control is that strict at the fake oakley factory.
How do you know the straws you are clutching at are a fair representation...
😉
I've been very pleased with my DX 'jawbones' and have up until now, only used the yellow lenses in case the 'sunglasses' version didn't do the job on the UV.
So thanks to the OP for doing the test. I see the point of the post re quaility control across the product range, but I think there is an element of not wanting the £12 specs to work when you've just paid £180 for a real pair.
I just picked the set I got up from my local optical factory. I had tw sets of perscription lenses made for them. I pair a set of Transitions (recacto-pervert) lenses and another yellow lens foe 87 quid!!!
Very happy with them right now.
If I break them I won't be sobbing at 400 quid wrecked.
slight highjack here...
Is the model most of the peloton seem to be wearing at the moment Oakley Radar?
If so, any pointers towards some good radar-a-likes on DX at the moment?
Question: How do you know the sample you tested is a fair representation of the quality of lenses overall? I shouldn't imagine the quality control is that strict at the fake oakley factory.
Becuse it's polycarbonate, and you'd have to spend money to make it any worse than it is off the shelf (as the test showed, all the lenses were about equal appart from the polarised ones (some othermaterial) and the mirrored ones (better, presumably because the mirrored bit is a mirror into the UV spectrum as well as visible).
awesome - thanks very much for carrying out the test 🙂
as above I've mainly been using the yellow lens - primarily due to weather conditions now being suitable but also due to a wee bit of doubt about the UV protection.
that concern is now resolved and next time the sun glimmers through I'll be rocking a different set of lenses is my comedy coloured glasses
Interesting stuff, although I think the extension of the stop band below 405nm is more of a defect as 405nm is still visible.
bump
clubber bought some of the dx radars - he may be able to help you out with a link and a review
Question: How do you know the sample you tested is a fair representation of the quality of lenses overall? I shouldn't imagine the quality control is that strict at the fake oakley factory.
I'd imagine all that batch are the same as the polymer would be stirred constantly to keep it liquid before injection to the mould.
Interesting stuff, although I think the extension of the stop band below 405nm is more of a defect as 405nm is still visible.
I don't quite get what you are on about - excluding the polarised specs - all the UV spectrums were pretty much identical, 99.9% protection until a sharp drop to ~nothing at 405nm, except the mirrored which gave an additional 38% protection over all the other glasses until 430nm when they too dropped down to roughly nothing.
On a quick search I couldn't find any data on eye damage at wavelengths above 400nm.
Completely forgot about this! Cheers for doing the test, someone must have a spare/cracked/old oakley lens they can get tested to compare?
Re the fake radars - I bought about 15 pairs of fakeleys from DX back in the spring. The very cheap radars are pretty convincing from a distance, but don't feel like a great quality product. The lenses were a bit dark for riding in the woods too. The ones with interchangeable lenses are far superior. They even came with the clip-in prescription lens if required.
The fake FastJackets are my favorite.
Good to hear, have four pairs and with a bit of dismantling have numerous colour combinations. I have black vented, vr28 type vented (this is a new lens they do) and the yellow vented lens.
I tried the Radar copy and thought they were pretty rubbish. The Jawbone copy is much closer to the originals. Bit of a shame, though that said still prefer M frames to the Radar.
Regards
ok guys sorry for questioning the quality of your fake oakleys, enjoy.
What happens if one doesn't wear glasses at all.?
i bought the white/black jawbones.
At the time there were 3 different item listings for these on DX and I just went with the most expensive, as there were a few stories on here re some being bobbins. Think I paid $17.50 or $19.50.
Very pleased indeed with them. Really good quality (both glasses and accessories) when compared against another model of real specs from the big O. Perfect for biking.
What happens if one doesn't wear glasses at all.?
Then one appears very posh!
Non-UV sunglasses would allow your pupils to dilate lettting more light in, but also more UV. No glasses at all means the UV is in proportion to the visible light and therefore faily safe.
pretty poor about the decathlon ones,
were they advertised as uv safe?
No glasses at all means the UV is in proportion to the visible light and therefore faily safe.
Phew, can't stand wearing sunglasses.
I don't quite get what you are on about - excluding the polarised specs - all the UV spectrums were pretty much identical, 99.9% protection until a sharp drop to ~nothing at 405nm, except the mirrored which gave an additional 38% protection over all the other glasses until 430nm when they too dropped down to roughly nothing.
Don't think you can see anything shorter than ~400nm. However, not being able to see from 430nm to 400nm means there will be more colour distortion in the blue/violet end of the spectrum.
Then again, I have a proper pair of Jawbones....
Don't think you can see anything shorter than ~400nm. However, not being able to see from 430nm to 400nm means there will be more colour distortion in the blue/violet end of the spectrum.Then again, I have a proper pair of Jawbones....
but as your looking through tinted lenses the colour will be distorted anyways, as a real world consideration the effect would be negligble.
pretty poor about the decathlon ones,were they advertised as uv safe?
They were not advertised as UV400 safe, as they are plane polarised to reduce reflection flare the results obtained were expected - I'm still happy to wear them as they met Part A and were not too far off Part B spec.
I tried the Radar copy and thought they were
pretty rubbish. The Jawbone copy is much closer
to the originals
while the radar copy isn't as good a copy as the jawbones copies, I find they perform just as well as my genuine radars/jawbones 😯
because they're so cheap, they were my first choice for sailing on holiday. they were spot on and never moved/fell off despite the lack of a rubber nosepiece and my numerous capsizes 🙂
Petrieboy, any links to the ones with the prescription insert please?
sorry that was a jawbone-a-like link
Thanks, those come with a prescription insert? Doesn't mention it in the spec.
Anyone know?