# Oakley Prizm



## Milo303

Has anyone had a chance to use the Prizm lens on snow, in low light situations?

Looking for that next level above a rose lens ( =

Used the search feature with no luck


----------



## DevilWithin

Check out this chart...looks like Jade Iridium Prizm is what you're after:


----------



## Milo303

Just looking for real reviews! Hopefully someone has used them


----------



## KayZ

in for reviews, ive come across a thread promising much with these new lenses and a few people said "ill be testing them out this week!" but of course, nobody bothered to reply lol


----------



## Milo303

Right on.

I'm about to order some anyways I suppose. 

Rose seems to work the best then add this crazy tech and hrmmmm


----------



## Milo303

I did chat with Oakley

Their Airbrake frame with Prizm lens... When you purchase it from them, you get 2 lenses. I am eyeing the green frames which comes loaded with the black lens and comes with the rose lens secondary. Which are the two lenses I want anyways....

So there's what little update I've received as of now. Still havn't acquired any real world reviews.


----------



## Snowfever

Nope. Neither have I. I bought the flight deck with rose lens, for the simple reason I need vision the most when its overcast. Cant wait to try them in Januari.


----------



## Milo303

I went with the Airbrakes

The Airbrakes come with 2 lenses... So I will have the dark prizm and the rose prizm.

Pretty pumped! Although everyone is going to want to put their peter beaters on my goggles to see if they should get them also


----------



## NWskunkAPE

I ordered the Matte Black with Prizm Black Iridium. I tried them on at the demo in Portland. Best vision I have ever seen. Cant wait to try in all conditions.


----------



## Whirlwind3

I ordered the Flight Deck Jade Iridium lens. Have not gotten them yet sadly, back ordered until somewhere around Dec. 18th my email shows. :eyetwitch2:


----------



## Ritsuke

Whirlwind3 said:


> I ordered the Flight Deck Jade Iridium lens. Have not gotten them yet sadly, back ordered until somewhere around Dec. 18th my email shows. :eyetwitch2:


Ordered the same. Seems the best solution for the changing whether in France.


----------



## linvillegorge

I'm tempted to give these things a shot. Never been a big fan of Oakley's goggles, but the new Flight Decks seem to have a different fit to them. Just buy them from somewhere with a good return policy and if they're not the game changers they claim to be return them. The next couple of days would be good timing to give them a shot.


----------



## linvillegorge

Went down and grabbed a pair of Flight Decks at the Oakley store. All they had was the black iridium and rose in the prizm lenses. I went with the rose just to give them a shot. I have a 90 day return/exchange period. I'll probably end up swapping these out for the jade prizm lenses if I end up liking them.

I just want to see if they're the real deal. If not, whatever. Return.


----------



## cav0011

I'm testing the jade and rose tomorrow. Hope they are awesome


----------



## linvillegorge

I really, really wanted to believe. These are 100% hype job. I've ridden with plenty of better low light lenses.

Smith Sensor Mirror is still king of the low light for me. If you want Oakleys, the hi intensity yellow is the better low light option from them.


----------



## Snowfever

linvillegorge said:


> I really, really wanted to believe. These are 100% hype job. I've ridden with plenty of better low light lenses.
> 
> Smith Sensor Mirror is still king of the low light for me. If you want Oakleys, the hi intensity yellow is the better low light option from them.



Strange, I've read other stories of people who tested who claim they are really good.


----------



## cav0011

I was happy with mine today. Not sure if they are game changers though


----------



## cav0011

Also the jade was much better than the rose for me


----------



## Snowfever

In what condition?


----------



## cav0011

Overcast light snow with sun randomly poking through. I was at Brighton.


----------



## JT704

Black iridium prizms in full blue bird conditions are perhaps the best contrast and full sun lenses, I've eevry used. Very happy with them.


----------



## Milo303

Nice to see some reviews.

My personal main concern is low light. I've never had an issue finding a lens that can't calm the sun down enough so I can see. But I can't seem to find a lens that makes low light not so low anymore


----------



## readimag

yeah oakley prizm didn’t do it for me also like the smith blue sensor does to each his own.


----------



## ShredLife

Milo303 said:


> Nice to see some reviews.
> 
> My personal main concern is low light. I've never had an issue finding a lens that can't calm the sun down enough so I can see. But I can't seem to find a lens that makes low light not so low anymore


hi-yellow is perennially the best for me and many PNW'ers in low & flat light...


----------



## JonSnow

I'm actually kind of selfishly happy that some people don't find the prizms live up to the hype. I was so close to buying a pair cause I thought they looked dope, and I was getting sucked into Oakley's marketing. I ended up going with an inexpensive pair of Spy Raiders instead for 60 bucks. 

I knew I was gonna be really pissed at myself if I ended up finding out the prizms were amazing, then I would have ended up buying them and spending even more money. I'm glad I don't have to buy them now lol.


----------



## linvillegorge

Snowfever said:


> Strange, I've read other stories of people who tested who claim they are really good.


They're not bad, they're just not the game changers they are claimed to be. If all you've ever ridden with are 15% VLT blue bird lenses, then yeah, these will be game changers for you. If you've already been riding with a good low light lens then they're not going to be. Pretty much just that simple.


----------



## oc3ansky

Could you see a pretty noticeable difference towards seeing any icy spots?


----------



## linvillegorge

There were no icy spots. Overall definition was just okay. They're just decent as a low light lens. Not bad, just nothing special.


----------



## Milo303

ShredLife said:


> hi-yellow is perennially the best for me and many PNW'ers in low & flat light...


That's cool, I find Rose works best for me.


----------



## Milo303

linvillegorge said:


> There were no icy spots. Overall definition was just okay. They're just decent as a low light lens. Not bad, just nothing special.


Well that sucks, I'm looking for some amazing stuff. Mine are on the way still... I'll just have to see how they go since I already placed the order... Dunno what's taking so long


----------



## oc3ansky

Thanks for the heads up


----------



## oc3ansky

What did you think of the contrast (especially to finding icy areas) and side to side peripheral vision?


----------



## linvillegorge

Contrast was okay. About average for a low light lens. Peripheral vision was good, like most other oversized frame less goggles.

They're good goggles and a good lens, just nothing special.


----------



## fastaction

Just got mine just waiting for the pass to get more snow and open. This would be a great time to see how they are on flat light.


----------



## ZacAttakk

I just got the flight deck with BI prizm today and taking them to the hill tomorrow. They are huge finger print magnets. I already wiped them down a thousand times.


----------



## oc3ansky

Good to know. Are they pretty big? I've seen only pics of men wearing them and have a feeling it would give a lady with a small/medium size face a pretty bad goggle face if ya know what I mean. I'm feeling pretty boarder line about purchasing these now and just buying a pair of Smiths


----------



## fastaction

yeah they are a bit big but I have a big face. Try it before u buy it.


