Outdoormaster photo-sensitive (photochromic) lens review

[gregorys]

So, I've used Outdoormaster's Pro goggles for 4-5 years now. I've posted about them elsewhere - but the short of the story is; I got them when no-one knew who they were or whether they were trash or not. Since Amazon was selling them, I figured they were pretty a safe buy. I've really quite liked them. I have come to really like the mag lens swaps, and in a ton of other ways, I'm really happy.

The last several years, they've had sales which reduced the price of a goggle and lens to around $15-25 - which makes them an even better deal.

However, I think the sales are likely dwindling and OM (outdoormaster) will try to move from a super-bargain goggle to more mid-price. (Get a mid-priced goggle [I'd guess $40-65] with top-end features.)

To that end, they've started offering premium lenses. I think this is one area they can do something special in, and distinguish their product from the rest of the outlets offering this goggle. I'll just note that I've found ebay versions with darker lenses for very cheap, and I expect the "pro" frame to be available "in the wild" unbranded quite cheaply. Also I think the Xionor X4 is the same frame/lens. (Someone correct me, if I have the details wrong.)

I'm pretty skeptical about anyone's premium lens - I don't think anyone's special formula/sauce is going to really solve vertiginous conditions in bad light.

But I've wondered about photo-responsive lenses for a while. OM has started offering a 16-80% VLT photochromic lens for $70. With some google searching and trial and error, I found a 30% off coupon, which made them $49. That included shipping.
This lens: [outdoormaster.com/products/replacement-lens-color-optimization-photochromic-sustainabl-for-ski-goggles-pro-series] - paste that link into your browser - I'm not wanting this post to give them more traffic and push up their google rankings. This is a review, not a paid advert.

Sucker that I am, I decided I'd risk it.
It's more risk this time, since it's not via Amazon, but direct from OM. So any complaints or returns will be just me pushing against them. However, they've been pretty good about customer service issues in the past, though again through Amazon. We'll see if that customer friendly attitude persists when dealing direct - I hope so, but who knows. Just note that you're in the wild west now, Johnny, and you gotta take care of yourself!

They may have some stuff that's local to the US, but my lenses shipped from HK or China (I can't recall.)
That did mean it took a few extra days - but I think I had them in around a week - which isn't shabby. But it may also complicate things if I have to return or otherwise need support that requires exchanging goods. (Again, beware, buyer.)

Now to the lenses themselves.
I've used them a couple of days. From total, full sun to heavily overcast. (Though not particularly dark overcast.) I haven't used them at night or in any very low-light conditions.

Response times to changing light seem reasonable - but it's not quick. Going indoors requires 3-5 minutes or more before they lighten a ton. I need to more closely watch the response times to varying light - but as far as skiing in them - I'm quite happy. The heavily overcast day had some sun-breaks. And I never felt I was struggling for more light. They just seemed to adjust and I never really noticed any change - the amount of light always seemed pretty reasonable.

I'll note that they seem to adjust to a little darker than I'd probably select, if I were just swapping lenses. This probably has to do with my choice, more than real need. I'd rather be skiing with a too-light lens (lets in too much light) than the reverse. So, if I'm going to err, I'd rather squint than feel I'm struggling to see.

So while these are perhaps slightly darker than I'm used to, I never felt I was struggling to see. They always felt really close to the right light levels.

I'll try to follow-up as I get more days on these lenses too.

Some cautions:
I've heard that cold temperatures can really slow down photochromic response times - in short they take a lot longer to get lighter in very cold conditions. Since I've not had mine in any situation resembling this - I can't offer any thoughts pro or con. Just note that it's a potential issue.

The lenses respond to UV light, not visible spectrum light. While I think, in general, this is fine - I suppose it's possible to have a darker day with a lot of UV light, where the light level of the lens matches the UV intensity, but not the actual light intensity. I haven't noticed this, but it's something I'm watching for. So, far the light has always seemed pretty well matched.

Final thoughts:
Do I think this lens is worth $50 (or even $70)
That's hard to say. I think I'll really enjoy the always light responsive lens level. I won't be swapping lenses much, except for perhaps full-on night skiing. (And it's possible these will do fine even at night, at 80% VLT. That's equivalent to the green lens I've been using to night ski already.)

