Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standards

Milos

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
859
Points
0
I'll try to do this as simply and as fairly as i can considering lack of time. I understand there is competition between two parties and even blames of "unfair play" so whatever needs to be added to this thread, feel free to state as long as it is A FACT!

I ordered two lenses from Jayrob, and two from Larry.

I used Kenom thermal meter and my Stingray II red and violet lasers. *

lasers;
Stingray II VIOLET *- 230mA 332mW without lens
Stingray II RED - 460mA 338mW without lens

NOTE: Kenom thermal meter sensor is very sensitive to position, spot size, and even focus of the beam hitting it. any variations (even slight wind from outside, or heat radiation from warm heat sink being within 1/2" of sensor will change numbers. I worked around all this and was very consistent with distance from sensor, position of "dot" on sensor, and having best collimation possible checked at 20ft. I also *repeated all tests 2-3 times in circles to make sure things aren't changing as i go.

The difference between Jay's and Larry's mounting of lens is well covered in their threads in buy/sale/trade sections. Pictures re there too, so i won't talk about it too much.
I don't mind at all if arguments on how and why things were done by each continue here. This thread is made so its neutral ground as far as refreshing sales threads go :)

NOTE, since these tests were done, both Jayrob and Larry have made improvements in their lens assembly designs as far as mounting glass goes. See their threads for details and availability.


Here are my numbers:

~405nm Violet diode from GGL-H20W sled at 230mA


-No lens = 332mW
-Standard Aixiz Glass lens = 242mW
-Standard Aixiz Acrylic lens opened on the back = 258mW
-Larry 405-G-1 lens = 320mW
-Jayrob 405-G-1 lens = 320mW

Aixiz standard Glass lens lets 73% light through (blocks 27%)
Acrylic Lens lets 77.5% light through (blocks 22.5%)
Aixiz 405 AR coated glass lens (July '09) lets 81.4% light through (blocking 18.6%) - more on it on PAGE 4! post #86

405-G-1 lens lets 96.5% light through (blocks 3.5%)

405-G-1 lens has 24% increase of power output over Aixiz acrylic lens

Splash around well collimated beam/dot is IDENTICAL between Jay's and Larry's lens assembly! *which should not be confusing. I know this is very important to many.
Focal length seems exactly the same.



Conclusion: Same lens (as far as performance goes) different mounting style.

Both Larry and jay use teflon tape to reduce play in threads and it works very well! Teflon does wear off if you take lens on and off few times, but i think its good idea.
Jay cuts spring in half and it fits like that reducing play and giving resistance.
I put some arctic silver 5 in threads ( because arctic silver doesn't spill when hot), in combination with springs, but i will use teflon in combination with other two. Doing all 3 really makes it feel right!

RED ~658nm *Long open can diode 460mA

-No lens =338mW
-Standard Aixiz Glass lens = 278mW
-Standard Aixiz Acrylic lens opened on the back =268mW
-Larry 405-G-1 lens = 308mW
-Jayrob 405-G-1 lens = 314mW
-Jayrob Meredith glass mod for aixiz lens = 322mW - more on it on PAGE 3! - post #67

Aixiz standard Glass lens lets 82% light through (blocks 18%)
Acrylic Lens lets 79.5% light through (blocks 20.5%)
Jay's 405-G-1 lens lets 93% light through (blocks 7%)
Larry's 405-G-1 lens lets 91% light through (blocks 9%)
Jayrob Meredith glass mod for aixiz lens lets 95.3% light through (blocks only 4.7%)

Increase in output power of Jay's * *405-G-1 lens over standard Aixiz glass lens = 13%
Increase in output power of Larry's 405-G-1 lens over standard Aixiz glass lens = 10.5%
Increase in output of Jay's Meredith glass mod for aixiz glass lens over standard Aixiz glass = 15.8%


Splash around well collimated beam/dot is IDENTICAL between Jay's and Larry's lens assembly! *
Focal length seems exactly the same.