----------



## ZacAttakk

Yea they are huge but I also have a big face and cannot fit any other oakley goggle. I love the look of them tho


----------



## linvillegorge

Returned mine today. That was about as fun as a root canal. They were mighty lenient about their great return policy when trying to sell them, but got mighty pissy today when I elected to take advantage of it. They tried at first to deny the return due to a microscopic maybe 1/8" hair scratch on the lens. I informed him that I was told at the time of purchase that I could try them out and return them if I didn't like them. Hell, my name was on the list to contact when they got the jade prizms in so that I could bring these back and swap them out for those as those were the ones I actually wanted. After trying to deny the return, I told them they sold me the display model (they did) and that's why mine were sold to me at $30 less than retail. That's when they finally relented and very begrudgingly returned them with ample attitude. Far less than an ideal experience.

In short, Oakley can go fuck themselves. I'm done with them. :finger1:


----------



## stickz

I used the smith blue and Red sensor the last 2 yrs but on really low light days in the pnw I waant overly happy with them. So this yr in trying cheap goggles. Got some grayne Google with photocromic lens. I'm not holding out much hope that I won't be using the low light yellow lenses I got just in case.


----------



## DevilWithin

linvillegorge said:


> Contrast was okay. About average for a low light lens. Peripheral vision was good, like most other oversized frame less goggles.
> 
> They're good goggles and a good lens, just nothing special.


I have to agree with Linvillegorge's assessment. I bought a pair of Flight Decks with the Black Iridium Prizm Lens and got a replacement in the Rose Prizm. They are nice goggles, but definitely not game changers. The contrast was fine, but I couldn't tell much of a difference compared to my Giro goggles that were a lot less expensive. I'd buy them because you like the way they look, rather than the lens technology -- it really isn't worth all the hype and premium price in my opinion. 



ZacAttakk said:


> I just got the flight deck with BI prizm today and taking them to the hill tomorrow. They are huge finger print magnets. I already wiped them down a thousand times.


Completely agree...finger print magnets is an understatement. They also scratch easily. I had a huge vertical scratch on my lens after 2 days of riding and didn't do anything out of the ordinary to abuse them. Not the most durable lenses in the world and kind of sucks given how expensive the replacement lenses costs ($95 for the Black Iridium and Jade Iridium, while $65 for the Rose).


----------



## ShredLife

DevilWithin said:


> They also scratch easily. I had a huge vertical scratch on my lens after 2 days of riding and didn't do anything out of the ordinary to abuse them. Not the most durable lenses in the world and kind of sucks given how expensive the replacement lenses costs ($95 for the Black Iridium and Jade Iridium, while $65 for the Rose).


if that's truly the case then they fucking suck.


----------



## ZacAttakk

The lens is also very frustrating to get back in the frame. Idk if the clips just need to be broken in a little or I am just a retard but it honestly took me 30 mins to get them back together. Still happy with them tho. I love being able to spot the icy spots on the slopes. then again I went from cheap smith goggles to Oakley crowbars to the flight decks so I don't have much for comparison.


----------



## linvillegorge

For the price point I'd have to say they suck. At or near thus price point you can get goggles that come with two lens options with a fast change system. That's the better bet for a true so it all solution. I'm probably gonna end up with the new Smith IO7s. That Smith blue sensor mirror lens is just the shit IMO.


----------



## ShredLife

I/O is king imo.


----------



## linvillegorge

I used Phenoms for years and love Smith lenses. Time to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just go back to what I know works.


----------



## DevilWithin

ZacAttakk said:


> The lens is also very frustrating to get back in the frame. Idk if the clips just need to be broken in a little or I am just a retard but it honestly took me 30 mins to get them back together. Still happy with them tho. I love being able to spot the icy spots on the slopes. then again I went from cheap smith goggles to Oakley crowbars to the flight decks so I don't have much for comparison.


It took me 30+ minutes the first time changing them out too. I can now do it in about 5 minutes. It's the part by the bridge to the nose area that is a pain in the ass. I found a few videos online, but they were all pretty useless. I found you have to press it on the sides of the bridge pretty hard to get the ziplock bag like channels to go in properly. I also found that I was trying to line it up to what I thought was the right channel, but it was actually further back than needed. Not sure if that makes sense or not. I'm guessing it will get easier over time.


----------



## ShredLife

DevilWithin said:


> It took me 30+ minutes the first time changing them out too. I can now do it in about 5 minutes. It's the part by the bridge to the nose area that is a pain in the ass. I found a few videos online, but they were all pretty useless. I found you have to press it on the sides of the bridge pretty hard to get the ziplock bag like channels to go in properly. I also found that I was trying to line it up to what I thought was the right channel, but it was actually further back than needed. Not sure if that makes sense or not. I'm guessing it will get easier over time.


IO ftw; 30 seconds tops, easily done with gloves on if needed.


----------



## DevilWithin

ShredLife said:


> IO ftw; 30 seconds tops, easily done with gloves on if needed.


Good to know...I'll definitely check them out. Not going to spend any more $ on goggles anytime soon though.


----------



## linvillegorge

Anon M2 is probably the king of interchangeability right now, but the IOs are plenty easy enough. I'm not going to carry extra lenses on the hill anyway. I don't really do bluebird lenses as they can suck in the trees and in the afternoon in the shadows anyway. I'll generally have a really good low light lens for storm days and then a good all around lens for everything else.


----------



## ZacAttakk

DevilWithin said:


> It took me 30+ minutes the first time changing them out too. I can now do it in about 5 minutes. It's the part by the bridge to the nose area that is a pain in the ass. I found a few videos online, but they were all pretty useless. I found you have to press it on the sides of the bridge pretty hard to get the ziplock bag like channels to go in properly. I also found that I was trying to line it up to what I thought was the right channel, but it was actually further back than needed. Not sure if that makes sense or not. I'm guessing it will get easier over time.


Awesome thanks for the info.


----------



## Elektropow

Frameless goggles scratch quite easily. If it's a direct hit, anything does. You're either lucky or not. 

I tried the Flight decks at a shop and liked the prizm in black iridium. Haven't tried on snow, but the visibility was good in dark conditions as well. To be honest, I didn't have that much of a problem with a fire iridium on APX's on a snowy day.

Anyway, got the Flight decks with prizm black iridium lenses for half prize on black friday. Waiting for them to arrive. Will see what I'll get for a replacement lens, but not the prizm rose probably. 

Got claustrophobic with Airbrakes and other frame goggles. APX and Flight deck are quite similar in comfort and better than other frame types for me, in terms of visibility as well.


----------



## ShredLife

Elektropow said:


> Frameless goggles scratch quite easily. If it's a direct hit, anything does. You're either lucky or not.


nope. bullshit statement. 

the coating on the outside of the lens is the only thing that makes a difference in how easy a goggle scratches.


----------



## Snowfever

Obviously, frameless scratches more easily due to the fact that the surface is bigger and there is no frame to potentially protect the lens, disregarding coating.


