UF-1505 and No Focus?

That’s probably why they are so cheap. I guess this is a case when you can’t have your cake and eat it too :~

How about the 1405/1504? Is there any good quality lens that has larger aperture and gives better throw?

I guess that in a <$20 host you shouldn't expect world-class optical glass. For good glass I'm guessing that you will spend far more than that just for the lens itself, never mind the rest of the light.

I think even MEM would not find appropriate lenses for this flashlight without changing look of flashlight(by adding big spacer, or machining), or loosing defocusing/zoom out performance. You could fit various 66 mm lenses but then you'll loose defocus ability. I know you have Xsearcher lenses so try to put those... You'll need extra big spacer for this :)

Sounds like the problem isn’t that they didn’t use high quality glass though. Rather it’s that the lens is improperly shaped so only 57% of it is actually an asphere.

At least that’s my understanding form the above posts. I’ve seen plenty of small budget aspheric lights with optical acrylic lenses with plenty of throw. It should be possible to have a properly shaped lens even in a budget light.

I surely never expected it; they can’t even figure out what wire gauge standards are for, let alone lens design. :bigsmile: I’ve been working with high-grade lenses for many moons now, and you won’t see one from a low-end flashlight maker, ever. Because it’s not just shape, and clarity/smoothness. No no no.

I’ve never seen a lens with an angle done so wrong that light rays exceed the refractive index and bounce all the way up to the near center (!) They likely copied another manufacturer’s aspheric formula on a 35mm lens, or used the same mold specs, and thought they had their golden ticket to the chocolate. But the fools were so incompetent at the task that they figured their flint glass was going to bend light the same as the barium crown or lanthanum crown glass the formula was possibly intended for. The problem was it didn’t. So their focal length spec they likely copied with the formula never even got close to matching the design intended focal point. Makes perfect sense why they would expect focus when all went wrong. Better glasses bend rays with less material (and thus less loss and less aberration).

I can come back later with a mention about the 1504 lens. I’ll take some pics which might help. But I’ll PM you. This thread is about the lil fellows.

Oh, here, this helps what I was saying make more sense. Forgot to post it.

I imagine you can figure out what’s going on as self-explanatory based on the data types.

Dear Lord,

MEM this is not for redneck like myself... I am going to drink bear now and take some popcorns

I don’t know what it is about you, but I do crack up every time I hear another “Dear Lord” out of you, Luminarium. …And to try and picture some foreigner redneck, who’s going to “take some popcorn”…I don’t even know where to begin on that statement. :beer: :bigsmile:

:) Yes I really did drink one bear before bed... I am also trying to learn(and I did learned a lot past few years) something from scientist guys here but when it comes to some serious talk; I never been on college so the bear and popcorn is only thing I can ;) I like you guys... Really...

MEM is one of the coolest guys that appeared here.

Edit: To get on with a subject

I’m curious what part of the bear you drink. Personally, I find beer more effective at diluting the confusion when it gets too deep.

Hahha :) bear. I am really stupid although I ate bear once.

I really meant beer. English ain't my native tongue :)

Refractive index of 1505 lenses guys...

i received my uf-1505 today. it seem to focus well enough for me to see the dots in the xm-l2.
i tried my uf-t20 lens on the uf-1505 as well, and to my eye they seem to be of similar quality.
the uf-1505 has alu-pill though, thought they would come with brass pills like the uf-t20.

Sounds like there is some big batch-to-batch variance. Mine do not focus fully like yours does.

My 1505 lens is worse than my T20 lens, I was disappointed about that :-( It is not a focussing problem, the produced image of the die is more blurry.

I won the lens lottery, but lost the pill lottery then :stuck_out_tongue:
The T20 doesn’t have any focus stop neither, else than the lens.
I’ll have to look for a brass pill, so I can try to solder a copper star directly to the pill.

Can you post pictures of your 1505 like I did?

We need some raw photo evidence showing what is going on where with these designs. I’m wondering if there might be a pill from another light that interchanges with the 1505, and “hybrids” are being made.

Focus can ALWAYS be corrected with a cheap lens, to bring the light into correct focus, without modding any of the metal or original lens—assuming the original lens doesn’t have giant malformations created in molding process. That is, a small lens (10-20mm diameter depending on design and focal length), near the LED would be set into place. This can even make poor lenses perform better, regardless of if they achieve focus or not originally. The problem with big-dome (low F#) lenses is (sometimes extreme) aberration. The aberration can be sometimes taken care of to great deals with the right lens near the de-domed LED. It all depends how close that 1st lens will end up being to the LED. There’s no set equation that tells you what small lens you need that works, practically speaking anyways.

i would say that mine looks like yours, but it’s an alu-pill instead of the brass in yours. both lenses and pills are exhangeable between my uf-t20 and the uf-1505
pic taken ~20cm from the lens, showing a dedomed xm-l2:
and a couple of other pics:

edit: uploaded pics to imgur

Your photo links are throwing back errors from Google. Probably a session link expired or something weird. Upload them to Imgur.com, it’s a no-BS photo host site that’s fast and forever.

i was lazy and thought i could use my phone and just upload to google photos, but apparently that wasn’t the case. i could see them on the computer but not on the phone. i can’t believe it still isn’t even easier to share pictures…