Being a cheap scrooge - I was quite hesitant to buy these. I worry that I've gotten used to not worrying about my lenses much (when they were cheap) and that I'll beat these up in a year or two. At $50, that will hurt a lot more than the whole goggle+lens for ~$20.

If it's worth it to you, you'll have to decide. I'm still not really sure. But I'm pretty impressed so far.

And if this is where OM is headed, producing solid lenses that offer something you can't get elsewhere, for far less than something comparable in a name-brand - like the Smith chroma-pop with photo-sensitive lenses for ~$200 - well, I'd guess they'll likely be pretty successful.

[Benneke10]

Great review, thanks for posting. Will be keeping an eye out for sales here

[grinch]

Ive been happy with their goggles. Interested in these photochromatics. Thread could use a link and pics

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[tgapp]

super interested, thanks for the review -

- can you share a link to the actual lenses? i tried searching amazon, but no lucl
- can you share the discount code you found too?

thanks so much

[gregorys]

I'll update the OP too, but the lens is here:
outdoormaster.com/products/replacement-lens-color-optimization-photochromic-sustainabl-for-ski-goggles-pro-series

I can't seem to re-locate the 30% coupon, right now.

[frorider]

GF had POC photochromic goggles. Worked ok for a season, although never got quite dark enough to work on a clear day in the Sierra. Eventually they hardly got dark at all. I’m curious whether this is an inherent limitation with goggle lenses long term.

I own several pairs of Transition brand photochromic glasses that all work well.

[grinch]

A buddy used to try and ski tour with his transition glasses. Itd be overcast but theyd go super dark. He couldnt see f all. I saw more than a few violent yard sales. Major cringe worthy. Highly entertaining but it was sketching me out in the BC. It was only a matter of time before he hurt himself. Eventually convinced him he needed to save those for townie shades. Maybe they have some other technology now

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[fool]

I've had Zeal Photochromic goggles/lenses for the last ~10 years and loved them. If it's super low-light - like the Pacific NW when it's dumping - it gets a little challenging. But great besides that.

[Danno]

This lens: [outdoormaster.com/products/replacement-lens-color-optimization-photochromic-sustainabl-for-ski-goggles-pro-series] - paste that link into your browser - I'm not wanting this post to give them more traffic and push up their google rankings. This is a review, not a paid advert.

Does clicking on a link do something different traffic-wise that cutting/pasting a link?

[Ted Striker]

GF had POC photochromic goggles. Worked ok for a season, although never got quite dark enough to work on a clear day in the Sierra. Eventually they hardly got dark at all. I’m curious whether this is an inherent limitation with goggle lenses long term.

Going on nothing more than personal experience I think it might be.

[gregorys]

Does clicking on a link do something different traffic-wise that cutting/pasting a link?

I'm perhaps wrong - but I think Google rankings climb when you (the target website/page) gets linked from other sources. The more links from larger sources, the more the ranking climbs. I'm sure there are "filters" that adjust that behavior - like in this case - where the link is from end-user generated content, etc. So, the impact might be minimal. I just don't want to push their product (or most anyone's product) - I really want to just give a review and let the reader decide for themselves. So, perhaps not putting it as a link is an overreaction - but it's pretty simple to cut paste.

And frankly, until I have a lot more data about how they hold up over time, I'm ambivalent about "recommending" this stuff. It sure seems pretty solid, and the other stuff I've gotten from them in the past has been solid - but only time will tell.

[gregorys]

I should add that when I last looked at the lens I got (just a few minutes ago), it shows that it's sold out.

There are two [Edit: three] photochromic lenses they are offering - one that is 13-60% VLT, and the one I got, 16-80% [and a 40-80 VLT]. I don't know how accurate those VLT ranges are - but I can't imagine buying the 13-60 one. It gets only slightly darker, and loses a lot on the light end. And 16% is FAR more than dark enough for anything I do. I could live with my darkest lens being something like 25% VLT. So, I'd strongly recommend skipping the lens that's "in stock" right now and wait for the 16-80 VLT lens.

[Edited] Oh, yeah, I forgot - they also have a rose tinted 40-80% VLT photochromic lens. This might be ok for quite a lot of people. I think "cheap" goggles with a single universal lens are somewhere in that range (40%) - so this could be serviceable. But still, if you're spending money for a premium lens, I'd prefer it handle as much range as possible. If it were really easy to return them, if you didn't like them, I might risk it. But I'm not sure how well that would work.