----------



## Elektropow

ShredLife said:


> nope. bullshit statement.
> 
> the coating on the outside of the lens is the only thing that makes a difference in how easy a goggle scratches.


Bullshit assessment of parameters. What the above said. 

I've yet to see a proper scratch proof coating on any goggles.

Also, those afraid of little scratches are just sissies. 

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html


----------



## ShredLife

talk about a "bullshit assessment of parameters" - what a camera lens does has nothing to do with what your eye sees... not to mention those pictures are all artifacted to shit.

if you think all anti-scratch coatings on all goggles are created equal, then you're a fucking moron.


----------



## ZacAttakk

Scratches are going to happen with any spherical goggle that is used regularly. You just have to except that when you buy them and try to do you best not to drop them. I hate people that are pathological about getting there gear messed up.


----------



## Elektropow

ShredLife said:


> talk about a "bullshit assessment of parameters" - what a camera lens does has nothing to do with what your eye sees... not to mention those pictures are all artifacted to shit.
> 
> if you think all anti-scratch coatings on all goggles are created equal, then you're a fucking moron.


No, I do not think all goggles are equal in that department, nor are they pervious to scratches completely, even the best ones. 

All right Sherlock, you got me. I was a bit inductive in my logic when I used that link as a generalization. But you failed to see my point. The lens of a goggle is too close to your eye for you to be able to focus on such faults, hence it would have to be VERY fucked up (as illustrated in the link) for it to have any effect. 
Hell, my brother has some parts of the coating chipped off his goggles and he ain't complaining. Alas, he didn't put a 100usd not to mention 200 on his... I understand you want a well enduring goggle for that price. 

I've actually tried a knife (not very sharp) on this:

https://www.tech21.com/sony-xperia-z-screen-protector-impact-shield-self-heal.html

And it did not scratch. Basically dented and soon returned to normal. Would be cool to see similar stuff used in goggles, but don't know if it would work with all the optical qualities unhindered..


----------



## ShredLife

Elektropow said:


> No, I do not think all goggles are equal in that department, nor are they pervious to scratches completely, even the best ones.
> 
> All right Sherlock, you got me. I was a bit inductive in my logic when I used that link as a generalization. But you failed to see my point. The lens of a goggle is too close to your eye for you to be able to focus on such faults, hence it would have to be VERY fucked up (as illustrated in the link) for it to have any effect.
> Hell, my brother has some parts of the coating chipped off his goggles and he ain't complaining. Alas, he didn't put a 100usd not to mention 200 on his... I understand you want a well enduring goggle for that price.
> 
> I've actually tried a knife (not very sharp) on this:
> 
> https://www.tech21.com/sony-xperia-z-screen-protector-impact-shield-self-heal.html
> 
> And it did not scratch. Basically dented and soon returned to normal. Would be cool to see similar stuff used in goggles, but don't know if it would work with all the optical qualities unhindered..


again, snowboard goggles and your eye has nothing to do with a camera lens.

with snowboard goggles you usually don't notice much or are not bothered by scratches on the outer lens, but it doesn't take alot of scratching, scuffing, or even watermarks on the inner lens to fuck up your vision.


----------



## fastaction

ShredLife said:


> again, snowboard goggles and your eye has nothing to do with a camera lens.
> 
> with snowboard goggles you usually don't notice much or are not bothered by scratches on the outer lens, but it doesn't take alot of scratching, scuffing, or even watermarks on the inner lens to fuck up your vision.


I agree with this!!!


----------



## Elektropow

ShredLife said:


> again, snowboard goggles and your eye has nothing to do with a camera lens.
> 
> with snowboard goggles you usually don't notice much or are not bothered by scratches on the outer lens, but it doesn't take alot of scratching, scuffing, or even watermarks on the inner lens to fuck up your vision.


Hey, there are certain elements to a camera lens that's comparable to how the eye works! But yes, not very good example.

Good thing it's a lot harder to scratch the inner lens, though I doubt that for the same reason a scratch would fuck up vision.. How is it different with the scratch being on the inside or outside?


----------



## ShredLife

its actually much easier to damage the inner lens in my experience.


----------



## jdang307

linvillegorge said:


> Anon M2 is probably the king of interchangeability right now, but the IOs are plenty easy enough. I'm not going to carry extra lenses on the hill anyway. I don't really do bluebird lenses as they can suck in the trees and in the afternoon in the shadows anyway. I'll generally have a really good low light lens for storm days and then a good all around lens for everything else.


Which Smith lenses you do recommend? I don't have a problem with bluebird stuff either, but man when the light gets flat I feel like Stevie Wonder out there and end up pulling the goggles off sometimes. Good all around and very low light lenses is what I'm after.

Only ones with asian fit come with Green Solx and Red Sensor

http://www.amazon.com/Smith-Asian-Fit-Snow-Goggle/dp/B00MARRXM4


----------



## linvillegorge

Blue Sensor Mirror


----------



## J.Schaef

I am with linville on this one. 

Tried the rose prizm lens on rainier the other day. Mostly overcast. Just looked like a rose lens to me. Totally NOT game changers, Not even anything special.

I too prefer blue sensor mirror, or red sensor mirror. I will be sticking with smith.


----------



## stickz

Evo has the phenoms on sale with the red or blue red sensor lens can't remeber, for like $75 bucks. I got some Oakley splices w/ HI persimmon orange lens for like $80 bucks after I had to send the graynes back. I hope those do the trick for my stupid eyes this yr. if not I'll buy another pair of smith prob the phenoms.


----------



## NWskunkAPE

Oakley Jade Prizm Lens was a game changer for me. I dont know I guess I have a good eye for detail I guess. IT was like night and day compared to my other goggles


----------



## Snowfever

So far some positive and sone negative reactions. Here a topic with positive reactions http://www.epicski.com/t/106729/goggles-and-what-are-my-options/120#post_1797374
My prediction, good lenses, maybe not game changers but very good. Will have to wait and see for myself.


----------



## ShredLife

NWskunkAPE said:


> Oakley Jade Prizm Lens was a game changer for me. I dont know I guess I have a good eye for detail I guess. IT was like night and day compared to my other goggles


yea but you're a proven fucktard who clearly knows dick.

where have you been riding?


----------



## J.Schaef

I should have written YMMV, but I noticed no more contrast, or depth perception or anything in flat light. 

I actually switched from the flight deck with rose prizm, to my red sensor mirror about half way down. 

Yeah, there is some magic happening when you look at the ipad picture they show you, but it doesn't translate to the real world very well. I already returned the flight decks. 

Marketing. SMH


----------



## linvillegorge

J.Schaef said:


> I should have written YMMV, but I noticed no more contrast, or depth perception or anything in flat light.
> 
> I actually switched from the flight deck with rose prizm, to my red sensor mirror about half way down.
> 
> Yeah, there is some magic happening when you look at the ipad picture they show you, but it doesn't translate to the real world very well. I already returned the flight decks.
> 
> Marketing. SMH


Yep, same thing here.

