Bella Hadid Wore These $50 Sunglasses. Are They Any Good?

Frame width:144 mm|Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:22 mm |Lens width:52 mm|Lens height:37 mm|Lens:polarized|Frame material:acetate

The style that inspired this entire article. The acetate frame is thick, the arms are wide at the temples, and there’s nary a sharp edge to be found. All of this makes them feel on the more luxe side and helps to justify the $50 price tag. In fact, if I’d never seen these before and you told me they cost more than a few times their price, I’d believe it. The Sojos logo is also far less obvious in person than it is in the product photo, which is another win in my book. (I’m not big on logos in general.) Bella has a good eye.

Frame width:146.5 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:18 mm |Lens width:53 mm |Lens height:31.3 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:acetate

I have a lot to say about this pair. First of all, while oval frames are not for me, nor is the gold-shell detail on the temples, there’s no doubt this is a quality pair. Compared to the already very niceCamillesabove, these are heavier. They evensoundheavier — cheaper (usually plastic) frames sound tinny and hollow when you tap them on a surface or, in my case, drop them on the ground, but these are very solid, even for acetate. The very ends of the arms bell out in a shell-inspired shape that scraped the inside edges of my ears when I put them on and took them off and kind of hurt, though this isn’t an issue when you’re actually wearing them.

Still, I am a little flummoxed by the price: Sojos seems very capable of making a quality product for $50 or less, and while the $150 Veronica does feel somewhat sturdier than the similarly shaped $50 Camille, it’s definitely not$100sturdier. The Veronica is part of a collaboration withswimwear label Oceanusand does come with a protective fabric bag and a special Oceanus-inspiredfaux-leather case with a starfish-charm detail. However, Sojos also has a collab with swimwear labelKulani Kinis, andthose $50 framesalso come with a fabric bag, a dedicated case, and a coordinating scrunchie (bonus!), plus the quality of the frames themselves is basically identical. $150 isn’t necessarily high for a quality pair of sunglasses, but in this particular case, it feels excessive.

Frame width:138 mm |Temple length:140 mm |Bridge width:19 mm |Lens width:52 mm |Lens height:38 mm |Lens:not polarized |Frame material:metal

Wire frames err on the side of flimsy, especially on less expensive pairs, but these feel okay. The sturdy, spring-loaded hinges bend in both directions, which makes me less worried about accidentally popping one of the arms off while putting them on. I’m sure I could snap the bridge in half if I wanted to, but I also trust that this pair won’t get bent out of shape through wear alone. And while I don’t like how they lookon me,I do like how they look.

Frame width:140 mm |Temple length:147 mm |Bridge width:23 mm |Lens width:49 mm |Lens height:42 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:acetate

Round with a hint of cat-eye (and a very flattering shape, in my opinion). I tried the salmony-pink frame, which is translucent but also a solid color and not streaky like the product photo shows. It looks like plastic (I blame the translucency), but it’s actually made of acetate and feels pretty sturdy despite being lightweight. Still, while I do like them a lot, I’m not sure I’d pay more than $25 for the privilege. Plus, pink is the most neutral color available — the other two are silver sparkle and black-and-white tortoise, both of which definitely feel like budget colors.

Frame width:140 mm |Temple length:140 mm |Bridge width:21 mm |Lens width:51 mm |Lens height:46 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:TR90

This pair is available in nine lens and frame-color combos. I opted for all-over black with a matte frame made from TR90, a hypoallergenic and incredibly lightweight, flexible, and durable material that’s temperature-tolerant and easy to bend but hard to break. (It’s true, I tried.) If you like these qualities in a pair of sunglasses, then these are … fine. But my pretty much equivalently priced running sunglasses,the Goodr OG, are also made from TR90, and they’re better. They have a rubbery finish that makes them both soft and grippy (good for running), whereas this Sojos pair feels flimsier and more slippy. There’s also something about the matte texture that vaguely reminds me of running my fingernails over a chalkboard. (Not to mention that despite their oversize dimensions, the overall effect feels veryNightmare Before Christmasto me.)The black-on-black is the sole version with a matte finish, however, so maybe another color combo would have been better. Some of the other options at leastlookvery nice.

Frame width:135 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:21 mm |Lens width:51 mm |Lens height:48 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:metal

Of the 21 pairs I tested, only four were metal. As expected, they were all more delicate than even the most insubstantial plastic pair, but this one is the feeblest by far. There arms have no give (unlike the two-way spring hinges on theEliseabove), and the frame feels almost brittle — I’m willing to bet money that it would take mere weeks for me to either accidentally snap them in half or inadvertently mangle them in a pocket or bag. That said, the round frame looks nice and is quite wearable even in spite of the shape’s very strong “peace and love” vibes. If you’re more careful than I am, then maybe $20 isn’t too much to spend.

Frame width:137 mm |Temple length:144 mm |Bridge width:24 mm |Lens width:46 mm |Lens height:38 mm |Lens:non-polarized |Frame material:plastic

A rounded square, but a square nonetheless, and also one my favorite pairs right out of the box. The shape is pleasantly neutral and balanced, the frame is on the smaller side but by no means “little,” and they definitely feel heftier and thus pricier than the average plastic pair (though the arms do have that hollow plastic sound). While I typically go for basic black, I tried these in both olive green and crystal gray and ended up loving both. (For a similar but slightly larger style that also comes in a bunch of great colors, I recommend theRememberframes.)