---
And one other addition to the review above.
The mittens I usually ski with look entirely black to me - slightly different shades/textures of black/charcoal, but black all the same. But with the photochromic lenses on, one of the blacks looks like really dark blood red. It doesn't impact anything else that I can tell, but it's kind of interesting.

[gregorys]

So a few more days on these.

I'll note that I'm quite happy. They are certainly more than dark enough for super-bright days. They change from light to dark pretty fast - more than adequate.
Going the other way, from dark to light is slower and can be annoying - say going indoors from outside - you won't be able to see well without removing your goggles. But that's a pretty silly complaint, IMO, because of course you'll take off your goggles to go pee!

I've not had them in any _very_ low light situations so I can't offer a lot of feedback there. I think they'll do well down to truly dark, night-ski situations. They might do well enough even in those - but I'd hesitate to offer that until I've actually tested them in a real-life situation.

I'm in the PNW, so temps are pretty moderate. Though I've had them out in the teens (in stupid units - Fahrenheit) and they performed fine.

In short, I've always felt they were just nearly perfect light wise. (Though I tend to mostly forget I'm even wearing goggles, as long as they're doing half well - so perhaps I'm just not very picky.)
I'd recommend if you want one lens to do nearly anything, and are willing to spend the money - since if you're wearing Outdoormaster's, you're probably a miser, and spending this amount is way out of your standard operating procedure.

I'll probably update again sometime next season - as I have more experience with them.

[XXX-er]

i have Rx photo chromic glasses which i left on the window sill in a bright morning sun, when i picked them up they had a crosshatch pattern on the lenses so at first i thot the lense had facked up

but what happened was the sun shinning thru the bug screen had changed the tint leaving the bugscreen imprint on the lens which went away in as long as it took for the lense to change back ... kind of cool

[gregorys]

Final post for the year.
I've probably got about a dozen days on them now. (The season was done last week... <sob>.)
All that I've posted previously still feels pretty true.

Not a lot of really dark days - so I don't know that I can offer a ton of feedback there - though what I did experience I was quite happy with. I _think_ I'd be happy with these all the way down to nearly night-skiing. (I think they'd be do-able for night, but I'd probably switch to a regular 80%+ VLT lens for night.) But anything short of that they do well.

The only minor caveat I'd give for low light performance is that they might be slightly darker than you might pick in some situations. Not a lot, but perhaps a little. I never found myself really feeling they were way off, but occasionally wanting just a touch more light. I think this was when it would be overcast, and somewhat darker. My guess is that the UV levels were higher than ambient light, and so the lens, which responds to UV, was somewhat darker than completely optimal for the ambient light. Again, I'd say this is a minor nit to pick on, but it might bother someone else more than I. I find it's very minor and isn't something I'd be worried about. (One factor that probably impacts it more this year is that I nearly always pull my goggles up/off and cover my face (Covid protocols) when entering the lift maze - I don't like fogging my goggles and it's easier to cover my nose without the goggles on. So, my eyes are often adjusted for non-goggle-filtered light, and I notice the difference when I put the goggles back on - i.e. the pupil is constricted and letting in less light - then I put the goggles back on, and suddenly they need more light than the pupil is allowing into the eye.)

Anything with more light, I was totally happy. From full sun to partial overcast, or even full-overcast with substantial light levels, I always felt it was picking good light levels. Not too bright, not too dim.

The whole concept of these "expensive" lenses in a cheap goggle kind of defeat the purpose of a really cheap set of really decent quality goggles. But if you can wrap your mind and cheap-ness around that, they do work really well.
I'm on the fence about, if I'd do it again - but more because I'm cheap than because I think it was a bad idea, or that it wasn't that good.

A couple or three (non-photo-chroma) lenses to cover everything is probably $60 or a bit more if you buy them on sale.
vs
An 80%+ VLT Lens + the photo-chroma lens - probably $70-80.

If you treat lenses with care and won't trash the more expensive lens in a year or two - then I think it's really viable.
If you beat them up quickly, then I'd probably avoid buying an expensive lens.

Personally, I'm probably more in the second camp, and so it's less of a win.