Projected dot of Meredith glass lens mod appears the same as 405-G-1 lens when use on VIOLET or RED diodes. In other words, photo of 405nm and 658nm splash still counts for this Meredith lens. I was very pleased to see even better results than with 405-G-1 lens, although beam diameter is slightly bigger. Still, it is noticeably tighter than standard aixiz glass.

This was interesting difference in performance between as Jay's and Larry's 405-G-1 lens, as Jay's repeatedly showed better performance. And repeatedly is what i look for. So I looked at both lenses again and realized the reason.

Opening on the back of Jays lens is machined out measuring 5.6mm hole for light to come in. Larry's back of the lens uses retaining spring with glue to hold the lens from falling out from the back leaving only 4.25mm wide hole for light to come in.
This came to be important with red diodes as for best collimation lens is a bit farther from the diode and bigger hole is needed. With 405nm diodes this did not come into effect as lenses need to be very close to diode and Larry's opening was big enough.

EDITED. It has come to my attention that Larry has improved his lens assembly after this find, to widen the input side and accommodate it for better red laser performance.

I personally like jay's approach to creating assembly as it doesn't involve any glue or retaining springs, and everything is made "to fit". Larry has different approach and regardless of it his assembly performs comparably to Jays when it comes to 405nm, however not quite as advertised as far as splash goes.

All in all, these tests are my and open for discussion. Your tests might differ as measuring styles differ, but we are dealing with percents so it shouldn't differ too much.


The important thing specially with violet lasers is keeping strict consistency of physical setup while testing. I can do different setup with different lenses and calculate different percentage easily.

best regards

Miloš
 

Attachments

Last edited:



jayrob

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
9,874
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

This is a very thorough review Miloš...


Miloš said:
This was interesting difference in performance as [highlight]Jay's lens repeatedly showed better performance. [/highlight]And repeatedly is what i look for. So I looked at both lenses again and realized the reason.

[highlight]Opening on the back of Jays lens is machined out measuring 5.6mm hole for light to come in.[/highlight] Larry's back of the lens uses retaining spring with glue to hold the lens from falling out from the back leaving only 4.25mm wide hole for light to come in.
This came to be important with red diodes as for best collimation lens is a bit farther from the diode and bigger hole is needed. With 405nm diodes this did not come into effect as lenses need to be very close to diode and Larry's opening was big enough.
[highlight]I personally like jay's approach [/highlight]to creating assembly as it [highlight]doesn't involve any glue or retaining springs, and everything is made "to fit". [/highlight]Larry has different approach and regardless of it his assembly performs comparably to Jays when it comes to 405nm, however not quite as advertised as far as splash goes.

Miloš
Just to say that I appreciate your honesty and detail in your review/comparison. I go through several steps in this modification to make sure it is as perfect as I can get it. I try to do the same with all of my modifications and kits.

But when it comes to a precision glass lens of this quality, it must be perfectly aligned inside of the lens nut. [highlight]And yes, I do take the extra step of drilling out the entry aperture wider to accommodate the larger lens.[/highlight]

Using the shortened spring is optional as I mention in my instruction sheet. Teflon tape wrapped about 1 1/2 times is all you really need. (I use both)
But if you do use a shortened spring, you would obviously bend the cut end in to not allow it to scrape. I show this in my instruction sheet as well.

My mount requires a little more work and time for the modification, but I believe it is very important for this quality of optics...

Thanks for noticing! :)

I am mounting the 'flat' side of the lens on the drilled out 'lip' on my assembly.
The crown side of my lens sits inside my custom spacer/retainer that is only touching the outer mounting 'rim' of the lens that is made for mounting the lens.




NO GLUE in my lens assembly! You won't have to worry about if it is glued in straight, or if the glue will begin to dry out or chip with heat. My lens assembly will last a lifetime. And you just may want to take it apart and clean the lens once a year! ;)


Jay
 
Last edited:

lasersbee

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
17,708
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Well Done Miloš.... so there is a difference in the mounting techniques...
and the performances are near identical...
Nice spotting the mechanical reasons for the slight differences...
I also liked the way you explained the possible LPM variances and
quirks...