If you've never used a true low light lens or you've just been using shitty goggles, then yeah, they're probably a game changer. But if you've already been using a quality goggle suited for your conditions, it's just another goggle.

It's not bad. If you like Oakley, like the look of the goggle and all that, go for it. But, if you're coming from other quality goggles that are well suited for your riding conditions, prepare to be disappointed.


----------



## ShredLife

J.Schaef said:


> Misleading Marketing.


wolf tickets.


----------



## linvillegorge

dem wolf tickets


----------



## theprocess

Lol at the Nick Diaz reference (literally) because I can totally hear him saying something like that. I have admit I had to wiki "wolf ticket" lo and behold for the uninitiated like me: 

"In 2013, at the press conference for UFC 158, headliner Nick Diaz accused promoter Dana White and opponent Georges St-Pierre of selling wolf tickets to fans:

You (St. Pierre) told the fans that I deserve to get beat down, that I chased you around. I got the fight, right? I'm working towards something, everybody knows that. Sorry I had to [say you were scared] to get the fight. They're selling you (fans and media) all wolf tickets people, you're eating them right up. Georges here is selling wolf tickets. Dana here is selling wolf tickets. The UFC is selling wolf tickets. You guys are eating them right up."

I never really liked the Diaz bros but after Nate rambling about CM Punk signing to the UFC I now appreciate where these boys are coming from. Sorry going on a tangent, back on topic.

The Black Iridium Prizm suit my needs for an all condition lens. Jade Iridium too dark, non-Iridium too purple, Black Iridium just right. I'd grab one if I didn't already have my original Pink Iridium.


----------



## Bones

linvillegorge said:


> Blue Sensor Mirror


+1 

Admittedly, I haven't tried tons of different lenses from different manufacturers, but I haven't found anything that equals Smith's Blue Sensor Mirror for late afternoon flat light to night riding. There's a few that came close, so I wouldn't say it's a runaway victory, but I haven't found anything that beats it.


----------



## ShredLife




----------



## Milo303

Wow there's some people in here talking in a way that would get them punched in the face in public. True 19 year old keyboard warriors talking with no consequence. 

Back when I was on here a lot, people like that got pushed out.

This place, pheww...

Anyways, I havn't gotten to use mine yet as sled season is seeing a slow start this year.

Carry on, don't be a dick.


----------



## Sassicaia

I had a chances to spend a 4 days in various conditions with the black and rose prism lenses.

IMO there are a noticable step up from iridium lenses, but not huge. Fire Iridium pretty much leaves wanting for nothing on a sunny day and until the black prizm came out were the best you could get IMO. There really wasnt much room for improvement. IMO you get between 5-10% improvement with prizm as far as pure optics. You also get a wider range of light each lense can work in. For example i would normally ditch my fire iridium as soon as some clouds rolled in, but the black iridium can stay on.

As far as rose goes it had a pretty tall hill to climb in order to beat out HI yellow which is by far the best low light lens you can get. Id put it on par, or maybe slightly better then HI yellow for optics. Could be more of a preference though. It does offer the benefit of being able to handle brighter times then yellow though requiring less lense changes.

Not sure what people were expecting with these given how good Oakley lenses already were, but for the minor difference in price id say they are worth it.


----------



## NWskunkAPE

ShredLife said:


> yea but you're a proven fucktard who clearly knows dick.
> 
> where have you been riding?


Tough guy here! You make me laugh little boy. Always trolling since this site was conceived. Wish I could see you in person to smack sense in you.


----------



## ShredLife

NWskunkAPE said:


> *Tough guy here*! You make me laugh little boy. Always trolling since this site was conceived. *Wish I could see you in person to smack sense in you*.


irony is ironic. you are not smart.


----------



## ridinbend

J.Schaef said:


> I am with linville on this one.
> 
> Tried the rose prizm lens on rainier the other day. Mostly overcast. Just looked like a rose lens to me. Totally NOT game changers, Not even anything special.
> 
> I too prefer blue sensor mirror, or red sensor mirror. I will be sticking with smith.


As somebody that deals with significant flat light/stormy white out on a more than regular basis. Blue sensor mirror/smith iox was an improvement from hi yellow oakley lens.


----------



## stickz

When taking my son boarding for his first time he accidentally steppedin my goggles and scratched the shit out of the lens. So I ordered the rose prizm. They come tomorrow but I can't ride till Friday as my wife is having our second boy today.


----------



## ek9max

stickz said:


> When taking my son boarding for his first time he accidentally steppedin my goggles and scratched the shit out of the lens. So I ordered the rose prizm. They come tomorrow but I can't ride till Friday as my wife is having our second boy today.


Pretty terrible excuse if you ask me.....






















Kidding! Congrats!!!


----------



## Deep

DevilWithin said:


> I have to agree with Linvillegorge's assessment. I bought a pair of Flight Decks with the Black Iridium Prizm Lens and got a replacement in the Rose Prizm. They are nice goggles, but definitely not game changers. The contrast was fine, but I couldn't tell much of a difference compared to my Giro goggles that were a lot less expensive. I'd buy them because you like the way they look, rather than the lens technology -- it really isn't worth all the hype and premium price in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely agree...finger print magnets is an understatement. They also scratch easily. I had a huge vertical scratch on my lens after 2 days of riding and didn't do anything out of the ordinary to abuse them. Not the most durable lenses in the world and kind of sucks given how expensive the replacement lenses costs ($95 for the Black Iridium and Jade Iridium, while $65 for the Rose).


wow .. I talked to the oakley rep yesterday and dude told me the lens was scratch resistant


----------



## ZacAttakk

Deep said:


> wow .. I talked to the oakley rep yesterday and dude told me the lens was scratch resistant


Thats a bunch of bull. Any spherical goggle scratch easily. Thats why I am crazy protective of mine. If they aren't on my head they are in the micro fiber bag.


----------



## aggie05

Deep said:


> wow .. I talked to the oakley rep yesterday and dude told me the lens was scratch resistant


Did you really expect him or any other company rep to say any different? :facepalm1: "Yes sir, our googles are easily scratch-able. Only use them in padded rooms while wearing a microfiber suit."

Kind of like all the cellphone scratch resistant gimmicks...all BS. They will resist scratches from pillows, air, and baby rabbit hair.


----------



## Deep

aggie05 said:


> Did you really expect him or any other company rep to say any different? :facepalm1: "Yes sir, our googles are easily scratch-able. Only use them in padded rooms while wearing a microfiber suit."
> 
> Kind of like all the cellphone scratch resistant gimmicks...all BS. They will resist scratches from pillows, air, and baby rabbit hair.


I didn't ask him whether they are ..
For the premium amount they charge for these I wouldn't be that surprised if they were scratch resistant .. I have had motorcycle helmets which had scratch resistant visor


----------



## Argo

ridinbend said:


> As somebody that deals with significant flat light/stormy white out on a more than regular basis. Blue sensor mirror/smith iox was an improvement from hi yellow oakley lens.


It seems that I ride with low light lenses more than anything else. I just got some blue sensor iox to replace my eg2 with rose and yellow lenses. Both my low lights have blue mirror and damn it really helps. I have regular yellow too and the ones with blue mirror are way better. My prior favorite was pink iridium.


----------



## linvillegorge

Argo said:


> It seems that I ride with low light lenses more than anything else.


Me too. For everything except blue bird days, I'll use the Smith blue sensor mirror. Storm days, flat light days, mostly cloudy days... blue sensor mirror. I have an ignitor mirror lens for blue bird and mostly sunny days.


----------



## NWskunkAPE

ShredLife said:


> irony is ironic. you are not smart.


MMMMMMMMM...............K

Wow great response.


----------



## lovthebean

Used my Rose Prixm lens for the first time this weekend. Conditions where sunny but with the hill facing north you only really saw the sun on the lift up and were in the shadows until the bottom of the hill. Usually used the Jade Iridium sense and have owned both POC and Smith goggles before. I thought it was maybe a little sunny and changed out the lens the for the Jade mood afternoon. What a mistake that was, there was a substantial difference in contrast between the two. All the detail I could see with the Prizm was mostly gone with the Jade lens. I really think that anyone who says they are no big deal hasn't used them for more then 5 mins in the store. Also, not usually an Oakley fan, prefer Smith generally. Bought a Poc Fornix a couple years ago though and Smith goggles fit well with the helmet. Tried every goggle in the store on with the helmet and Oakley Canopys where perfect. So I'm not an Oakley fanboy waving the flag. I will be ordering a Black Iridium Prizm lens.


----------



## JT704

Yeah bean. Same here. Poc backcountry with both canopy and flight decks. Great fit. I like my dark prizm iridium a lot. I've only worn the jade prizm a few times as well with good results. Haven't tried my rose priz yet.


----------



## Tuan209

Tried mine for the last few days. I am coming from the Anon M2 and Giro Onset goggles. 

I dont think they are huge game changers, but I do think they provide more contrast than the goggles mention above. 

If you are looking for some goggles with a wide view and like Oakley, I think you would be happy with them.


----------



## flipstah

Bump!

Looking to set a second pair of lenses to complement my Prizm Black Iridium.

In the afternoon, I get low light/overcast conditions which makes the environment hard to read with the blacks. If I wanted something for these types of conditions, should I go for a Prizm Jade Iridium or Fire Iridium?


----------



## theprocess

flipstah said:


> Bump!
> 
> Looking to set a second pair of lenses to complement my Prizm Black Iridium.
> 
> In the afternoon, I get low light/overcast conditions which makes the environment hard to read with the blacks. If I wanted something for these types of conditions, should I go for a Prizm Jade Iridium or Fire Iridium?


Definitely not the Fire Iridium as they are for bright sun/bluebird. Prize Jade of the two choices but you should really consider the Hi Yellow lenses for those conditions.


----------



## J.Schaef

flipstah said:


> Bump!
> 
> Looking to set a second pair of lenses to complement my Prizm Black Iridium.
> 
> In the afternoon, I get low light/overcast conditions which makes the environment hard to read with the blacks. If I wanted something for these types of conditions, should I go for a Prizm Jade Iridium or Fire Iridium?


Smith sensor mirror.


----------



## Elektropow

Got the black iridium prizm, not very versatile at all. All marketing talk that they would work in overcast and overall wider conditions... Depends on the resort though and in Les Arcs (not much direct sun light) I ended up using a cheap yellow lens goggle 90% of the time. On sunny areas and days they are excellent though.


----------



## theprocess

Elektropow said:


> Got the black iridium prizm, not very versatile at all. All marketing talk that they would work in overcast and overall wider conditions... Depends on the resort though and in Les Arcs (not much direct sun light) I ended up using a cheap yellow lens goggle 90% of the time. On sunny areas and days they are excellent though.


Black iridium prizm is for "bright sun"

Prizm | Official Oakley Site


----------



## flipstah

theprocess said:


> Definitely not the Fire Iridium as they are for bright sun/bluebird. Prize Jade of the two choices but you should really consider the Hi Yellow lenses for those conditions.


Thanks! I'll most likely go for the HI Yellows then.


----------



## Elektropow

theprocess said:


> Black iridium prizm is for "bright sun"
> 
> Prizm | Official Oakley Site


That extends to "sun and clouds". I find the fire iridium for instance works better in "sun and clouds". BI Prizm suffered much more with clouds than the marketing lets you believe. Point is that they've twisted relativity. But whatever.


----------



## StAntonRider

Sorry to hijack, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on the Nike Transition Command Goggle

So I've tried iOx, iox7, nfx, APX, blah blah (not the flight decks though), and I can honestly say these are the best goggles I have ever used. Forget lense switching, the transition tech works. I was in a blizzard up at st anton and I felt like I was the only one who could see. The lens is yellow at low light, and it really brings the features back into view, and snow looks different from the white air. 

If you have the money pick one up, also I broke a lens and they replaced it no questions asked


----------



## theprocess

Elektropow said:


> That extends to "sun and clouds". I find the fire iridium for instance works better in "sun and clouds". BI Prizm suffered much more with clouds than the marketing lets you believe. Point is that they've twisted relativity. But whatever.


Personally I've always preferred a rose tint so I will give the BI Prizms a try. Forget the marketing hype...if you like rose tint then try the Prizm lens.


----------



## Ritsuke

Sorry to bump the thread but after reading this I'll reckon I'll go for the Smith I/O. However, I always board in France and I'm doubting which lenses I should take. Defitintely one for bright days and one for clouded days but how extreme? Is there any one out there who can help me? I find this more difficult than the goggles itself.

Link with all the choices I have: http://www.snowcountry.nl/smith-i-o-seven.html


----------



## ek9max

I went to the store to get goggles today. 

Tried everything I could to compare. I found that the visual clarity of the prizm torch and prizm rose to be better than everything else. Much better than the smith actually. 

I didn't get to see if they will show the snow better. 

But in the store looking around. They were definitely better in my eyes. 

I'll try them on and compare them to my wife's smiths when the snow flies.


----------



## J.Schaef

ek9max said:


> I didn't get to see if they will show the snow better.


They don't.


----------



## linvillegorge

Pure. Marketing. Hype.


----------



## Neversummer85

I like my canopies but I'll be the first to say Oakley is total hype across the board, not just snow goggles. They make good products but they're hardly a game changer. I like my smiths and electrics just as much if not more. If Oakley spent more of the money they make off advertising and yuppie hype on R&D they'd probably be killing everybody.


----------



## Snow Hound

People believe what they want to believe. I like my Dragon Rogue's more than the Anons and Oakleys I used before. I've still got a few pairs and think the Dragons are clearest. Fuck paying stupid money for goggles though - they get wrecked quick time so sensibly priced replacement lenses are key.


