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

FrozenGate by Avery

405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Nice!  :o ;D a PHR doing 209mW at 160mA :o

Looks like you might have trouble getting your lens caps on now though Igor  ;)
 





Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Yeah, i tried making an extension for lens #2's lens nut, so that i could focus it and use it a bit. But it didn't work too well.

Only lens #1 really works with a focusing ring, and even for that the lens nut has to be reversed!
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Also if you have not yet commented the lens #3, the picture shows a beam slightly brighter and thinner with respect to the lens #2. What is your feeling about the lens #3? Have you checked its output power improvement? :)
I know we are not giving you time to breath, but the enthusiasm for these three new lenses is BIG! [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Umm, no, the picture can not be used for comparison for several reasons:
- The PHR is a high wavelength PHR. At 166mW it looks as bright as my 6x at 211mW. So at 209mW it better look brighter.
- The axises are not aligned with the camera.
- The angle of the camera influences how the beams look.

The beam is slightly thinner. But not much. The FLs are both very short. There is very little difference in that.

The good news is, both lenses (#2 & #3) bring out everything! ;D

There is a slight difference, but it comes only from the coating. Lens #3 has a 408nm optimised coating, so the reflections are slightly lower for blu rays. But the difference is less than 1%. Not sure exactly, cos i didn't equalise the temperatures as good.

But the blu lens would not work for reds. Lens #2 works for both reds and blu's, and brings out all there is with barelly any reflective losses! The coating has two "valleys" just around 405nm and 660nm, so while it's broadband, it's very suitable for both... :)

Lens #3 has a slightly narrower beam, but the difference is again small. Lens #2 allows for some focusing and burning. Obviously it won't burn at such distances as long FL lenses, but close up is easy.

For reds lens #2 makes a beautiful tight round beam!


So we are >20%! I've measured 24-26% depending on the diode and the wavelength. And i have not even tried on a short wavelength PHR. There, lens #2 is suposed to do close to or even above 30%! Need to test this.

I also need to test on a 4x, since the power increase somewhat depends on the diode's beam profile. The two short FL lenses bring out everything from any diode, but acrylics clip the fast axis, and since the increase is being compareed to acrylics, it depends on how much acrylics waste with each diode - and that's what varies.
There is no difference between how much lenses 2 & 3 bring out with these diodes. They bring it all out. But the beam distribution profile causes there to be different losses in acrylics, for each diode type. I can make a drawing of this if it's hard to understand.

Basically, a 6x has more power in the slow axis than the PHR (the beam of a 6x is more oval). Acrylics clip the fast axis but not the slow axis. So if a diode has more power in the slow axis, a lower percentage will be lost in acrylics, so the increase will be a tiny bit lower.


Then the increase depends on the wavelength. Again, the glass lenses don't vary with small wavelength differences, but plastic lenses do! Shorter wavelengths pass acrylics less well, so they get increased more with glass. For diodes where the wavelengths are more consistent (6x, maybe 4x), so will be the power increase. With PHRs, there will be more variance, but i used the highest WL diode i had, so the minimum is already established. ;)

Basically, whatever the variances, it is impossible to get less than 20% with the two short FL lenses. Probably never less than 23%.


I now made a tiny lens washing machine, so that i can clean them and make more accurate comparisons.

But i think the baselines are established. And it's simply awesome! :D


Even the weakest lens brings my PHR almost to the power of the 6x with an acrylic lens. And in that case, the PHR looks noticably brighter! The last PHR that looked brighter than my 6x was at 250mA and died in 20 minutes.
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

wow, great work, thanks for such detailed info and reviews!

so, to sum it up: these lenses (2 & 3, lost track of the others) will have virtually no reflection- and absorption-losses, and will collect all of any diode? i dont need to know how much worse those acrylics are exactly, i know these custom-goodies are mine! :-)

what beam-diameter do you get, with violet and red (if tested)? can you notice bad divergence, compared to other lenses, already?

very exciting, all that! i am F5'ing this tab constantly! :-)

Manuel
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

AWESOME! i personally will want the thinest beam possible but im sure others may not.

my vote goes for the thinest beam!
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Correction. For reds, lens #2 makes a beautiful tight round beam that burns when parallel! :o Even by accident.. ::)

For reds, lens #2 has ~5% more power than lens #3. That's because lens #3 has a broadband coating, which is shifted down to cover blu better. So 660nm is outside the useful coating range.. And the lens clearly looks red, just like 660nm coated lenses look blue.... So to a red diode lens #3 looks like an uncoated lens... Could be worse.


Anyway, i'll try to clean them now... :)
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

IgorT said:
Haha, i find them WAY more than just OK.. :D

I just need to properly center lens #2, and then test lens #3, and preferably, i need to get them all clean to do some proper measurements! ;)



One thing is clear to me now, btw. There is absolutelly NO WAY, that i could mount 250 lenses by hand. I would worry about dropping them, scratching them, and god knows what else. Besides, only lens #1 works in an AixiZ lens nut while still allowing the use of a focusing ring.

The two high NA lenses have to be very close to the diode - that's how they increase the power so much. That would require custom lens nuts. Custom lens nuts can be made by the manufacturer. In that case, the lenses would be mounted, cleaned and inspected by them for scratches.

I already ordered and received 300 AixiZ lens nuts. That's another $150 down the drain... :( (anyone need clean AixiZ acrylics?   ::))

A possibility would be to have the lenses mounted in adaptors, that would stick into the lens nuts. But the adaptors would not cost any less than completee lens nuts.


