UF-1505 and No Focus?

I purchased a bunch of the UF 150X series lights, all of them focus except one, the UF 1505. This light interested me because it’s not bulky, it’s fairly small, using a 38mm lens. The lens it comes with is a short FL lens because there is so much of a dome to the lens. But the issue seems to be in the design, with the one I received, there’s no way to even get close to focus. It’s not something that’s so small it would be solved by a dedome which adds about ~2mm of focal distance. The focus is close to 5mm off. Way off. Meaning that, the image of the LED will not appear at maximum distance of available thread focus, unless the bezel is unscrewed, and the lens is held close to where the bezel threads end (which is roughly 5mm).

Someone who has this light on here told me theirs focused. I’m wondering, how? Do any of you own a 1505 who could provide input on your build, does it look like mine? I kept mine stock so there are no other “mod” factors at play when this was noticed and to photo it.

It also has NO front stop for focus. Mean that, it runs the pill right into the lens when zoomed wide! This may have be what caused the glass rim to shatter on my light. The first time I took the bezel off, glass pieces of the rim fell out, and I caught this second problem. A pill usually has an overhang to stop it from impacting a lens. You never want this to happen, so why it isn’t in place or designed there like the other 1504s and 1503s alludes me.

Here are the pics of mine:

This final photo shows how far away from focus it is, taken at 3 feet away (sufficient check distance for a smaller lens as this), the whole lens should be yellow if in-focus, the fact that you can see the whole LED and area around it at this distance tells you it’s still far from achieving focus.

Any input would be appreciated. Trying to figure out if they put a different lens in mine, machined it differently, or what. But the design of the specific light I have is whacked to say the least.

I’ve built a couple of 1505’s, and I agree that they don’t focus as consistently as the good T20’s I’ve gotten. Since you have a lathe, cut down the face that you mount the MCPCB to by a couple mm, and do the same to the bottom side of the upper lip of the pill or add an o-ring under the lens. It’s not the best deal to have to do this much to them, but it’ll get you in focus without too much loss in heatsinking capability.

By the way, I’m not ignoring your emails about the lenses, been a weird week and I’m working on replacing the power supply on the testing rail so I can go up to 8A and swap out emitters quickly and easily. If your phone’s up again I’ll give you a call tonight.

Yeah, I mean my whole plan was actually to use the Edmund 38.4x30FL lens, combined with a meniscus so it will focus, as I bought one and it is one darn good lens at this size, and the only option really. I feared that if I make something standard for the setup, it may not be so “standard” if 1505s aren’t even achieving focus. I mean 5-6mm off from the factory is BAD. To have one that does focus, would need an entirely different lens profile. So the whole deal is confusing to me when someone says they have one that focuses. Made me feel like maybe 2 lenses were going in these lights, spec’d ones that were correct, and non-spec lenses they drop in when they run out that day. :wink:

Motorola sent me an email after I successfully ordered an “in stock” Moto X Pure, saying something to the nature of, “We’re sorry but (we made a mistake and) your phone will be sent (likely) by October 10th.” That’s what I got out of the email without quoting word for word. So yeah I’m a little anxious at this point. I feel like I’m back in the 90s again, I bought a home phone! :bigsmile:

I will PM you about some other stuff after I get back from an Autocad class tonight I’m leaving to now.

Wait until you see what I’ve got printing out…it may not be done by the end of class but it mounts to my lens stages and holds something 200mm diameter that’s clear and round, and weighs 5lbs. :wink:

So I checked a couple bone stock 1505’s and T20’s. The 1505’s all underfocus slightly, while the T20’s overfocus slightly. I’m guessing something changed in the head movement in the crossover and we lost the extra travel that makes LED’s on Noctigon’s focus well, being thicker.

OK,

What exactly do you mean “in the crossover”? Through a design change from T20 to UF1505 what you’re saying?

They’re not the same lens I was told. But what do I know without both…

Ok, with o-ring below lens (factory setup), upstairs from my computer to the wall, at max focus it was flooding that entire wall. Kind of like, “hmm, is there a square in there somewhere?” Where other lights are throwing out a 1x1 ft square, I.E. 2x2ft square would be a 1504 stock domed as that is about 8 meters from PC.

The dome is a collimator. So it’s just like a second positive lens of course, and when you de-dome, you need more travel to achieve focus. Sure, I know how to make a 1505 focus perfect with machine work, lol, and it will also kill a 1503, with machine work. But the general question is, do these Chinese have ANY standards when they venture into flashlight land, or is it just “rob the Americans”!? I get the budget thing for non modders who think 50-60Kcd is cool, but honestly, it’s been less hassle, less work, buying better lights that cost more, that have HAIII ano, driver at higher starting current, or better driver to bump from, etc etc. The budget thing is basically to your doorstep. Say goodbye to the budget getting the lights to even run right.