----------



## ridinbend

Neversummer85 said:


> I like my canopies but I'll be the first to say Oakley is total hype across the board, not just snow goggles. They make good products but they're hardly a game changer. I like my smiths and electrics just as much if not more. If Oakley spent more of the money they make off advertising and yuppie hype on R&D they'd probably be killing everybody.


I have a buddy that's an engineer at Oakley in the military department. He does a lot with the helmet shields and visors. I can't say I understand the technologies but I will say that some of the stuff he works on is fucking insane technology. For example he was talking about a goggle/lens prototype that has non metallic heat conducting fibers in the lens to prevent all fogging. I don't wear Oakleys personally but from what I've seen, those guys do some pretty killer stuff over there. IMO, I think Oakley is comparable to most high end goggles on the market, and like others said it comes down to personal preference. Do I think it's all marketing bullshit hype? No, but their goggles aren't game changers above all others.


----------



## SkullAndXbones

yeah, i guess it's gotta be personal preference because there are so many differences of opinion. people like to rag on oakley because they aren't the end all be all of great goggles. they do make great goggles and lenses but so do several other companies. i've tried on goggles from oakley, electric, smith, dragon, dye and maybe some others that i can't remember and i hated dye's goggles. i thought the lens was crap and the interior foam was horrible. i thought dragon also had inferior lenses but not as bad a dye. smith, oakley and electric were all great in my opinion. since they all had nice interior foam and great lens clarity i ended up buying electric's eg2 last year for the simple reason that i had biggest range of vision with them out of all of the other oversized lens goggles that smith and oakley made. if one of them made something with even more field of view i wouldn't have hesitated to buy them instead.


----------



## linvillegorge

ridinbend said:


> Do I think it's all marketing bullshit hype?.


When I said that, I was only referring to the Prizm lenses. I've tried them. They're 100% marketing hype. They're not even the best low light/shitty condition lens that Oakley has - that would be the High Intensity Yellow. I still prefer Smith's Blue Sensor Mirror, but that H.I. Yellow lens is legit.


----------



## Neversummer85

I should clarify, I don't mean to bag on Oakley as nothing but marketing hype but a lot of it is. I've worked in ski shops for years and had the opportunity to test out hundreds of products including pretty much every widely recognized brand of eyewear and I don't know what the big deal with Oakley is at all. They don't make shit by any means but they're not the king of optics that so many people laud them to be.


----------



## highme

My Rose Prizms are the best lenses I've ever used for PNW fog light. The previous champ were HI Yellows. 


Though if I didn't get the Prizms for $50ish from Amazon I wouldn't have bought them, and I don't think I would have bought any other color but HI Yellow*.





* - not sure why I didn't complete that sentence.


----------



## SkullAndXbones

Neversummer85 said:


> I should clarify, I don't mean to bag on Oakley as nothing but marketing hype but a lot of it is. I've worked in ski shops for years and had the opportunity to test out hundreds of products including pretty much every widely recognized brand of eyewear and I don't know what the big deal with Oakley is at all. They don't make shit by any means but they're not the king of optics that so many people laud them to be.


well it's a combination of things. oakley has always been known for quality and they were the first goggle company to really market themselves to the snowboarding demographic whether it be through sponsoring a ton of riders or through brand lifestyle. i remember back in the early 2000s 99% of the snowboarders on the mountain were wearing oakley goggles and about 1% of skiers wore them. skiers mainly stuck with the brands that made a name for themselves in the ski industry like Scott, Smith, Uvex etc. it's obviously changed a lot over the years. freestyle snowboarding had a huge impact on skiing and more and more skiers (especially the younger ones) started to embrace that kind of lifestyle. a lot of outerwear that was marketed towards snowboarders was now being worn by skiers. back in the day pretty much all skiers wore Columbia outerwear. stuff your dad would wear, basically lol. and that started to bridge the gap between the snowboarding lifestyle and the skiing lifestyle. then the more skiing oriented companies were trying to appeal to more snowboarders. and now we have all the companies trying to appeal to everyone minus a few brands here and there. anyway, back to the goggles; a lot of us older riders still recognize oakley as a snowboarding brand even though they've been involved in a ton of other sports over the years. so given all that, they've built a pretty big fanbase for themselves over the years.


----------



## ryannorthcott

I dig my Oakley Airbrakes, a lot. Customized them at the Oakley store so the colorway should be super rare, got two lenses both of which have excellent optics (not Prizm lenses) and couldn't be happier with them.
No reason to shit on Oakley I think their optics are top notch and the goggles are very well built. I messed around with a bunch of brands before and soon realized you get what you pay for with goggles, so I don't think I'll deviate from Oakley. I'm sure Smith's and others are very high quality as well, but I just like my Oakley's and know what I'm going to get from them.


----------



## Neversummer85

Not detracting from Oakley quality at all just think they're overhyped by a lot of fanboys. I personally don't like the way any of them feel except the canopy and flight deck but then again I have a big noggin so to each their own.


----------



## stickz

After my son broke my iox's I bought some oakley's with the prizm rose lense. I like the blue sensor lens better by a little in low light situations. But overall I like my crowbars better for overall venting, comfort, and style. I really only bought them because I got them dirt cheap on evo. Just happened to really like them. My next pair of goggles will be iox's because the most important part of goggles are how well you can see in low light especially in the PNW.


----------



## ridinbend

linvillegorge said:


> When I said that, I was only referring to the Prizm lenses. I've tried them. They're 100% marketing hype. They're not even the best low light/shitty condition lens that Oakley has - that would be the High Intensity Yellow. I still prefer Smith's Blue Sensor Mirror, but that H.I. Yellow lens is legit.


I prefer the iox lenses myself. Am curious though to try the prizm lenses.


----------



## Neversummer85

I have the canopy with black iridium prizms and they do seem to contrast well but I don't think the marketing images of ridiculously poppy snow are quite truthful. I haven't noticed a real stark contrast in well... Contrast over say smith's green sol x


----------



## highme

stickz said:


> ...because the most important part of goggles are how well they fit, because if the goggles don't seal to your face and snow can get in, your lens color choice doesn't matter


FYP based on my experience. I love Smith products and have owned multiple helmets, goggles and sunglasses of theirs for years. Unfortunately the IOXs I had didn't seal on the bridge of my nose and snow got inside. 

The only reason I have Airbrakes is because they were the cheapest, best fitting, spherical goggles I could find on short notice after my Smith Holt (favorite helmet of all time) and APX goggles were stolen out of my van the week before I went to Japan.


----------



## Neversummer85

Oh man I do love the Holt, such a comfy and sweet wearing helmet for cheap. Hate that it's brimless though. I'd never wear another helmet again if it had a brim. It only mates well to my IOX's. I've found the K2 thrive to be a close second but it trumps the Holt for me because the brim helps it mate to a wider array of goggles.


----------



## ek9max

I was in the market for a new pair of goggles for this season and I landed on the Oakley flight deck. 

I compared them to some Anon, smith, dragon. Just in my back yard, But it wa clear to me that the prizm was the winner. 

