Printable View
Skiing in low vis sucks, but it can suck even more with shitty goggles. I've always bought the cheapo econo goggles, and they work, but they usually fog, and always get scratched. So are the higher end goggles really worth it? do polorized goggles or any other fancy optic crap really make a huge differnce in visibility and depth perception on a flat light day?
thanks
Oakley High Intensity Lenses or Smith Sensor Mirror Lens. The smiths are a much nicer lens with a better warranty in my opinion.
I ride with Quiksilver Q1s most of the time, rose something lens - never used the mirrors that came with. These were absurdly cheap, had a nice wooden finish (go great with my purple helmet, for realz), and fucking rock. No fog, comfy, med-large fit, and pretty nice lenses. Other than that, I have no problem recommending Smith Phenoms if your face is on the smaller side of medium.
I tried that Smith sensor lens and didn't really notice any difference. On low-vis storm days I just use a combination of my regular dark Smiths and The Force. Aren't polarized lenses more for cutting sun glare? That's what it's used for in fishin' glasses.
oakley pink iridium is great in low light
Polarized lenses help intensify contrasting shapes. I like polarized lenses, but they are usually too expensive to become an option, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
Zeal Detonators. Worth the $$$$, fo sho. I was a cheap goggle guy for many years but only saw (no pun intended) the error of my ways a few years ago.
Quality lenses make a huge difference. I still ski like shit but now I can see where I am going all the time.
Smith I/O...2 lenses inc. Sensor lens is the best low/flat light lens I ever use.
my smith phenoms also never fog - the only goggle i've ever owned that doesnt fog
Just watch tramdock or whiskeymilitia for some awesome deals on Oakleys. I just picked up some Wisdoms for my wife for $38!!!!! They're like $150 retail. They do make a huge difference. I have a pair for low light, and a pair for bright days.
another vote for smith sensor mirror lenses. excellent vision in flat light and snowy conditions.
i would go with the smith over oakley but just my opinion because of the durability of the lenses and the depth perception
Oakley HI blue/yellow or Ruby Clear.
Smith is inferior overall, lenses and foam.
Thread over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pointedem
2nd. The only big thing Smith has on Oakley is their attitude. I would rather talk to someone at Smith than Oakley any day about warranty issues etc. And price, but then, you get what you pay for.
Oakley HI Yellow kills it in storms.
zeal PPX kill it!
very much worth the $$ if you can afford it.
The only thing you "get" when you pay more for Oakley product is a bunch of bullshit marketing. Smith > Oakley.Quote:
Originally Posted by pointedem
that makes no senseQuote:
Originally Posted by arild
Wrong. Google Oakley ballistics test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
There is a reason US troops use Oakley eyewear.
translation if you don't have Oakley balls bouncing on your chin = ANSI impact resistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by pointedem
Again, back to pointedem swallowing marketing sperm like a good SLC resident, again.Quote:
Originally Posted by smithoptics.com
To answer the OP, yes, it is worth it to spend a little more $$ on goggles. My Smiths are frustration free and help me see better than cheapo goggles. Oakleys are nice too. The pissing match between the two is pretty subjective.
Polarized lenses tend to increase contrast. What doesn't make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
I have owned both smith and oakley's top end goggles. Both lenses are great. I prefer Smith's b/c of the foam. Oakley's tend to not hold its place after awhile and its more of a cloth material rather than a foam. I have smith's new i/o on order. Bring your helmet to a store and try the different models on and see what feels best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crispy4505
probably the best info of the whole thread
am I the only person jaded enough to think that PROBABLY the US gov bought oakley for the troops becausse someone got a kickback ?
At least as important as the lens tint, IMO, is whether the lens is spherical or cylindrical. Most cheap goggles have cylindrical lenses, which distort your vision slightly. In good light it doesn't matter much, but in flat light that little bit of distortion becomes a much bigger problem. Spherical lenses don't distort and are worth the $$.
After a couple dozen days with them, I have to say that I love my Scott Alibis.
http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sel...i-velvet-1.jpg
I have historically had major fog problems with a variety of other googles (Smith cheepos, Electric, Oakley A-Frames), but the Alibis don't really fog at all. I don't know anything about optics, but the lens quality seems quite nice. They also seem to fit well with my Giro MX10 helmet.
Also, I've seen these goggles come up on Tramdock for $40 a few times recently. Great price for great goggles.
Used to ski with high end Oakley high intensity (2-3 seasons). Great in low vis, pow/fog days. But any sun and my eyes were hurtin. had to have two pairs and change out, pain in the XXX
Last season switched to Bolle photochromatic. Durable lenses, great in low light and if sun comes out does not matter. Had great luck for two seasons. PM me and I can give you a code/link to get a pair for like around $50.
Goin for my 100th post:cool: