htrap2294

Clap Guru
Premium Member
12,026
2,973
San Diego, CA
Hello OF,

A few months back, I was sent a pair of LG Nxt Varia lenses to review from @SEAN WAYNE. I will admit, initially, I was a bit skeptic as I am typically an OEM only guy. However, I decided that I would be as objective as I can be and give the lenses a fair shot. Over the past few months, I have worn these and compared them with my other Oakley OEM lenses. I wanted a long term comparison, as I felt it was more objective and fair - since the lenses have a lot of technology packed into them. I did not want all the cool things the lenses do to artificially inflate the review.

First off, I would like to discuss the material composition of the lens:
- They are composed of TRIVEX (what NXT refers to) and are an upgrade over polycarbonate - offering as much impact protection, but increased clarity.

Varia - What does it mean?
Now, I would like to mention that these lenses have another marketing term: "VARIA". It stands for variable light transmission. So, in reduced light settings, the lens will allow in more light (whilst still hiding your eyes due to the iridium layer). Alternatively, in increased light settings, the light transmission will decrease. They do get dark enough to the point that I can wear them in both the sunniest of days as well as the cloudiest of days. It definitely is a very versatile lens! Additionally, when the lenses darken, the iridium changes slightly as well. I notice that the iridium will go from new fire iridium (in low light) to old school fire iridium (in bright light).

Fitment
Fitment was on par with OEM. It was a perfect fit for the model I tested them in (Pitboss I). I popped them into various Pitboss I frames and each one accepted the lens perfectly with no signs of wiggle or gaps shown.

Clarity
I am particularly sensitive to clarity, and in all honesty - I found these lenses as clear, if not clearer than OEM Oakley lenses. This may be due to the upgraded material choice. I am no expert, but I would attribute it to that.

Depth Perception
These lenses appeared to be prism compensated. As a result, no depth distortion was found.

Headaches?
I experienced absolutely no headaches with these and I have been known to be particularly sensitive.

Overall Opinion
While these lenses, admittedly, are a bit pricey. I do think that they are worth the money (especially when they go on sale). They are definitely a good alternative to OEM lenses - especially for frames where there may not be an OEM donor available.

Million Dollar Question - Would You Personally Buy Them?
Yes, and no. I would buy them for a frame where an Oakley OEM matching BC donor does not exist (C-Six, for example). However, for other situations, I would not. That decision, however, is due to the fact that I have many donor lenses I can cut. For someone not in that situation, these would be a good choice. I can say if an OEM matching BC donor did not exist, I could happily pick these and not feel like I was missing out on Oakley quality or clarity.

Pictures (to show difference in iridium in indoor conditions vs. outdoor sunny conditions):
20200327_161430.jpg


Indoor conditions, ambient lighting:
20200312_073154.jpg

20200328_094248.jpg

20200328_094256.jpg

@Linegear Japan Now you just need to start making lenses for an Oakley C-Six!
 

Shade Station Oakley Sunglasses
Register to Not see this ad
Last edited:
T

"TRUMP"

Guest
Million Dollar Question - Would You Personally Buy Them?
Yes, and no. I would buy them for a frame where an Oakley OEM matching BC donor does not exist (C-Six, for example). However, for other situations, I would not. That decision, however, is due to the fact that I have many donor lenses I can cut. For someone not in that situation, these would be a good choice.
Donors are $20 at your nearest vault. GLWS
 

Japanese Jellyfish

Oakley Expert
721
523
日本
Hello OF,

A few months back, I was sent a pair of LG Nxt Varia lenses to review from @SEAN WAYNE. I will admit, initially, I was a bit skeptic as I am typically an OEM only guy. However, I decided that I would be as objective as I can be and give the lenses a fair shot. Over the past few months, I have worn these and compared them with my other Oakley OEM lenses. I wanted a long term comparison, as I felt it was more objective and fair - since the lenses have a lot of technology packed into them. I did not want all the cool things the lenses do to artificially inflate the review.