I'm not an oakley fanboy, and I actually wanted to like the Anon better as I had the M2 last season and the quick change lens is so awesome. 

Anyways. Here's a pic I took in the backyard. I'll try to test them out on the hill for you next week when I get out in the snow 








[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## ridinbend

ek9max said:


> I was in the market for a new pair of goggles for this season and I landed on the Oakley flight deck.
> 
> I compared them to some Anon, smith, dragon. Just in my back yard, But it wa clear to me that the prizm was the winner.
> 
> I'm not an oakley fanboy, and I actually wanted to like the Anon better as I had the M2 last season and the quick change lens is so awesome.
> 
> Anyways. Here's a pic I took in the backyard. I'll try to test them out on the hill for you next week when I get out in the snow


Looking at your pics on a bigger screen, the Smith shot looks like the sharpest to me. What is it that's leading you the the prizm? I'm going to assume they're already bought?


----------



## ek9max

It just seemed sharper and the contrast seemed to Pop out more. 

The picture didn't really do the prizm justice. 

The shades and contrast seemed to be recognized in my brain quicker if that makes any sense. Also like my presidential vision would see the contrast in the clouds much quicker and better. 

Also this test has the smith low light lense vs the Oakley "all around" lense. 

I had a chance to try the Oakley rose prizm and it was even better. But it was a day after I took these photos. And I didn't bother taking photos with that lense. 

Biggest things I noticed in these pics are the contrast in the clouds and how much easier it was t see the leaves on the grass too.


----------



## J.Schaef

Glad that they work for you, but I am going to second that the smiths look the best to me as well. Contrast and clarity wise, they are the clear winner.


----------



## ek9max

I'll make sure to care the smith red sensor with me on flat days. I'll do some comparisons and post.


----------



## Extazy

yeah on your pics smith looks better


----------



## SkullAndXbones

the pictures are little deceiving. the smith looks like it's better but if you look at the fence you can see the gaps better on the prizm so i think it has a little better contrast


----------



## linvillegorge

Honestly, the images just aren't of high enough quality to draw much of a comparison.

I've owned both though, the Oakley's in rose prizm. Let's just say that my current goggles are Smith I/O 7s with a variety of lenses and I don't currently own any Oakleys.


----------



## ek9max

I'll try them out on the snow and see what I like better. 

The pictures really don't do them justice. On my eyes the prizm are a clear winner. Not game changing. But depth and contrast are a noticeable improment with the prizm.


----------



## ek9max

Another funny fact. I did the comparison and cut the pictures together and didn't label them. 

I showed them to two buddy's. One a Burton fanboy and the other swears by his smiths. 

I told them each that the right was their favorite brand. And both agreed that it was the best. 

Then I showed them that it was actually the prizm. Lol.


----------



## J.Schaef

linvillegorge said:


> Honestly, the images just aren't of high enough quality to draw much of a comparison.
> 
> I've owned both though, the Oakley's in rose prizm. Let's just say that my current goggles are Smith I/O 7s with a variety of lenses and I don't currently own any Oakleys.


QFT.

morewords


----------



## ek9max

I went in the store to buy smith io/7. Left with prizm. 

Again, it was just in the store that made my decision. 

But then like my decision when i compared to a set of smiths I had at home.


----------



## Snowboard_Otaku

Anyone bought the Prizm Sapphire vs the Prizm Jade ? in store the claim they are the same but on the oakley site under lens it says Sapphire is for bright conditions and the Jade is for changing condition


----------



## ek9max

I tried them in comparison to the Torch prizm. 

Hard pressed to tell a difference. Color or light transmission.


----------



## jjaaskel

Snowboard_Otaku said:


> Anyone bought the Prizm Sapphire vs the Prizm Jade ? in store the claim they are the same but on the oakley site under lens it says Sapphire is for bright conditions and the Jade is for changing condition


I am looking for same feedback. I am planning to buy Flighdeck XM with Prizm Black Iridium and H.i. Yellow (I have used this with airbrake and it is great for weather in our country), but wondering maybe to buy still third lens (either of these):
- Prizm Sapphire Iridium
- Prizm Jade Iridium

Any comments? 0


----------



## GirlBoarder

Snowboard_Otaku said:


> Anyone bought the Prizm Sapphire vs the Prizm Jade ? in store the claim they are the same but on the oakley site under lens it says Sapphire is for bright conditions and the Jade is for changing condition


I just bought some oakley crowbars with the prizm sapphire lens! I have not tried them out yet but I probably will by the end of the week. Upgrading from some super cheap goggles so this is going to be a huge improvement!

I wasn't sure if I should get the prizm sapphire or prizm jade since it shows they both work for the same conditions so I just went with the prizm sapphire because I like blue haha! I might get the prizm rose later so I can have lenses for all conditions.

On the oakley website on their prizm information page if you scroll down a bit it shows the condition range for each lens:
Oakley Prizm Snow Goggles & Lenses | Oakley Official Store


----------



## jjaaskel

Here is quite good reviews and comments about different lenses Oakley Flight Deck Prizm Goggle | Backcountry.com

It was a bit suprise that there were couple of comments that prizm rose would be even better than high yellow in bad conditions. Any experienses about this?


----------



## jjaaskel

JT704 said:


> Yeah bean. Same here. Poc backcountry with both canopy and flight decks. Great fit. I like my dark prizm iridium a lot. I've only worn the jade prizm a few times as well with good results. Haven't tried my rose priz yet.


Have you already tried? :smile: How is difference in different conditions?


----------



## TooNice

I bought the Rose Prizm earlier this season and I like them quite a lot. They aren't magical and will fail if the condition is bad enough, likely like every other lens.

But I find them pretty intense contrast wise when compared to other lenses I have (namely the Hi-Persimmon it replaced, and the Blue Sensor Mirror on my Smith IO7). So despite being darker than the Blue Sensor Mirror, I definitely do not find it worse in condition with limited visibility. And if the sun unexpetedly shows up, it's definitely better than the two aforementioned low light lenses. 

I am definitely considering another Prizm to complement it (probably one of the middle ones as I already have a blue bird lens on both my Oakley and Smith).


----------



## sureshock

TooNice said:


> I bought the Rose Prizm earlier this season and I like them quite a lot. They aren't magical and will fail if the condition is bad enough, likely like every other lens.
> 
> But I find them pretty intense contrast wise when compared to other lenses I have (namely the Hi-Persimmon it replaced, and the Blue Sensor Mirror on my Smith IO7). So despite being darker than the Blue Sensor Mirror, I definitely do not find it worse in condition with limited visibility. And if the sun unexpetedly shows up, it's definitely better than the two aforementioned low light lenses.
> 
> I am definitely considering another Prizm to complement it (probably one of the middle ones as I already have a blue bird lens on both my Oakley and Smith).


Yup, going to co-sign this. 

