Frame: Black Chrome
Lens: VR28 polarized and Tungsten

***warning! Long, yet through review.***

Oakley obviously does the Maui Jim thing with these. So much so that they beg comparison. The similarities are pretty blatant, both are incredibly flexible, very lightweight, and thin frame design with decked out technology on the lenses. However despite these similarities their are substantial differences.

Here's where the two brands differ:

Frame:
In comparison to the Maui's stainless steel or flexon nose bridge the nano's have a none flexible titanium nose-bridge for even lighter weight and more strength, as well as maintaining correct visual relation for the lenses rather than a flexible bridge that could cause misalignment of the lenses and your eyes. which is more durable? Let's put it this way if either of these glasses break it's not going to be the nose-bridge, more likely it would be the lens-screw-frame point in either design that is the weakest link.

The Maui's use "Flexon" for their frame material while Oakley uses their own proprietary titanium alloy which of course is shrouded in mystery. One would probably be correct in guessing that it is very similar to Flexon.

Of course Oakley also utilizes Unobtainium for the ear-stems and clear Unobtainium for the nose-bridge. I found this in comparison to Maui Jim's hard ear-stems to be more comfortable as they grip, but don't have as much pressure, but still maintain a solid grip. They have an almost pillow like effect and grip much better in comparison to the ear hugging design of the Jim's.

Lenses:

As any Oakley connoissieur knows Oakley lenses are superior to any other lens of the planet when it comes to clarity (this is proven time and time again scientifically). What any Maui Jim lover would counter with is that the Jim's are extremely scratch resistant where Oakley's are somewhat scratch prone. However there is a huge fallacy at the very base of this argument.

Here is why, using glass like the Maui Jim's can be, first and foremost, dangerous! Any one with even a lick of common sense can tell you having glass that close to your eyes is playing a game of Russian roulette. If for instance you were to get hit in the face by gravel, or other such small objects you would not only get hit in your face with the gravel after it goes through the lens, you would also get an eye full of very fine glass particles. Oakley's Plutonite is ANSI certified meaning they have been proven not to shatter in such scenarios. (see http://oakley.com/innovation/optical_superiority/impact_protection for an excellent demo of this in action)

If that argument isn't enough to make you think twice before buying the Jim's, then here's another point. Because the Jim's use glass they must integrate tint, polarization, anti-reflective coating, etc as separate films. Each one of these films must be literally glued onto the glass. In case you were wondering their are 7 layers of film and at most 4 layers of glue. That's potentially 11 surfaces light must pass through before reaching your eye (I say potentially, because I'm not sure if they use adhesive for every layer).

Again pretty obvious that with that many layers you're talking about a huge potential for optical distortion, visual aberrations, and a ridiculous amount of prismatic effect. Any way according to MauiJim.com here's the layering: Water Proofing coating X 2, Anti reflective Coating, two layers of glass, polarized filter, and finally bi-gradient mirror. Again, I don't know the process of how all the coatings are applied, but I do know that the glass layers are glued to the polarized filter.

Obviously there is a lot that goes into a glass based polarized lens. In contrast, Oakley uses their Plutonite (aka specially formulated polycarbonate). How many glued layers are there? Zero. Plutonite has tint built into it and the polarized lens is molecularly fused to the plutonite. AR coating (finally Oakley wised up and put this standard on these, Note to Oakley: put this on all your high end lenses!!!) and Hydrophobic coating are chemically and or vapor fused to the surface of the lens.

All this scientific blah blah blah means just one thing- Clarity. Oakley has finally made the ultimate lens. Trying these on the clarity is unmatched. The AR coating is a much needed addition and cuts down back-lens glare about 75-85% (that is my perception, I doubt there is a hard number for this) I didn't test the hydrophobic coating, but based on my experience with the Radars it greatly reduces the amount cleaning necessary as well as making it easier to clean, hence less scratch prone. sweat and water will just roll off of these. (for clarity comparison see http://oakley.com/innovation/optical_superiority/hdo/proven )

All in all let's face it, the Nano's are intended to take on the Jim's head on. Many of you reading this will say "Oakley ripped off the M.J.'s look and concept" true, but really what isn't ripped off this day and age. Windows Vista is a rip off of Mac OSX (not a very good one, but one none the less), Circuit City is just a rip off of Best Buy, and the war in Iraq is just a rip off of Vietnam. :)

What really matters is which is the better product. For me it's a Mac running OSX err... the Nano's. Having tried the MJ's myself, I didn't think I'd be interested in the Nano's, but after trying them I can see what the appeal of an ultra light go anywhere do anything frame is. In this category the Nano's are clearly the superior option. If you haven't tried these do yourself a favor and give them a go!

Frame: Matte Black
Lens: Black Irid Polarized
I got one of each in the Nano line. I waited a little while to post my reviews as I wanted to be able to get a clear impression. The 1.0 fits my M-L head better than the 2.0. The lens is also slighlty larger on these. Cool, 3 lens types on 3 pairs of glasses. I wanted rimless for a long time but was really unimpressed with the Why line. If I wasn't an Oakley devotee, I might have jumped to another brand just for that. In the end, I'm glad I waited for these to come out. The glasses are super-light due to the lack of a frame. I always loved my Whisker Ti because of the lightness but these are even more featherweight. I really like the way the earstems flex but the memory metal doesn't lose their shape. I can see how these frames will hold up so I hope the lenses will do the same since they are so exposed. The new everything-phobic coating on these have got to be Oakley's best new feature. Cleaning is a breeze and I never have to worry about dust. I drive a convertible and ride a motocycle so that feature is definately put to the test. I do wonder why Oakley used pastic nuts to hold the frame to the glasses. It maybe weight savings but it doesn't look cheaply made in any way. I just figured they have some kind of super-metal for that as well.
As far as lens color goes, it's black irdium polarized and enough has been written about them. Really dark and definately works wonders on super bright days. One thing I did notice is that they do not have as bad a rainbow effect as the same color lenses on my Crosshair. Don't know why but I'm happy about it.
And lastly, the case is nice. Not the most practical shape but nice nonetheless. It looks like a huge pill. Is that a Oakley Nano case in my pocket or am I just glad to have Oakley Nanos??? BOTH!!!

Frame: Brown Chrome
Lens: Tungsten iridium Polarized

This is one (if not the one) of my most favourite oakleys.
It looks so damn sexy. Nice form of the glass and very thin frame.
Tungsten Iridium Polarized lenses are really nice ones. Great coverage to the face. Absolutely nice one ! 5 Heads !

Frame: Black Chrome
Lens: VR28 Black Iridium Polarized

Super comfortable and light. It seems may be not too sturdy but I think it is not fair to ask thee to be as sturdy as the Juliet. Looks really good and nothing much to talk about the Oakley lens...they are great as usual

Frame: Black Chrome
Lens: VR28 Black Iridium Polarized

Overall these are a pretty sweet pair of shades. The reason for the 4 skull rating is that the alignment of the frame to lenses was never quite right. I may be a little OCD, but it bugged me from the start. I'm sure I could have sent them in or something, but for a $300 pair of glasses, they should have been right the first time and I didn't want to take the time or spend the money to send them in for service. Other than that they were great from a functional standpoint. Super light, very classy looking, and maybe the best lenses ever. I sold mine the other day and plan on picking up some 4.0's before too long. They fit me better, look great, and just have a more solid feel to them.