Jerry
 

Milos

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
859
Points
0
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

thanks, I hope to be testing another sample of AR coated 405nm lens within next few weeks.
 

jayrob

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
9,874
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Your measurements are pretty much exactly in line with my recordings in comparing different lenses for red and blu-ray.

Just to add some more information, I have shown my comparisons elsewhere, but I will add them here as well. This will add comparisons with Meredith glass lenses to your list of comparisons. (Meredith has two glass lenses now, and Dennis (from Meredith), told me that they will be staying with their new broad band lens after they sell out of their 'optimized for red' lens that I am using from my 'Meredith/AixiZ mod')

Note: All comparisons to AixiZ acrylic is with the 'back opened'.
Meter: Coherent PowerMax 5200 with PM3 thermal head.

Comparisons: Including AixiZ glass:
Compared to AixiZ acrylic, I get only 4 to 5% more with AixiZ glass for red. AixiZ glass has 3 elements. This is why it has less gain than the other 'single element' glass lenses, even though it is AR coated for red. Plus, AixiZ glass in not as 'short focus' in design.

Comparisons: (red open can)
AixiZ acrylic vs AixiZ glass - Gain 4 to 5%
AixiZ acrylic vs AR coated acrylic from Virtual Village - Gain 10%
AixiZ acrylic vs Meredith acrylic - No gain, or very minimal gain
AixiZ acrylic vs Meredith glass - Gain about 20%
AixiZ acrylic vs 405-G-1 glass lens - Gain about 15%
(New broad band glass lens from Meredith - About 2 or 3% less than their 'optimized for red' glass lens with red)

Comparisons: (blu-ray)
AixiZ acrylic vs 405-G-1 glass - Gain 26 to 28%
Meredith glass vs 405-G-1 glass - Gain 18%
AixiZ acrylic vs AixiZ glass - 7% less with AixiZ glass for blu-ray
(New broad band glass lens from Meredith - About 3 or 4% less vs my 405-G-1 glass lens with blu-ray)



P.S. For Meredith, there are two different glass lenses available now. I have tried both of them. I use the best one for red with my Meredith glass fit for AixiZ mod. Their new 405 coated lens is a broad band coating that is decent for both red and blu-ray. But not as good as the 405-G-1 glass lens for blu-ray, and not as good as their original 'optimized for red' lens that I am using for my Meredith/AixiZ mod for red.

P.S. Meredith will be replacing their 'optimized for red' glass lens, with their new broad band glass lens.


* Meredith glass lens mod fit for AixiZ: (best for red) 20% increase in power for red vs AixiZ acrylic. (back opened)
http://laserpointerforums.com/laser_pointer_forums_3/forum/showthread.php?t=22501

* 405-G-1 glass lens mod: (best for blu-ray) At least 26% increase in power for blu-ray vs AixiZ acrylic. (back opened)
http://laserpointerforums.com/laser_pointer_forums_3/forum/showthread.php?t=22497



Here are some beam shot comparisons with 6X vs 8X. Both using my 405-G-1 glass lens modification...

(Beam shot comparisons with smoke)



SCHWEET! :D
Jay
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,031
Points
0
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

jayrob said:
Your measurements are pretty much exactly in line with my recordings in comparing different lenses for red and blu-ray.

Just to add some more information, I have shown my comparisons elsewhere, but I will add them here as well. This will add comparisons with Meredith glass lenses to your list of comparisons. (Meredith has two glass lenses now, and I believe they will be staying with their new broad band lens after they sell out of their 'optimized for red' lens that I am using from my 'Meredith/AixiZ mod')

Note: All comparisons to AixiZ acrylic is with the 'back opened'.

Comparisons: Including AixiZ glass:
Compared to AixiZ acrylic, I get only 4 to 5% more with AixiZ glass for red. AixiZ glass has 3 elements. This is why it has less gain than the other 'single element' glass lenses, even though it is AR coated for red. Plus, AixiZ glass in not as 'short focus' in design.