First off, I would like to discuss the material composition of the lens:
- They are composed of TRIVEX (what NXT refers to) and are an upgrade over polycarbonate - offering as much impact protection, but increased clarity.

Varia - What does it mean?
Now, I would like to mention that these lenses have another marketing term: "VARIA". It stands for variable light transmission. So, in reduced light settings, the lens will allow in more light (whilst still hiding your eyes due to the iridium layer). Alternatively, in increased light settings, the light transmission will decrease. They do get dark enough to the point that I can wear them in both the sunniest of days as well as the cloudiest of days. It definitely is a very versatile lens! Additionally, when the lenses darken, the iridium changes slightly as well. I notice that the iridium will go from new fire iridium (in low light) to old school fire iridium (in bright light).

Fitment
Fitment was on par with OEM. It was a perfect fit for the model I tested them in (Pitboss I). I popped them into various Pitboss I frames and each one accepted the lens perfectly with no signs of wiggle or gaps shown.

Clarity
I am particularly sensitive to clarity, and in all honesty - I found these lenses as clear, if not clearer than OEM Oakley lenses. This may be due to the upgraded material choice. I am no expert, but I would attribute it to that.

Depth Perception
These lenses appeared to be prism compensated. As a result, no depth distortion was found.

Headaches?
I experienced absolutely no headaches with these and I have been known to be particularly sensitive.

Overall Opinion
While these lenses, admittedly, are a bit pricey. I do think that they are worth the money (especially when they go on sale). They are definitely a good alternative to OEM lenses - especially for frames where there may not be an OEM donor available.

Million Dollar Question - Would You Personally Buy Them?
Yes, and no. I would buy them for a frame where an Oakley OEM matching BC donor does not exist (C-Six, for example). However, for other situations, I would not. That decision, however, is due to the fact that I have many donor lenses I can cut. For someone not in that situation, these would be a good choice. I can say if an OEM matching BC donor did not exist, I could happily pick these and not feel like I was missing out on Oakley quality or clarity.

Pictures (to show difference in iridium in indoor conditions vs. outdoor sunny conditions):
View attachment 716912

Indoor conditions, ambient lighting:
View attachment 716913
View attachment 716915
View attachment 716916
@Linegear Japan Now you just need to start making lenses for an Oakley C-Six!
We are presently looking for a frame so we can start producing C-Six lenses sir.
 

Anthony Thomas

Oakley Enthusiast
231
183
Chester, VA
A nice subjective review, thanks much. I would like to see some objective numbers.

Does Linegear provide any objective data for on the NXT Varia lenses or comparison to Plutonite®.

I read that the Linegear NXT Varia lens is made from Trivex®. From what I have been able to gather, Trivex® is a lighter weight material than polycarbonate. With that said, what is really missing is where Plutonite® fits in as a special proprietary polycarbonate when compared to Trivex®.

One example of an objective value for a lens is the Abbe number. For want of actual test numbers I don't really know the Abbe number for a Plutonite® lens. Trivex® has a published Abbe number of 45 vs 30 for polycarbonate. A literature search indicates that the Abbe number for the lens of the human eye is about 45-50. So, a lens that can approximate that value would seem pretty good. Perhaps forum members in the optical arena can weigh in.

Oakley touts the American National Standards Institute; specifically: 1) Clarity Test - measure the sharpness of images viewed through the lens, 2) The Refractive Power Test - measures distortion, 3) Prism Test - measure how much the lens bends lights and makes objects appear shifted from their true position, 4) Axis of Polarization - measures the angle of polarization between a paired set of lens. Besides those test values there are the actual results of testing for impact resistance like the steel bearing shot at 150MPH and the drop test of a slow speed heavy object directly on the lens. I would also like to see the numbers on testing for filtering UVA, UVB.

What seems to be trade-off in lens materials technology as far as active wear sunglasses is trying to balance a lens with ideal optical properties but also be impact resistant and light weight. Ideal optical glass is heavy, thick, and extremely easy to shatter and break on impact. Whereas when you move to plastic, polycarbonates and other non-silica based optical lens you get shatter resistance and toughness but optical quality suffers. Also, there is the matter of introducing all your various preferred sunglass lens properties (lens color, coatings, shapes) onto the lens material and still maintaining high optical fidelity, resistance to scratches, etc.

Bottom line is I believe it would be very useful to have someone do some tests that can given objective comparison to various after market lenses and help the community better understand the merits of various aftermarket lenses.
 

Last edited:
T

"TRUMP"

Guest
A nice subjective review, thanks much. I would like to see some objective numbers.

Does Linegear provide any objective data for on the NXT Varia lenses or comparison to Plutonite®.

I read that the Linegear NXT Varia lens is made from Trivex®. From what I have been able to gather, Trivex® is a lighter weight material than polycarbonate. With that said, what is really missing is where Plutonite® fits in as a special proprietary polycarbonate when compared to Trivex®.

One example of an objective value for a lens is the Abbe number. For want of actual test numbers I don't really know the Abbe number for a Plutonite® lens. Trivex® has a published Abbe number of 45 vs 30 for polycarbonate. A literature search indicates that the Abbe number for the lens of the human eye is about 45-50. So, a lens that can approximate that value would seem pretty good. Perhaps forum members in the optical arena can weigh in.

Oakley touts the American National Standards Institute; specifically: 1) Clarity Test - measure the sharpness of images viewed through the lens, 2) The Refractive Power Test - measures distortion, 3) Prism Test - measure how much the lens bends lights and makes objects appear shifted from their true position, 4) Axis of Polarization - measures the angle of polarization between a paired set of lens. Besides those test values there are the actual results of testing for impact resistance like the steel bearing shot at 150MP and the drop test of a slow speed heavy objects directly on the lens. I would also like to see the numbers on testing for filtering UVA, UVB. Another test is uniformity of polarized filters - are both lenses on the same axis?

What seems to be trade-off in lens materials technology as far as active wear sunglasses is trying to balance a lens with ideal optical properties but also be impact resistant and light weight. Ideal optical glass is heavy, thick, and extremely easy to shatter and break on impact. Whereas when you move to plastic, polycarbonates and other non-silica based optical lens you get shatter resistance and toughness but optical quality suffers. Also, there is the matter of introducing all your various preferred sunglass lens properties (lens color, coatings, shapes) onto the lens material and still maintaining high optical fidelity, resistance to scratches, etc.

Bottom line is I believe it would be very useful to have someone do some tests that can given objective comparison to various after market lenses and help the community better understand the merits of various aftermarket lenses.
Unfortunately they likely don't have the same technology to do these tests:


Specifically the first 2 or 3 are the most overlooked when having the "lens debate".

Nobody else shows these tests being done and until they do I wont use any other optics over my eyes.

Comparing tridex to polycarbonate is something anyone can pull up on google, but as you pointed out Plutonite is it's own animal.... in the video above you see it outperform other polycarbonate lenses in several tests so obviously the "tridex vs poly" doesnt apply to oakley lenses.

I've been unable to find any other companies putting polycarbonate lenses on those types of testing machines and posting it for the public to see like Oakley does.

⬆⬆ this is why I only wear Oakley lenses and until someone else puts their lenses to those tests with comparable results in all categories, nothing else will go over my eyes.

For the record, I too was sent some linegear lenses to try and review but I decided not to post a review.

Compared to other aftermarket companies their lenses arent bad at all, but I could tell a couple important differences between them and OEM while wearing.
 

Anthony Thomas

Oakley Enthusiast
231
183
Chester, VA
Parth mentioned fitment was perfect. One way to demonstrate that is to view the lens from the rear with a polarized lens when looking at a light source. If the lens fits perfectly, then a polarized picture will clearly demonstrate an absence of stress bands. Conversely, a lens that doesn't fit perfectly will have rainbow color banding refractory patterns around the stress points of the lens/frame interface. It goes without saying that the periphery of the lens vision will be somewhat distorted if the fit isn't "perfect"
 

Latest posts

New Threads

Top