Mobius Telephoto Dashcam

Well done on the telephoto lens changes and for sharing the results. I'm not a big fan of the wide angle dash cameras and how hard they make it to read licence plates.

I've changed lenses on some IP Cameras and had some great results, those same lenses will fit on the Mobius- I just never thought about it! I've bought a couple of "Starlight" lenses (Starlight referring to Dahua's range of low light IP Cameras) but am a bit dubious about some of the claims and f stop data published. eg. I went from a factory fitted f2.0 to f1.5 lens and couldn't notice any improvement in low light performance. (The "Starlight" lenses I purchased are not the same as shown earlier on in the thread.)

Not wanting to go off topic, but has anyone looked into changing the lens on the A119? The higher pixel count with a tighter view could be very good.
 
Some random info on IP cameras- the ones I've pulled apart use a mechanically operated IR filter that is fitted in between the lens and sensor. It can be moved in or out to allow for the cameras to operate using IR light at night. Some of the lenses specify if they have IR correction, I believe that's to do with the focal point difference between sunlight and the artificial IR light? Dashmellow- you'd probably know more about that??
 
It's interesting that your car has IR blocking glass. It really changes the whole equation for using lenses with no IR-cut filters. It would be interesting to see what effects you may or may not get at different times of day or night.

As for gluing the filters on using silicone sealant or adhesive, I hope that works out OK without damaging the lens or filter. Most silicones release copious amounts of acetic acid fumes during cure (which is why it smells like vinegar) and in a similar way that ethyl cyanoacrylate (super glue) releases fumes that can damage lenses and filters, so too can silcone sealants. You'll know by tomorrow. If anything gets damaged more likely it will be the dichroic filter, I think. Maybe it'll be ok?

You might enjoy playing around with some of the RGB settings with these lenses like I did in my Varifocal IR lens thread. Some of the settings I used in the first mSetup screen shot would be a good starting point.

I discovered the windshield doesn't block IR, only the side and back windows
 
So, methanol is the "only" volatile, hazardous ingredient in the Loctite Extreme glue you recommend that may have potential for damaging the lens or filters or cause a health issue? What about the Trimethoxyvinylsilane, (Methoxycarbonyl)aminomethyl trimethoxy silane, or 1,8-Diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene?

Nope, I never recommended it, only mentioned that it might be a viable option. I don't plan on eating, inhaling, bathing in, or setting firing to any adhesive (nor do I recommend it to others :)) so I'm not concerned one bit of the hazards to myself especially when they are at such a low concentration and volume usage. Methanol (fumes) is the only hazardous ingredient that would be exposed to the lens/filter due to degassing which isn't damaging to optics. Of course the others are hazardous as well but at a high concentration, not at 1-5%, 0.1-1%, and 0.1-1% respectively. The product is listed as odorless (SDS) / low odor (TDS). The precautions are overly cautious for lawsuit purposes.

"If none of the other chemicals in the product are harmful to the optics it's a very good option" as you put it seems a rather big "if", if you ask me.

Considering that these pieces are dispensable there's no big if.

I'm very skeptical that this stuff would be a very good choice for our purposes but perhaps you might like to try it and report back to us..

Whatever product(s) I decide to use will be reported. I have to wait for my lenses and filters to arrive which is probably going to be a while.

That product (Norland 83H) costs 50 dollars per one ounce bottle and so, like all the other commercially available optical cements is why it is not worth considering or even discussing for our purposes unless we have money to burn to mount one or two filters to any of these low cost lenses. What is "typically used for our dash cams lenses" is likely some similar commercial optical cement but it is done in a factory setting where the cost of the product and the equipment for properly applying and curing it is part of the cost of doing business on a manufacturing scale.

My point in stating these products wasn't for our adhesive use but for showing the wide range of optical adhesive products and their temperature ranges. This also correlates with the UV adhesive pen you will be using since I highly doubt it uses an adhesive with the proper operating temperature for our needs. I'd hate for the filter to pop off and do damage to your sensor. I would be apprehensive of that product since there are zero specifications and the reviews are less than stellar.