Comparisons: (red open can)
AixiZ acrylic vs AixiZ glass - Gain 4 to 5%
AixiZ acrylic vs AR coated acrylic from Virtual Village - Gain 10%
AixiZ acrylic vs Meredith acrylic - No gain, or very minimal gain
AixiZ acrylic vs Meredith glass - Gain about 20%
AixiZ acrylic vs 405-G-1 glass lens - Gain about 15%
[highlight](New broad band glass lens from Meredith - Not as good as their original 'optimized for red' glass lens with red)[/highlight]

Comparisons: (blu-ray)
AixiZ acrylic vs 405-G-1 glass - Gain 26 to 28%
Meredith glass vs 405-G-1 glass - Gain 18%
(for blu-ray, AixiZ glass and Meredith acrylic are both less power than AixiZ acrylic)
[highlight](New broad band glass lens from Meredith - Not as good as my 405-G-1 glass lens with blu-ray)[/highlight]



P.S. For Meredith, there are two different glass lenses available now. I have tried both of them. I use the best one for red with my Meredith glass fit for AixiZ mod. Their new 405 coated lens is a broad band coating that is decent for both red and blu-ray. But not as good as the 405-G-1 glass lens for blu-ray, and not as good as their original 'optimized for red' lens that I am using for my Meredith/AixiZ mod for red.
Jay
Mind telling us some numbers and not just "they're not as good." :-?
 

jayrob

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
9,874
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

It was not a huge difference. Their new broad band lens is very nice...

It was about 2% less for red vs their 'optimized for red' glass lens which they will be replacing.

And about 3% or 4% less for blu-ray vs my 405-G-1 glass lens modification.
Jay
 

lasersbee

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
17,708
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

jayrob said:
It was not a huge difference. Their new broad band lens is very nice...

It was about 2% less for red vs their 'optimized for red' glass lens which they will be replacing.

And about 3% or 4% less for blu-ray vs my 405-G-1 glass lens modification.
Jay
Now that we have a decent idea of which lens outperforms which... I guess it's time to
compare prices and see which lens and/or assembly gives the members the best bang
for the buck... :cool:

Jerry
 

jayrob

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
9,874
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Yes you are right...

Price is definitely a consideration besides quality. Most people would also consider just who's idea it was... to mount the lens into an AixiZ nut...


I spend extra time in doing the mount the way I have chosen, so that's why mine is $6 dollars more than Larry's. (who has copied my idea of using the AixiZ nut with focus ring)

But I am in the process of trying to get a better break on the lenses if I buy more quantity. So if I can, my plan is to lower my price, but keep the quality of my modification the same! :)
Jay

Edit: I have dropped my prices for the complete assembly as well as the bare lenses by $5 dollars.
 

lasersbee

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
17,708
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

I'm not just looking at the prices of your lens or Larry's lens... but also
the pricing of the Meredith lens and all... :-?

Jerry
(1900 - 65)
 
Last edited:

jayrob

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
9,874
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Well, with that in mind, I must make mention that if you want Meredith in their brass modules, it has always been one of my 'trade mark design traits', to fit my heatsinks and combo kits for either AixiZ or Meredith!  :) (your choice)

Some red builds only take AixiZ, such as the awesome Kryton. That's why I have a Meredith/AixiZ mod! ;)
Jay
 

LarryDFW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
1,579
Points
63
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Milos;

First of all, thanks for stepping in to do these continuing optical tests.

I appreciate the time you took to focus the lens to collimation & do the tests in a consistent manner.

Your comparisons to raw power tell us additional important information.
The 3.5% BR loss means that this lens will be almost impossible to outperform.

The washer opening on the Red lens assembly may well account for the 2% difference.

I do NOT like the "cut springs" grinding brass metal fragments in the lens/diode compartment,
and use the open lens pictured below in all my BR and Red OC builds.

