UCL Lens for Arc 4+

hi guys, i was wondering if anybody has the UCL or the UCL-LDF lens for their Arc 4+ from flashlightlens.com? How much of a difference do they actually make?

[ QUOTE ]
neo_xeno said:
hi guys, i was wondering if anybody has the UCL or the UCL-LDF lens for their Arc 4+ from flashlightlens.com? How much of a difference do they actually make?

[/ QUOTE ]
A post stated 12% increase with the UCL.

Much better with glass

I just asked my older son: What do you think a glass lens with 99% transmittance looks like.
He answered correctly: You just can't see it.
I like it.
The UCL-LDF widens the beam nicely if you need that.

I just wanted to start a thread that I found the perfect tool (for me) to change the lens:
It is a tool for opening watches und it is easy to adjust:



For people in old Europe: it is Conrad's #800017

I bought the UCL lens for the Arc 4+ and I can't say I can tell a difference in brightness, but the lens looks good, is much, much easier to clean, and much more scratch resistant

The tool I used to change the lens was a snap ring tool I bought at my local tool store and it works perfectly.

[ QUOTE ]
PeLu said:
I just asked my older son: What do you think a glass lens with 99% transmittance looks like.
He answered correctly: You just can't see it.
I like it.
The UCL-LDF widens the beam nicely if you need that.

I just wanted to start a thread that I found the perfect tool (for me) to change the lens:
It is a tool for opening watches und it is easy to adjust:



For people in old Europe: it is Conrad's #800017

[/ QUOTE ]

I purchased this same tool a couple months ago, but haven't tried it yet. Did you have to heat the bezel before taking the ring off?

When I changed the lens in my Arc 4+, the threaded ring that retains the lens wasn't very tight and unthreaded easily.

[ QUOTE ]
this_is_nascar said:
[ QUOTE ]
PeLu said:
I just asked my older son: What do you think a glass lens with 99% transmittance looks like.
He answered correctly: You just can't see it.
I like it.
The UCL-LDF widens the beam nicely if you need that.

I just wanted to start a thread that I found the perfect tool (for me) to change the lens:
It is a tool for opening watches und it is easy to adjust:



For people in old Europe: it is Conrad's #800017

[/ QUOTE ]

I purchased this same tool a couple months ago, but haven't tried it yet. Did you have to heat the bezel before taking the ring off?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have that wrench and mine was tight. I burred the two slots I used. Somebody suggested that they filled the smallest pins to give a radius to fit better, whish I would have done that.

I'm getting another bezel nut with my Rev2Arc4+

I didn't heat mine and it came off very easily. I used an automotive screw type lock ring removal tool using the smallest pins. fits perfect, note the groves in arc retaining ring are oval.

I noticed a huge diffence on level 16. for some reason the eye noticed the increase.

Although it's not a very apparent increase to my eyes, I replaced two ARC 4+ lens with UCL's and got 19-20% increase according to my light meter. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif

Just curious... replace any lens on ARC4 will void warranty?

[ QUOTE ]
this_is_nascar said:
I purchased this same tool a couple months ago, but haven't tried it yet. Did you have to heat the bezel before taking the ring off?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not. It worked easier than expected. I tried it first with lockring pliers and I was not able to do it at the first few tries, so left it until I got this tool yesterday.

Yep,

UCL = Brighter, better and won't scratch as easy.
I have no use for the LDF lens.
Mike /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

When comparing the original lens with the UCL lens, you should specify whether the former still had the lens protector in situ. I was convinced that removing this little plastic film resulted in a small but noticeable increase in brightness. I have recently bought the UCL lens as well, but I haven't had any luck removing the retaining ring on my 4+ yet. I don't think I could justify buying special tools for this one operation even if I had any idea where to find them. Is there a way to remove the ring without special tools?

Stathis

Since I have a Rev 2 on order, couple questions then:

1) Has anyone done a dunk test on this? I'm very concerned because, if I remember correctly, the UCL is not the same thickness. The Waterproofing, to me, on the Arc 4 is one of the major selling points. I won't trade brightness for waterproofness. EVER.

2) Stemming off the space issue: Is there need for a Gasket? Or an O-ring? The UCL is glass after all..

3) Pics of and Arc with the UCL in it?

Brian

I have a first and a second Arc4+. I bought some lenses about two months ago for them from flashlightlens.com I bought a UCL and a UCL LDF and I only just changed them out with the watch bezel remover. I don't know if the lenses that he sells now are the same or not. I believe they are.

I scavenged the o rings from the head of a maglight aa and used them below the bezel nut to protect the lense and fill the space. Without the oring the ucl w/o ldf (it went into the first) rattled so I was positive that it wouldn't have been waterproof. It was a little bit tricky putting the oring into the first because it wants to roll up a little. I just did it slowly and paid attention and managed to get the lense and oring in snug without any rattle. Next, I did the blow test by removing the head and blowing first through the top and then through the bottom, it passed. Next, I filled a class of water, checked to insure that the other joints were snug , turned the light on level 4 and kerplunk- dropped my 180.00 light into the water. I watched it for about 30 seconds and had no rising bubbles from the bezel and (it went in switch end first so that the bezel was facing up) I noticed no water entering either. The Arc4 was removed and I looked closely at the lense and bezel area (I didn't go so far as to disassemble it) and saw nothing that would indicate that the waterproofing had been compromised.

Let me say also that I was really surprised when I saw the thickness of the original lense. It really is a beefy chunk of lexan. I have pocket clip carried my arc 4 since I got it (about 3 weeks after they started shipping) and I work as an electrician so the film had gotten scratched and cruddy and it had slight bubbles under it to begin with which affected the beam so I removed it and started fresh with a nice clean suface (The beam is better without the film even when the lexan isn't scratched). Within 6 weeks I'd scratched up the lexan pretty good to the point where it affected the beam and so thats when I changed it to the ucl. The difference between ucl and scratched lexan is amazing. The beam is clearly brighter and cleaner. Not to mention that when I look at the reflector end of the light it is an obvious improvement. I also know that in six weeks it will still be clear. It isn't maintenance free. I feel that it is important to pull the bezel nut every few months or so to look for chips around the outside of the lense just to make sure it is still waterproof. Because of this I'll buy another lense or two to have on deck.

Sorry no pics but it looks much better.

I'm still skeptical concerning the durability of the UCL. I know that I can throw my Arc4+ against the wall and the Lexan won't break. I'm not sure I can say tha about the UCL.

the ucl's should be quite durable. they're thick and they're small. but of course they won't be as durable as the lexan lenses.

if your criteria is better output and scratch resistance, than you want ucl.

if your main concern is durability, then you want lexan.

What exactly is the difference between the UCL and the UCL LDF lens? I know that the UCL has a MgF2 anti-reflective coating on both sides and that the UCL-LDF has a Lexan diffusion film applied to one side, but what difference does that make?

LDF makes the beam more flooded instead of having a hot spot in the middle