In the end, the more products that we use and contribute to the forum will benefit all.

Manufacturing in China is cheap and I wouldn't put it past them to use a cheap non-optical adhesive. That question was more rhetorical.
 
Some random info on IP cameras- the ones I've pulled apart use a mechanically operated IR filter that is fitted in between the lens and sensor. It can be moved in or out to allow for the cameras to operate using IR light at night. Some of the lenses specify if they have IR correction, I believe that's to do with the focal point difference between sunlight and the artificial IR light? Dashmellow- you'd probably know more about that??

I recently posted a picture of one such assembly in an adjacent thread:
https://dashcamtalk.com/forum/threads/mobius-varifocal-zoom-ir.30602/page-8

I am planning to salvage the IR filter and use UV cured epoxy to mount it in my F1.2 lens. I have some Loctite 352 at work I can "borrow" a few drops and cure it with my Nitecore CU6 UV light which claims 3000 mA UV emitor @365 nm.
 

Epoxy might work but it could be tricky to work with and there wouldn't much room for error.

I'm not sure food grade epoxy would make a difference for our purposes. With food grade epoxy adhesives the idea is that they are completely inert once they have fully cured. But that doesn't mean that during the curing process when there is a reaction going on between the two epoxy components that chemical fumes are not being released that could negatively effect the delicate dielectric coatings on the dichroic filter or lens surface.

I guess it could be worth a try. I think one idea with any of these adhesive suggestions might be to apply a dab to pieces of scrap glass, plastic and metal and then observe closely to see if there is any fogging or other evidence of outgassings near the glue. For me, I've got a couple of IR-cut filters from old CCTV cameras I've dismantled along with some old crappy dash cam lenses from old cameras that I can experiment with before committing to a lens I wouldn't want to damage.
 
Some random info on IP cameras- the ones I've pulled apart use a mechanically operated IR filter that is fitted in between the lens and sensor. It can be moved in or out to allow for the cameras to operate using IR light at night. Some of the lenses specify if they have IR correction, I believe that's to do with the focal point difference between sunlight and the artificial IR light? Dashmellow- you'd probably know more about that??

You bring up an interesting point, although one which is probably more of concern to CCTV cameras with IR cut filters and IR emitters than for us dash cam guys experimenting with aftermarket lenses and IR-cut filters to install. As long as we focus manually for the lens with or without an IR cut filter, things will be in proper focus. Anyway, since you bring it up, I'll talk about it and hope everybody finds it at least somewhat interesting, especially since we're talking about IR cut filters on "IR" CCTV lenses.

On CCTV cameras there is a common problem with focus shift between daylight and at night under artificial IR illumination where images that are sharp and in focus under IR artificial lighting are out of focus in daylight conditions and vice versa. This is because different wavelengths of light have different points of focus on the film plane. In this instance, when infrared wavelengths are in focus, daylight wavelengths are not, as in the example below.

IRfocus.jpg

There are different methods of dealing with this. Some CCTV cameras deal with this in firmware or with specialized corrected lenses or with remote focus lenses that change for the given conditions or some other mechanical technique.

You'll notice that many of these aftermarket lenses we have been talking about are specifically designated "IR" and that means more than just not having an IR-cut filter installed. Often they are specifically designed to optimize focus of IR wavelengths accurately on the sensor plane.

Note that the lens specifically says, "IR". It could easily just not come with an IR-cut filter on it without having to mention "IR".
I'm not sure all these lenses we see that say IR are really IR but some of them do have the correction built in.
IRlens.jpg

Some of you might have noticed red markings on camera lenses you might use on your DSLR cameras and wondered what those extra markings are for. Those markings are meant to allow IR focus compensation for shooting on IR film or modified digital cameras and it's the same IR focus shift thing that happens with CCTV cameras. It's why they are red, of course.

markingsIR.jpg irshift.jpg

Anyway, I've talked about this subject previously and demonstrated it in my Mobius Varifocal IR lens thread in the post where I filmed the foxes at night under IR illumination.