The lens that Daguin purchased also has the [highlight]maximum completely open aperture[/highlight]
(no washer at all for Teflon use, instead of the dreaded cut spring).



My prievious quote from April 6th - It opens up the lens more (larger aperture) and seems to give me more power on the Reds:
So if Daguin can test it in a Red OC,
then it will actually determine if the larger open aperture has a positive effect on Red power output.

The more testing done at actual collimation points...
the more we will understand about proper lens design AND optimum mounting configurations.

LarryDFW
 
Last edited:

Benm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
8,113
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

To make fair comparisons, i think its important to take measurements both at close range focus and at infinity focus. Especially the opened aperatures show differences here - which can be very important at close range, but of no meaning when focussing at infinite for lightshows, pointing and such.
 

LarryDFW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
1,579
Points
63
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Benm;

I appreciate your ideas on several testing focal points.

I do however think that there is only ''one focal point'' where focusing for long distances is achieved.

That makes it the best practical point for comparative testing between lenses.

Most of the lens testing I have seen on LPF, does not even specify the lens focus position.

LarryDFW
 
Last edited:

jayrob

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
9,874
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Saying 'focus to infinity' is not a good way to describe any focal point... (I see you changed it to say 'long distance' now)

The beam divergence will continue to widen out no matter what focal point you have it at.

Better to just focus all lenses at the same exact focal point for all testing. I use a 30' distance for my reference. (best visual dot at 30')
Jay

P.S. If you decide to use a cut down spring, it is easy to bend the cut end to a shape that does not scrape any metal. I put this in my instruction sheet, but it is an obvious thing to do.
 

jayrob

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
9,874
Points
113
Re: Jayrob VS. LarryFDFW AR lens VS. Aixiz standar

Miloš said:
I'll try to do this as simply and as fairly as i can considering lack of time. I understand there is competition between two parties and [highlight]even blames of "unfair play" so whatever needs to be added to this thread, feel free to state as long as it is A FACT! [/highlight]

best regards

Miloš

I hate to have to say this, but I want to set the record straight...

I showed my idea of mounting this lens into an AixiZ module in my original thread on March 6, 2009. This thread:
http://laserpointerforums.com/laser_pointer_forums_3/forum/showthread.php?t=20112#7

I decided to start selling them on March 9, 2009:
http://laserpointerforums.com/laser_pointer_forums_3/forum/showthread.php?t=20112&page=2#32

On March 10th, Larry posted in my thread saying that he has been testing a similar lens.
LarryDFW said:
Jayrob;

I think that you and I are both testing the same lens.

Mine is the same diameter, back focal length, NA, *and low-loss @ 400-600 nm.

I have been getting extremely good results as well.


LarryDFW

Then on March 11th, he posted this in my thread:
LarryDFW said:
From the info Igor has posted, his best lens has a NA of ( .55).

This new lens has a higher NA which should:

1. capture more power from the diode

AND

2. give a smaller beam diameter.

Those are the lens qualities I require for my UV & Red lasers.

I appreciate the work that Igor has done ...

but it has been months of waiting.

LarryDFW

P.S. *I expect to be buying a quantity of the bare lenses. * :cool:

Then on March 14th, he posted this picture to try to say that he has been doing the same AixiZ modification:
LarryDFW said:
I have been working on this new lens and Aixiz assembly for a couple of weeks now.

[highlight]I just ran across this picture [/highlight]of the original glass lens disassembled:

The plano-convex lens on the right has the most curvature. *
This is the assembly before modification for the new 405nm high NA lens and spacer.

You power-hungry types are going to love this lens.

LarryDFW

Just so happen to run accros the picture huh...

Obviously he got the idea from what I showed. Otherwise he would have mentioned it right from the start of my thread when I showed my modification. (or in his first post)

I have no Patent on this, and there is nothing I can really do about it. But I just want to set the record straight. And it is not cool to copy somebody else's design and sell right along side them.

I show details so that others can DIY. Not to copy and start selling basically the same thing that I am selling...
Jay
 
Last edited:




Top