Lens #2 is a lens, that in my oppinion deserves custom lens nuts. It would also allow the use of focusing rings, and could be made to work in the latest DX modules that are not threaded to the bottom.. I've been avoiding those modules like the plague. But they could be made useful. Altho i don't know if DX deserves the favor, after reducing the modules to the lowest quality available.

Anyway, this would actually be the fastest option. And i really don't think such superb lenses should be in cheap plastic lens nuts. A custom lens nut could also be made to obstruct less of the back surface edge, and allow even more light in, if there is more.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it work if you were to put a small o-ring in the focusing ring? Or glue it to the top thread?
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

I think we should go with the best lens for blu-ray, and the best lens for red seperately. I want the most power i could get out of my BR :D
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

I think that lens #2 has the best balance between beam thin-ness, divergence and focusing abilities. It's MUCH thinner than anything you've ever seen come from a diode laser, unless you use a Meredith module.

People often have problems focusing the Meredith module. A tiny change in turn produces a big change in focus. And at a distance, the focus becomes too spread out. If you go any thinner than that, divergence increases rapidly. I have seen a beam thinner than a green from both a red an a blu, but i didn't really like it. It's a fun thing to see, sure, but it's not really useful in the long run. I ended up putting an AR coated aixiz acrylic in the red and a regular in the blu, even tho the power was then lower.


The very first lens was made to have a FL between the AixiZ and the Meredith, for what i was hoping would be the perfect balance. But now, lens #2 has the same FL as the Meredith. I can live with that. In fact i like it. But i wouldn't want to go any thinner and end up with a horribly big spot on a wall five meters away, as was the case with the ultra short FL lens i played with a while ago.

But we can't go thinner anyway. There is no difference worth mentioning between the two lenses when it comes to beam diameter. Lens #3 has a slightly thinner beam, but it's hard to notice - the FLs are almost the same, i didn't expect there to be a noticable difference..

In the picture above, the two beams came from two completelly different diodes and the axises were not aligned. Like i said, that picture can not be used for comparison. I will have to measure the beam diameters by "hand", with the lens mounted on the same diode, before i can even say what the difference is.


In any case, lens #3 may have 0.8% more power for blu, but has 5.2% less for reds. Lens #2 works for both.but it's noticably better for reds, while with blu rays the difference is not worth mentioning. It's a universal lens and i think it has the best balance.

I'm actually glad, that lens #2 doesn't waste any more 405nm than lens #3. Cos if #3 had a higher power, this would be a hard decision. But as i see it, it's quite easy actually... Everything is almost exactly the same, except for reds where lens #2 is better. The beam of a red after lens #2 is thinner than the beam of my >400mW CNI green!


Anyway, i need to do more testing.. I'll report back when i have more info on the two. But it's late here, and i think i've done enough testing for one day... ;)
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Spyderz20x6 said:
I think we should go with the best lens for blu-ray, and the best lens for red seperately. I want the most power i could get out of my BR :D
Click to expand...


We don't have the money for that. These lenses are much more expensive than any of the six before them. We can only do this all at once. It's either 250 or it's nothing.

Besides both lenses are the best for blu rays. Both bring out all there is. There is such a small difference, that i can't even be sure if it's there, since i didn't equalise the temperature.


I have a lens that can do both blu rays and reds PERFECTLY. Instead of doubling the price by ordering two models, we should do the lens nuts instead an get the perfect lens without any compromises.
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

Spyderz20x6 said:
Wouldn't it work if you were to put a small o-ring in the focusing ring? Or glue it to the top thread?
Click to expand...

Read man. Under flush in the AixiZ modules..

Oh, wait a minute! I could order another 300 lens nuts, and cut them to 3mm, and glue the shortened lens nuts on the other 250 lens nuts, to extend them, so they are not under flush, and then i'll glue 250 o-rings into 250 focusing rings and glue it all on the extended glued lens nuts!

Why didn't i think of that! It's perfect! I hope you don't mind glue on your lenses? ;)
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

I say custom metal lens nuts! Something like the three element aixiz lens maybe?
As long as it is M9 x 0,5 threading...otherwise my very expensive tap set is a waste... :)
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

IgorT said:
[quote author=Spyderz20x6 link=1212842385/540#551 date=1225922099]Wouldn't it work if you were to put a small o-ring in the focusing ring? Or glue it to the top thread?
Click to expand...

Read man. Under flush in the AixiZ modules..

Oh, wait a minute! I could order another 300 lens nuts, and cut them to 3mm, and glue the shortened lens nuts on the other 250 lens nuts, to extend them, so they are not under flush, and then i'll glue 250 o-rings into 250 focusing rings and glue it all on the extended glued lens nuts!

Why didn't i think of that! It's perfect! I hope you don't mind glue on your lenses? ;)[/quote]
You don't understand what i said, and they were two completely different questions ::)
What if we just put an 8mm o-ring IN the focusing ring. Would it work then? You don't need to do it. I can do that myself. I just want to see if it works.

OR, what if you glue the FOXUSING RING to the top thread on the LENS NUTS?

BTW, i think we should go with lens #2
 
Re: 405nm AR glass lenses - fit AixiZ  FEELER

So far the results seem to say all beams point to lens 2 :). This is also what I would go for if we have to choose.  

But I think we should allow Igor to do more testing first, lol I think you may be in love with them Igor :D the washing machine idea for them is brilliant ;)

Excelent job with the lenses Igor.  ;D

We anxiously await your final results. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top