An Olight or Fenix; there’s way more work and “mods” stock done to them at the factory for me to just drop a lens in with a printed spacer, sell it and call it a day. 1504/1503 I have to sandblast, coat, turn this, replace that, copper here. Just saying, I’m not buying into this whole budget thing. Feels more like a ripoff if you ask me and someone else is laughing. But no one asked me. So I’ll zip it before I get fired up on that subject. :zipper_mouth_face: (Had a really bad Gearbest experience, I’m ready to let loose on them right now.)

Both of my Uniquefire T20 and 1405 are underfocus a lot. For my 1405 I had to add another “o-ring” to lift the position of the lens a bit and now it can fully focus, but the bezel cannot be fully screwed down (no longer water tight); As for the T20 there is no any solution that I can think of yet, so it is left in the dust until today.

Since both of my Uniquefire lights have focusing issue, I wonder if everyone else’s are okay. I think I am going to find replacement lens for my 1405 and T20 with shorter focal length, but it is really not easy to find a good one. I think the problem is not on the host because they are CNC machined and CNC machining is very accurate. I believe the quality of these lenses are really inconsistent.

Hi there guys,

I have one 1503 with 260 kcd(most of them are from 220-240 kcd) so I am really interested how you will beat that. Even with RA it will be hard to beat this.

Yes each of this lights 1504 and 1503 has overfocus/underfocus... If you get overfocused one that is cool :) cause it is easy to solve that. If you get one with underfocus you got to put thicker o ring or machine a pill a bit :)

Bibihang problem is 100% in host itself... They literary have slightly different hosts among same batch of flashlights I don't know wtf is going on with them but when I look 1503 heads on table underfocused model looks differently done than overfocused one. Yes on first they look the same but underfocused one is slightly more sharper cone made while overfocused has wider cone... Crazy :) I laughed when I discoverd that.

Guys I am death serious about this.

So maybe UF day shift uses one cnc program, and night shift other... This is lol... but true :)

If you ordered about 50 pcs like I did take them on the table and I guarantee that you'll find they are differently made just with simple eye method on the table.

I like cheap price of them, they can be easy modded once when you figure them out but they are far far away from good stock flashlights. As MEM said ton of modifications to make something out of them. Reversed engineering brings us good stuff and we bite on them like fish on lure :) :)

It wouldn’t be done with the bad lenses first of all. Would use Edmund for max gain in this light—or one other possibly. With the right pair of lenses, driver, LED, and right mirror, 38mm lens can beat 300Kcd. Maxed out in the design…325-350Kcd depending on color. Not for long though. Cooling (lack thereof) will pull it down into 200s. A 50mm full lens setup can get over 750Kcd now.

This isn’t 3-4 years ago where it would be impossible—this is now with S4s at 50% more output than then; then the output intensity is doubled with a mirror.

MEM this is the part I almost drop from chair :)

This is technology that can make you rich once you protect patent. 750 kcd for hunting in small package? Dear Lord... It would be good if defocusing would work in flashlight cause it will be to bright on shorter distances...

If a zoomie’s lens doesn’t extend far enough, try filing down the lip of the pill. This can be done with a handfile while the pill is installed inside the light with the bezel off. Just make sure to use a file that only has ridges on the side you’re filing. Or if you have a lathe grind it down a bit further.

If the lens extends too far, make a bend a thin strip of aluminum into a c-ring and put it inside the head of the light below the pill. It may take some trial and error to get the right thickness of c-ring.

Not having a stop on the bezel resulting in the lens shattering? Ouch! That just sounds like poor design.

I haven’t run them through a rigorous lab test to confirm, but they sure look like identical lenses to me. If anything looks slightly different it’s possible the asphere is shaped a little differently.

luminarium iaculator, thanks for the information. Guess I got bad luck and received both of them machined with the wrong CNC program lol.

MEM, what is the “right mirror” that you use to produce that incredible throw?

You’re telling me. Which means I ask, how many other 1505 owners ran their pill right into the lens and cracked the rim? Probably not as many that want to admit to it, but I sure as heck don’t go putting tremendous pressure on a thread when I feel a stop, and mine was cracked. I never heard it crack. I just know, when taken apart, there fell the pieces.