I have tried the Dragon APXs and the Smith IOs but my Flight Deck with Prizm is definitely much better for me in terms of fit and clarity of the optics. The contrast in low light/very poor vis was especially noticeable when I was on the Rose Prizm.


----------



## dave785

I never realized how nice my Oakley prizms were until I leant them to a friend and had to use my old smith vice goggles. I know that it isn't a fair comparison since the vice is towards the bottom of the smith line, but I love my prizms.

so much that I bought Oakley's prizm trail jawbreakers for mountain biking :nerd:


----------



## runerasmussen

*prizms vs optimized*

Very different opinions on the prizms here  I've had them myself and was expecting to see more contours in flat light. Now I have just ordered dragon nfx2 goggles with optimized lenses. Curious to see how those lenses perform compared to the oakley prizms. Anyone had a chance to test them?

Thanks


----------



## KKTRA

*RE: Prizms*

When prizm announced I really did believe it to be hype, at that point I was skiing whistler, Jan - May 2016 so in a lot of varying conditions and owned the original black iridium & hi yellow. 

I tried on a friends jade iridium and whilst it wasn't blow your brains out amazing, I really did notice a positive difference, especially in my ability to notice (and therefore adapt) to undulations- wholly due to the contrast.

Bought a Prizm Rose lens the next day and I have to say I vastly prefer them to Hi-yellow (maybe its just me but I actually find the yellows to be overrated).
I genuinely love the broad spectrum of use, from sun through to low light, I think they perform great and always display significant contrast.


----------



## Chielsen

I bought a Oakley flightdeck with the jade iridium lens and I highly reccomend them. They definitely improve your ability to see what's coming up and the Jade Iridium lens is sort of a Jack of All trades, not as good as black in direct sunlight, not as good as the rose in really bad conditions but definitely useable in both.

If you go for the Jade Iridium you can get away with just having one lens. If you would get one of the others I'd advise to get it's counterpart as well.


----------



## jstar

I had been using the hi-yellow for low light conditions for a couple seasons (based on peoples recommendations and experience on this site), but never really found them all that good, specifically lacking definition.

Last season I picked up the rose prizm and was amazed how good they were for not only low light, but everything. And as such, use them as my go to lens (unless bright sun, in that case I use the dark grey).


----------



## ek9max

I'm interested in how the new hi pink prizm is compared to rose prizm. 

Should be a lot brighter. I would the rose a touch dark for my liking in really flat light.


----------



## JT704

ek9max said:


> I'm interested in how the new hi pink prizm is compared to rose prizm.
> 
> Should be a lot brighter. I would the rose a touch dark for my liking in really flat light.


Same here. I liked my Rose Prizm very much, but were a little dark on flat to me as well. Just got some HI pink Prizm Line Miners. looking forward to trying them!


----------



## Snowboard_Otaku

jjaaskel said:


> I am looking for same feedback. I am planning to buy Flighdeck XM with Prizm Black Iridium and H.i. Yellow (I have used this with airbrake and it is great for weather in our country), but wondering maybe to buy still third lens (either of these):
> - Prizm Sapphire Iridium
> - Prizm Jade Iridium
> 
> Any comments? 0


After a Season with the Sapphire I have no regrets it performs very well, I would assume the Jade will perform just as well with a different colour. There was no problem for me in slightly cloudy situation, But i have no tried them in low low light situations


----------



## Jcb890

I had a pair of Flight Decks with Jade Iridium Prizm lenses last season. I returned them because they came with scratched lenses, but I did get to try them for a couple of days before sending them back.

I thought on bluebird/overcast the Jade Iridium was pretty good. Honestly, I was hoping for more clarity and profound changes and noticeable differences in terrain... however, I don't think this exists in any goggle the way we want it to work in our minds. At night (low light) with some artificial lighting - the local mountain does night skiing/riding - the Jade Iridium lenses were basically useless because they were too dark. 

Without coming with a bonus/replacement lens from the manufacturer, you're going to need to buy a separate clear/yellow lens for low light or night riding.


----------



## WasabiCanuck

Interesting thread. I find the brand war kinda funny. I just bought Smith I/O 7 goggles. I'm sure I would have been happy with Oakley too. I had Oakley goggles for a long time so I wanted to try Smith. I have heard good things about Smith and they have been making goggles forever.

I'm more concerned with anti-fog than visual clarity. I think you will get good clarity with any higher end goggle, hopefully good anti-fog too. Which brand you choose comes down to personal preference. I will never buy Dragon goggles because I hate their logo. Stupid reason not to buy something but I don't know, I cringe a little every time I see that Dragon symbol, maybe I associate it with parkrat assholes. Weird. I also won't buy Electric goggles because I hate the name, stupid name for a goggle company, same for Dinosaurs will Die. Really!?! That is the best name you could come up with!?!

I'm also hesitant to buy a Never Summer board because their logo looks a lot like the Dragon logo. I like Never Summer boards so I might try to find one with a small symbol on it. I'm a weirdo, I know.


----------



## Adyfire

ek9max said:


> I'm interested in how the new hi pink prizm is compared to rose prizm.
> 
> Should be a lot brighter. I would the rose a touch dark for my liking in really flat light.


Just ordered a pair of Airbrake XL with some lenses, one being the new HI Pink Prizm. Never tried the regular Prizm Rose tho, only experience I have with Prizm is Jade on their dirt bike Airbrakes. That lens is absolutely awesome.

Very curious to test out the new snow ones as soon as they arrive.


----------



## basser

Adyfire said:


> Just ordered a pair of Airbrake XL with some lenses, one being the new HI Pink Prizm. Never tried the regular Prizm Rose tho, only experience I have with Prizm is Jade on their dirt bike Airbrakes. That lens is absolutely awesome.
> 
> Very curious to test out the new snow ones as soon as they arrive.


so how are they?


----------



## bayslarry

basser said:


> so how are they?


I always use to buy anything at Oakley and they are as always of good quality no doubts as I always use to be at Oakley Store. Sometimes you might come to a defective product at Oakley then you return it fulfilling Oakley Return Policy within 45 days. I never had tried returning them back as I never faced any issues with it.


----------



## Where1sMyTaco

The Hi Pink is amazing. I almost always run it as I mostly snowboard at night or in trees but the contrast and colour pop is great! I also have Jades that I run on bluebird days. My goggles are the LineMiner.


----------



## Myoko

No problem with the Rose version in all conditions. I love Oakley gear, they stuff just stays strong and keeps going.


----------



## snow & pow adventures

In case you wonder, HiPink lenses are better than Rose in trees/heavy snow, as they are not that dark. You don't have to change them unless bluebird sky (I use Sapphire for bluebird). Also for night riding HiPink are better than Clear, and Clear/Rose lenses are very similar, sometimes Roses are too dark if there is no much light on the slope.
A little tip: If you looking for 2 lenses, best to buy is model with HiPink, and then buy the second lenses from Oakley site/some site whereon sale. HiPink lenses are harder to get than Sapphire/Iridium/Jade.


----------