I'll quote what I said in that thread below and post a screen shot for convenience but anyone who wants can go and view the two videos and you'll see that the first one is slightly out of focus and the second one was re-focused for shooting under IR lighting.

"In this video I left the camera exactly as I've had it focused when I use the varifocal lens in my vehicle. In my truck for example, objects within 10 to 20 feet are in tack sharp focus as seen in many of the screen shots in this thread but here with the focus set for daylight the same the video is not quite as focused as it might have been. This is a common issue with IR video and photography because infra-red light wavelengths focus on a different plane on the sensor (slightly in front of or behind) thereby causing a focus shift. IR Focus Shift is the condition that occurs when images that are sharp and in focus under in daylight conditions are out of focus under artificial IR illumination lighting at night and vice versa. In the second video I've corrected the focus for IR and optimized for a close shot."

grayfox.jpg


I recently posted a picture of one such assembly in an adjacent thread:
https://dashcamtalk.com/forum/threads/mobius-varifocal-zoom-ir.30602/page-8

I am planning to salvage the IR filter and use UV cured epoxy to mount it in my F1.2 lens. I have some Loctite 352 at work I can "borrow" a few drops and cure it with my Nitecore CU6 UV light which claims 3000 mA UV emitor @365 nm.

@Radius8, you mentioned that there is an extra filter installed in the IR-cut mechanism you purchased.I've been wondering about that and it is "possible" that this extra filter (which would be inserted into the light path during the day from the looks of your photo) is designed to compensate for the IR focus shift I've been talking about here, but I'm not sure; just speculating.

Also, Loctite 352 seems like it could be a good candidate for mounting IR-cut filters. I see that it is amber in color though and optical cements are clear. Not sure if it matters though.

Here's an article that talks about focus shift in relation to IR corrected lenses.

https://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/Resolving_the_Problem_of_Focus_Shift
 
Last edited:
@Dashmellow,, I'll extract the filters this weekend and run them through one of our research spectrphotometer, for science :).

Here is a shot of the back side of my stock A and C lenses. You can see that that the IR filters are just tacked on with a couple dabs of glue.
ACLensBack.jpg
I should be able to carefully replicate this by using some pointy object like the tip of a needle to apply a tiny amount of glue and immediately cure it before it spreads to undesirable areas. That's one of the advantage of UV cure glues. Almost instant set (using the right lamp).

I think the optical cements that you are referring to (these that are sold by Edmunds Optics for example) are meant to adhere lenses to each other (to make compound lenses for example) so optical transparency and refractive index match is important. In our case, the glue should not be in the optical path so it doesn't matter if it is colored.
 
@Dashmellow,, I'll extract the filters this weekend and run them through one of our research spectrphotometer, for science :).

Here is a shot of the back side of my stock A and C lenses. You can see that that the IR filters are just tacked on with a couple dabs of glue.
View attachment 36019
I should be able to carefully replicate this by using some pointy object like the tip of a needle to apply a tiny amount of glue and immediately cure it before it spreads to undesirable areas. That's one of the advantage of UV cure glues. Almost instant set (using the right lamp).

I think the optical cements that you are referring to (these that are sold by Edmunds Optics for example) are meant to adhere lenses to each other (to make compound lenses for example) so optical transparency and refractive index match is important. In our case, the glue should not be in the optical path so it doesn't matter if it is colored.

OMG!, did those lenses come out of a factory that way? With all the many M12 lenses I've handled I've never seen such a sloppy glue job with so much excess adhesive. The one time I glued an IR-cut filter to the back of a lens I used the tiniest amount I could get away with and that was all I needed. That's what I intend to do again on the next lens.

I think you are right about just using some tack welds in strategic places. That's what I did last time. I've found that a toothpick works well to apply tiny globs of glue because the fibers of the wood seem to hold cement better than a metal needle or similar. Seems to offer more control and less chance of an untimely drip.

I agree that optical cements are clear because they are often intended for bonding lens elements together but so far every IR-cut filter I've ever seen has also been attached with a clear cement. As I mentioned above, I don't see that amber colored cement should be a problem.
 