Frame width:145 mm |Temple length:140 mm |Bridge width:18 mm |Lens width:55 mm |Lens height:43.4 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:recycled materials

The more muted shade of theOasispair above is about as pink as I’d normally go, but I opted to try this pair in a milky, cotton-candy shade just for fun, and I was surprisingly pleased. The slightly oversize but very wearable rounded-square shape tempers the cutesy color — I wouldn’t wear them in place of a neutral for everyday, but they are good for a fun beach trip, and the $30 price tag doesn’t feel too excessive for what would essentially be a novelty pair (for me, at least). It’s also money well spent if you opt for one of the six other more neutral colorways (includingall-blackand this nicetonal brownpair). They’re all made of BPA-free recycled plastic, which feels mid-weight and somewhere between regular plastic and acetate.

Frame width:145 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:21 mm |Lens width:52 mm |Lens height:43 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:TR90

These feel sturdier than their lightweight, plasticky feel and thin frame would suggest, and they don’t have that hollow, tinny sound. They’re made of TR90 like theSJ2710round pair above, but they’re shiny instead of matte, and I can only assume that’s why they’re heavier and not as bendy. That sheen also gives them a less sporty quality, which seems appropriate for this less sporty shape. They’re a bit on the wide side, which didn’t look bad on my face but felt more suited to my husband.

Frame width:145 mm |Temple length:140 mm |Bridge width:20 mm |Lens width:50 mm |Lens height:36 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:plastic

These frames are thick, and the hinges are quite sturdy. That combo makes them feel much more like acetate than their actual plastic. The absence of metal detailing at the corners also makes them look like a pricier pair. I’ve never been into straightforward rectangular or geometric frames, but these have slightly rounded edges that make them less severe and, in my opinion, more appealing.

Frame width:146 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:18 mm |Lens width:55 mm |Lens height:29 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:acetate

Because the frame and arms are relatively thin, this collab pair doesn’t feel quite as sturdy as some of Sojos’s other $50 acetate pairs, including the correspondingSunsetcollab style. But they’re sturdy nonetheless, and the cat-eye turn-up at the corners makes them more appealing than other long and lean rectangle styles I’ve seen. They’re not for me, but they are cute in all three colorways. Likethe other Kulani Kinis collab style, they come with a dedicatedfaux-leather case, a coordinating gingham cloth bag, and a coordinating gingham scrunchie.

Frame width:143 mm |Temple length:140 mm |Bridge width:19 mm |Lens width:51 mm |Lens height:35 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:plastic

The most straightforward rectangle pair of all the styles I tested, and also the cheapest-feeling. I opted for the clear frames with mirror lenses, and the combination is outright flimsy — $20 actually feels like a bit too much to ask. To be fair, I have found that overall quality sometimes varies from color to color within the same style, so the price might be fair for some of the other colorways. There are 18 more to choose from on the Sojos site, so feel free to experiment.

Frame width:143 mm |Temple length:144 mm |Bridge width:23 mm |Lens width:50 mm |Lens height:42 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:acetate

A very “Italian film star” pair — classic and relatively minimalist (at least in the all-black version I went with), but still totally dramatic. There’s no mistaking these for a cheap plastic pair — they’re definitely acetate, but they feel and sound thick, and they are very sturdy to wear. I’d be wary of paying $50 for the silver sparkle and multi-tortoise colorways, but in all-black or brown tortoise, the price is right.

Frame width:147 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:19 mm |Lens width:50 mm |Lens height:33 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:acetate

Another grown-up cat-eye, but this time with attitude — these feel downrightfeline. And while they’re thinner than theReefsabove, there’s still no mistaking them for a plastic pair. I do question the price, however, because I can’t tell the difference between this $50 pair and …

Frame width:143 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:17 mm |Lens width:54 mm |Lens height:40 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:acetate

… this $40 one. The shapes are different (duh), but they’re both thin yet sturdy acetate frames with polarized lenses, and they both feel about $10 less expensive than the thickerReefpair. In other words, pick your poison.

Frame width:145 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:20 mm |Lens width:56 mm |Lens height:51 mm |Lens:polarized |Frame material:metal

These have an unsurprisingly flimsy frame, both because it’s made of metal and because it’s less than $20. Still, it’s not the worst metal frame of the bunch (that honor is reserved for the round-frameClassica), and I feel like this pair might hold up for a little while, even without a glasses case (which, like all $20-and-under Sojos pairs, isn’t included with purchase). The lenses and bridge are decently sturdy, and the arms have a little bit of give, but don’t feel like they’ll snap without a bit of effort. The shape is classic and balanced, and the price is very fair.

Frame width:148 mm |Temple length:145 mm |Bridge width:22 mm |Lens width:58 mm |Lens height:52 mm |Lens:polarizedFrame material:plastic

You get what you pay for with these: a perfectly passable but obviously plastic pair that’s not too big (at least for a pair of aviators), not too small, and easy to wear. If you’re into the shape (and any one of the 18-plus available colors on the Sojos site and at Amazon), you’ll be happy with them, especially for $20.

Frame width:146 mm |Temple length:149 mm |Bridge width:22 mm |Lens width:58 mm |Lens height:48 mm |Lens:non-polarized |Frame material:metal

For an ostensibly minimalist pair (tonal colors, thin metal frame, pretty average-size lenses), these are alook.And if you’re going for a look, then I fully endorse this pair — I almost exclusively go for sunglasses that don’t draw attention to themselves, but I’m having a hard time resisting these, especially in the combo of gold frame with “tea color” (per the Sojos site) lenses that I tried. They’re also about as sturdy as you’d expect, which is to say they’re not disappointingly flimsy. Even if they’re not your everyday sunglasses, the price feels very right.