It’s a 16 layer mirror, designed to reflect certain amounts of R,G, and B. When the ratio is right, and the mirror is on a surface that is “correct”, a nuclear bomb of photons detonates. If diameter, optical surface, aperture, or mirror reflection percentage combination is not optimal, well then it’s just like a bomb that only achieved a partial detonation. :slight_smile:

Let’s go back some years in a thought experiment. The light which first used my instruction set for this mirror achieved over 1Mcd (mega not milli), using a 70mm lens diameter. It used an LED at the time which, domed, was making 900-950 lumens depending on the cherry pick. Fast forward until now. The same die size is capable of 1500 lumens when cherry picked. Simple math says the same design would be at 1.6Mcd. But the LED hasn’t just changed—a lot has—the mirror, the lenses, the phosphor. Typical 2B-tint phosphor isn’t even the optimal phosphor to amplify, but it still works better than some did a few years back.

A mirror is the most effective collimation device. There’s no chromatic aberration, it’s easier to tell a machine to make right through vacuum deposition, too. This is why reflector lights were the thing (who am I kidding, to the world they still are). But when you use a mirror to put all of the lost energy in a pattern back on the source, then stream that beam through a lens, efficiency approaches 95%+ with an LED’s output. Intensity almost cannot get any higher from the LED once the optical portion using glass substrates is nearly perfected and put in front of the coupled output. Though I like to see data, and where the average is at out there, what most expect from a system—it doesn’t change a thing about the way I am setting up what I’m doing in my system. Majority does and achieves something which they report, but that does not make it the barrier of what is achievable. I like to look for the anomalies, and figure out what made them the anomaly. It involves more thinking at times, questioning why this company did “this” and that company did “that”, but then something might seem to click or make sense. If it tests in a simple experiment, and makes sense still, I usually know I’m onto something. Then I pursue it. I’ve wasted more money than I’ve saved while trying new ideas, but it’s often the only choice I have without backing.

Patents are fairly insecure at times. Someone can buy a lawyer that can spot a flaw in your patents wording, exploit it, and get around your entire patent. I’ve worked with attorneys and seen the cases. Today, more often than not, a patent helps get you started, creates a delay when done right, but if a bigger company wants the idea, they can get it without paying you. The difference is money and who the money will benefit. A patent from me can be written as well as one from Honda. But, who do you think will have the funds to dispute the actions to the final straw when violation is detected? Honda can throw the money out in sacks, while I would risk losing my sack. :wink: Everyone’s on the “get a patent train”, but it’s as corrupt a system as a Chicago task force. Especially in the technology fields. Just producing the patent also advertises the patent for big companies to hone in on. My best chance is most likely a Kick-starter campaign or similar, something that can spring my technology into market quickly, and run with what can be had before the 400 others follow me down a field they didn’t know was there to manufacture the same products. I’m considering this as an option, and working with a team to potentially get there. Until then, it’s all a hobby for me.

KKW, two lenses can have the same shape. Same grind and mold. But the percentages of the two materials used to produce them can vary, and render them two entirely different lenses with different focal lengths. If you don’t believe me, learn about “refractive index”.

Try the T20. I have a few 1505s and the T20s are better if you care about the zoomed in die. The lenses are very similar, if not identical. The 1505s just don't thread out far enough and none of my stock ones achieve 100%, or even 95% focus. You could machine or sand a bit off of the host, but having to do this on each host is a big waste of time when you can get something that is closer to begin with.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I wonder if UF received 50 emails—since they likely have received 0 on the issue—they would change the body.

Are there many many already made? Yes. We would have to “buy through” them to get anywhere. But if they at least know, maybe we could see a design update. It is a frustrating let down. The pills accept 20mm PCBs with a copper slab under them. Spotted that right away. Then went to focus one. NOPE!

I really don't get such manufacturer behavior. Cant they have one guy that can test their design before selling?

That is quite an impactful finding. :beer: I guess you have a Ph.D or something in this stuff.

Do you think that with your mirror system, will it make any difference in the produced candela when using a dedomed emitter instead? Or the mirror system has pretty much done “all the jobs” to improve the luminance already and we don’t even need to dedome our emitters anymore?

You can probably make your own stop. Cut a piece of aluminum sheet into a strip and then bend the stip into a ring. Wrap it completely around the battery tube. Use aluminum that is thick enough to prevent the bezel from sliding past it.

Once you have thing ring cut to shape and sanded to look good, glue it in place with arctic alumina thermal epoxy.

I’m gonna fix this light. One of those “on a whim” decisions. Looks too easy not to mess with it. It’s not worth the hassle, maybe, but the bezel holds a $40 lens of mine; I want that lens in there. :slight_smile: It’s B270 glass, keep float crud glass when that lens fits? I think not. :wink:

Small update. It is no wonder the UFs (some models) develop extremely poor intensity. The 1505 lens is 35mm asphere diameter, and I found its clear aperture to be ~20mm. That’s 57% of asphere diameter. A quality lens produces around 90% clear aperture of asphere diameter.

Translation: There are quality 24mm aspheres which can yield higher intensity and higher total output than the stock 1505’s 35mm lens. :frowning: