marianin
0
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 173
- Points
- 0
i'm new in the lasers and i want to now which of these amazing lanses is the best.
(pros and cons)
(pros and cons)
Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers
Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations
Links below open in new window
ArcticMyst Security by Avery | Browser Hide by Avery
405 g 1 vs 405 g 2 ?????
- Thread starter marianin
- Start date
ARG
0
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,772
- Points
- 113
They are pretty much identical. Hardly any differences either way.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 796
- Points
- 28
Yes. Identical. G-1 uses a different AR coating and gives like 10mW more but that's practically nothing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,516
- Points
- 63
Pretty much the same lens :beer:
jayrob
0
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,862
- Points
- 113
Yes pretty much the same optic, but the mounting is different...
Here's a couple of facts about the lenses to help you understand about some of the differences in pricing...
The 405-G-1 glass lens that I sell, is the same as the G2. The only difference, is that the G2 is from a different supplier. Slightly different coating. But the exact same lens design. Same output potential. I tested the G2 long ago, and if was any better, then I would have changed over.
The real difference, is in the mounting of the lenses. I mount my lens assembly into a machined out AixiZ nut, and also enlarge the entry aperture to allow maximum light from the diode into the lens.
The G2 from DTR is a few bucks cheaper than my G1 assembly, but it is not mounted the same. His is basically just put into the bottom of the lens nut, and held in place with the tiny threaded retaining ring. So in other words, the retaining ring is the entry aperture, and is not enlarged. (like I do with my modification)
That said, it's still a good set up for the price.
Here are the main reasons that I go through the extra work for my mount:
* Able to enlarge the entry aperture and allow more light from the diode into the lens
* Able to set the lens 'lower' in the nut, so that it can get closer to the diode if needed
* The lens is perfectly centered in the nut (if just mounting it in the retaining ring end of the nut, there is a possibility that it can get off center)
As you can imagine, there is a lot more work involved with the way I mount the lens.
* Machine the lens nut to fit the diameter of the lens
* Enlarge the entry aperture
* Make the custom sleeve/retainer tube that is shown in my picture above...
I spend quite a bit of extra time for the mounting of my set up, and thus the extra cost...
Here's a couple of facts about the lenses to help you understand about some of the differences in pricing...
The 405-G-1 glass lens that I sell, is the same as the G2. The only difference, is that the G2 is from a different supplier. Slightly different coating. But the exact same lens design. Same output potential. I tested the G2 long ago, and if was any better, then I would have changed over.
The real difference, is in the mounting of the lenses. I mount my lens assembly into a machined out AixiZ nut, and also enlarge the entry aperture to allow maximum light from the diode into the lens.
The G2 from DTR is a few bucks cheaper than my G1 assembly, but it is not mounted the same. His is basically just put into the bottom of the lens nut, and held in place with the tiny threaded retaining ring. So in other words, the retaining ring is the entry aperture, and is not enlarged. (like I do with my modification)
That said, it's still a good set up for the price.
Here are the main reasons that I go through the extra work for my mount:
* Able to enlarge the entry aperture and allow more light from the diode into the lens
* Able to set the lens 'lower' in the nut, so that it can get closer to the diode if needed
* The lens is perfectly centered in the nut (if just mounting it in the retaining ring end of the nut, there is a possibility that it can get off center)
As you can imagine, there is a lot more work involved with the way I mount the lens.
* Machine the lens nut to fit the diameter of the lens
* Enlarge the entry aperture
* Make the custom sleeve/retainer tube that is shown in my picture above...
I spend quite a bit of extra time for the mounting of my set up, and thus the extra cost...
Last edited:
marianin
0
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 173
- Points
- 0
Yes pretty much the same optic, but the mounting is different...
Here's a couple of facts about the lenses to help you understand about some of the differences in pricing...
The 405-G-1 glass lens that I sell, is the same as the G2. The only difference, is that the G2 is from a different supplier. Slightly different coating. But the exact same lens design. Same output potential. I tested the G2 long ago, and if was any better, then I would have changed over.
The real difference, is in the mounting of the lenses. I mount my lens assembly into a machined out AixiZ nut, and also enlarge the entry aperture to allow maximum light from the diode into the lens.
The G2 from DTR is a few bucks cheaper than my G1 assembly, but it is not mounted the same. His is basically just put into the bottom of the lens nut, and held in place with the tiny threaded retaining ring. So in other words, the retaining ring is the entry aperture, and is not enlarged. (like I do with my modification)
That said, it's still a good set up for the price.
I spend quite a bit of extra time for the mounting of my set up, and thus the extra cost...
thanks man :wave:
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
- Messages
- 692
- Points
- 0
From laser66 (a seller of g1/g2 lenses)
G-2 has a multi- layered Anti- Reflective (AR) coating- a down shifted A coating.
The G-1 has a single layer, MgF2 (Magnesium Fluoride) AR coating.
On paper, the G-2 gives about a 1/2 of 1% reduced reflection: 0.005 lower reflection.
In practice, with high powered diodes, it's nearly impossible to measure the differences. It's beyond the accuracy of even the best power meters.
405-G-X, where X is a manufacturer, so each lens is from a different manufacturer, but each lens is essentially the same design/ shaped glass
G-2 has a multi- layered Anti- Reflective (AR) coating- a down shifted A coating.
The G-1 has a single layer, MgF2 (Magnesium Fluoride) AR coating.
On paper, the G-2 gives about a 1/2 of 1% reduced reflection: 0.005 lower reflection.
In practice, with high powered diodes, it's nearly impossible to measure the differences. It's beyond the accuracy of even the best power meters.
405-G-X, where X is a manufacturer, so each lens is from a different manufacturer, but each lens is essentially the same design/ shaped glass
jayrob
0
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,862
- Points
- 113
Yes that's absolutely correct...
And if I had found that the G2 optic was any better in even the slightest way, then I would have switched over long ago. I was the one that tested the G2 for Will, and compared it with the G1.
Since I found no difference, I kept the same optic.
As I showed above
, the difference is in the way the optic is mounted. Here are the main reasons that I go through the extra work for my mount:
* Able to enlarge the entry aperture and allow more light from the diode into the lens
* Able to set the lens 'lower' in the nut, so that it can get closer to the diode if needed
* The lens is perfectly centered in the nut (if just mounting it in the retaining ring end of the nut, there is a possibility that it can get off center)
As you can imagine, there is a lot more work involved with the way I mount the lens.
* Machine the lens nut to fit the diameter of the lens
* Enlarge the entry aperture
* Make the custom sleeve/retainer tube that is shown in my picture above...
And if I had found that the G2 optic was any better in even the slightest way, then I would have switched over long ago. I was the one that tested the G2 for Will, and compared it with the G1.
Since I found no difference, I kept the same optic.
As I showed above
, the difference is in the way the optic is mounted. Here are the main reasons that I go through the extra work for my mount:* Able to enlarge the entry aperture and allow more light from the diode into the lens
* Able to set the lens 'lower' in the nut, so that it can get closer to the diode if needed
* The lens is perfectly centered in the nut (if just mounting it in the retaining ring end of the nut, there is a possibility that it can get off center)
As you can imagine, there is a lot more work involved with the way I mount the lens.
* Machine the lens nut to fit the diameter of the lens
* Enlarge the entry aperture
* Make the custom sleeve/retainer tube that is shown in my picture above...
Last edited:
