405-g2 high output lens in modified aixiz lens nut $45 shipped UPDATED w/ new test #

Awesome observations made to the lens assemblies. Are you saying theat Steve's is more of a conical shape?

Nope. They both have the same dot to my eyes. However the Glow around the dot with Stevie setup is less.

hey thanks Angelos for doing that nice review. Its good to see that the spacer design does help with the splash around the dot. I could start making the spacers 2 ways, the way it is now and also a straight through design like the G1's. I just personally prefer the tapered style since to me it cleans up the dot with hardly any loss in power.

EDIT: I just remembered that Jakes lens was an experiment. I did the mod to the aixiz a little different with Jakes so that could explain his results. I will test ver.1 of the lens assembly vs ver.2 and post results. If it is better than I might make this new batch of lens ver.2

:bumpit:with new beamshots.

Not to be negative, but beam shots with smoke really don't show anything about the lens(and not much about the laser they are attached too) Pictures showing the "dot" and splash(if any) at 10' and 20' and even 30' would be nice.

Delorean Geek said:

Not to be negative, but beam shots with smoke really don't show anything about the lens(and not much about the laser they are attached too) Pictures showing the "dot" and splash(if any) at 10' and 20' and even 30' would be nice.

Click to expand...

Yea i know i was just bored and wanted to play around with the new camera. lemme grab those cheapo survival laser googles. Im not sure it was you or not, but someone said to hold the googles over the camera lens and take pics with long exposures...was that right? I will get to it after work.

bump and OP updated with some pics of the actual lens along with my attempts to take a shot of the dot. either way some new info for people

Yeah, again, those comparison numbers tell me (at least) that the output efficiencies of the lenses are the same. like i said anything within a +-5% range is a meaningless comparison as this is well with-in the accuracy range of LPM's especially our hobbiest TEC based LPMs.

I have/ did my tests on my Ophir thermopile,
Not a tec

Hey jake. ok thats better but the best we can hope for is +-5% but more like +-10% with an LPM that has not been rigourously calibrated on a regular basis with a known source. so those measurements are still well within the accuracy tolerance of the sensor/meter and cant be attributed to the lens. I dont think we can get much better than a good quality AR coated lens like the G1 or G2. i think the only thing that might be better is a lens that has coatings that are specific to a narrow band of wavelength.

but thats cool. good to have options!

Well all im saying is this, my spacer design is different, it has a smaller exit aperture which tapers off some of the splash, while that DOES reduce overall output, the test numbers show that its still well within range of the g1's, enough to be considered even with it.

I think the G1's are great, I just happend to be supplying the g2 and my approach towards the spacer is different.

ok my last attempt at taking pics of the dot... no matter how i do it or even if i use safety glasses over the camera, the dot still isnt viewable...too bright. So heres the next best thing. OP updated with some sorry attempts.

plexus said:

Hey jake. ok thats better but the best we can hope for is +-5% but more like +-10% with an LPM that has not been rigourously calibrated on a regular basis with a known source. so those measurements are still well within the accuracy tolerance of the sensor/meter and cant be attributed to the lens. I dont think we can get much better than a good quality AR coated lens like the G1 or G2. i think the only thing that might be better is a lens that has coatings that are specific to a narrow band of wavelength.

but thats cool. good to have options!

Click to expand...

Thanks Plexus. I said this time and time again, especially after the G-1 was said to be better than the G-2. Sorry for the late response, but I can't hang out here too often. NOt an attack, just laying out of facts...
I have an Ophir Vega with 3A head and yes, a few mW's at these ranges is measurable, but not within the accuracy of the meters. Look back at the original tests of Jay's: It's 4mW I think at either 250 mW of 405nm, if I recall. I never saw Dave's numbers. The results are less than the meter's accuracy, thusa below experimental error.
I think a statistical graph is needed to compare the two lenses- just like the A130 and A140 diodes were compared. It was 10 to 12 diodes of each type put into one graph. Statistically, and graphically, one could see a trend of the 140 powers all above the 130 line. And I think this was done with data from various members. Best if one graph is used from one test.
Again it really might not matter since the difference may be very small. It's hard, as just screwing in one lens and putting another in can mess up the experimental measurement. I was thinking of a slide mount or turret that could hold each lens type- thus switching between lenses is quick.

I also wanted to comment on the variations between G1 and G2. Designs are basically the same. 1) they are from two different manufacturers. Manufacturer A has original molds and equipment from the original maker/ designer of the lens. Company B copied the design, as did Company C (Oh yes, there is a 405-G-3, and actually a 4 too but we won't get into that.) So the designs themselves could have slight variations 2) two coatings. G-1 is a single layer Magnesium Fluoride, about a 1% reflection per lens surface. G-2 is a multilayer "A" coating taking the reflection per surface down to about 1/2% per surface. Normal glass is about 4% reflection, per surface , Uncoated. On paper, the G-2 should have a lower loss, but that difference is still small, and beyond accurate measurements.
I went to the G-2 due to quality issues seen with early lenses from Company A. That was a business decision I made on behalf of my other customers- laser manufactures who demand ISO quality standard, etc.