Magicshine lens- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Magicshine lens

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    574

    Magicshine lens

    I noticed that the glass lens is super reflective. Would there be any benefit in replacing the magicshine's lens with something like the glass from a photographic UV filter? I'm thinking something with a anti-reflective coating of some sort with a high transmission %.

    Think this would help free some lost lumens, or would it just be a waste of a good filter?

  2. #2
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,117
    It's just glass. A mere 8% Fresnel loss. It might look super reflective in certain circumstances but it's not that big of a deal.

    I say don't waste your money on trying to grab that extra light on a cheap light. The eye needs factors of two to really notice a difference.

    BTW, a photographic UV filter actually reduces the light...from the UV. Wouldn't help here anyway. If you wanted to spend a lot of money, you would buy a window with a visible AR coating--lots of money for 8% of the output.

    If you are bold, just remove the window and run naked.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    574
    That's what I figured. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10
    Any good optics store can send to apply antireflective coatings to glass and in some good framing stores, they use antireflective coated glass for conservation of fine art , but I dought they can cut such a small diameter circle of glass ...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cat-man-do's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,047
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman View Post
    It's just glass. A mere 8% Fresnel loss. It might look super reflective in certain circumstances but it's not that big of a deal.

    I say don't waste your money on trying to grab that extra light on a cheap light. The eye needs factors of two to really notice a difference.

    BTW, a photographic UV filter actually reduces the light...from the UV. Wouldn't help here anyway. If you wanted to spend a lot of money, you would buy a window with a visible AR coating--lots of money for 8% of the output.

    If you are bold, just remove the window and run naked.
    My thoughts....As stated, you "might not" notice the difference, particularly if the you use lights at higher lumen level. However, I say go for it. Personally, if I remove dust from one of my torches I can tell the difference. Then again I have the benefit of the "before and after". If I could eliminate thermal and optic losses regardless of the percentage as long as the cost were not extensive and the refit not tedious I think I'd go for it.

    Anyway, lenses with anti-reflective coatings are not that expensive. They should be included standard on any light sold.
    Last edited by Cat-man-do; 09-20-2011 at 02:26 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dereknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by ckesinis View Post
    Any good optics store can send to apply antireflective coatings to glass and in some good framing stores, they use antireflective coated glass for conservation of fine art , but I dought they can cut such a small diameter circle of glass ...
    The TruVue Picture framing AR Reflection-Free glass is 2.5mm thick. Has less than 1% light reflection and will transmit over 97% of light. It's not a conservation grade as only blocks 78% of UV. Conservation glass and Museum glass blocks 99% UV
    youtube / strava. Back on a bike after 25years

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.