Yes, these are bone stock lenses from my Mobius. One came with the camera, the other was from a second lens/sensor assembly I bought at the same time. I guess most people don't see this. To be honest, it doesn't appear to impact function so ... meh

The Loctite 352 is pretty viscous (honey consistency) so it should not be a big problem to dab it in just a spot without it wicking away.
 
Yes, these are bone stock lenses from my Mobius. One came with the camera, the other was from a second lens/sensor assembly I bought at the same time. I guess most people don't see this. To be honest, it doesn't appear to impact function so ... meh

The Loctite 352 is pretty viscous (honey consistency) so it should not be a big problem to dab it in just a spot without it wicking away.

No, it doesn't look like the glue job will have an effect on those lenses but I'm just sayin'. The IR filters that Treeye installed on my lenses have a nice kind of precision factory finish look to glue job they did, for example. You need to look very close to even see the cement.

So, I see that Loctite 352 is price similarly to the special purpose optical adhesives from Edmund such as the Norland products. Unfortunatly, that makes it rather impractical for any of us who don't feel like spending 40 dollars or more on 50ml of lens cement. :(

Anyway, looking forward to your results.
 
Nope, I never recommended it, only mentioned that it might be a viable option. I don't plan on eating, inhaling, bathing in, or setting firing to any adhesive (nor do I recommend it to others :)) so I'm not concerned one bit of the hazards to myself especially when they are at such a low concentration and volume usage. Methanol (fumes) is the only hazardous ingredient that would be exposed to the lens/filter due to degassing which isn't damaging to optics. Of course the others are hazardous as well but at a high concentration, not at 1-5%, 0.1-1%, and 0.1-1% respectively. The product is listed as odorless (SDS) / low odor (TDS). The precautions are overly cautious for lawsuit purposes.

The question isn't so much about how hazardous these chemicals might be to your health but how hazardous they might be to your optics. Each of the chemical components of this product are in turn corrosive, reactive or a solvent. So, this is why I'm still skeptical about using this type of product for this purpose. But as you say, you'll never know unless you try it and you seem willing.


Considering that these pieces are dispensable there's no big if.

You haven't identified which lenses or filters you have in mind to use but some of us have lenses and filters (and possibly sensors that could be affected) that we would rather not put at risk.


Whatever product(s) I decide to use will be reported. I have to wait for my lenses and filters to arrive which is probably going to be a while.

Looking forward to your results! :)


My point in stating these products wasn't for our adhesive use but for showing the wide range of optical adhesive products and their temperature ranges.

I guess that seems redundant since the link I posted earlier about optical adhesives when you asked about this mentions Norland products and features 22 different Norland optical adhesives including 83H so I'm not sure what your point is here, but anyway.

This also correlates with the UV adhesive pen you will be using since I highly doubt it uses an adhesive with the proper operating temperature for our needs. I'd hate for the filter to pop off and do damage to your sensor. I would be apprehensive of that product since there are zero specifications and the reviews are less than stellar.

Well, that's why I would test the UV pen product carefully before using it on a final project but either way I don't pay attention to so called "reviews" for things like this from the usual idgits on Amazon who so often don't know what they are doing or what they are blabbering about. When it comes to poor reported performance of products like this on Amazon it's usually self-inflicted user error.

In the end, the more products that we use and contribute to the forum will benefit all.

Agreed

Manufacturing in China is cheap and I wouldn't put it past them to use a cheap non-optical adhesive. That question was more rhetorical.

Disagree. At least, I wouldn't paint China with such a broad negative brush. Treeye for example, who supplies the 4mm and 6mm lenses we are all talking about in this thread sells excellent quality lenses made with precision and very high quality components. The IR filters they installed on the lenses I ordered were beautifully and professionally installed with the appropriate optical cement. I found them to be an honorable and professional outfit to deal with and they stood behind what they sold me even when there was an issue that needed to be resolved. I would recommend them in a heartbeat and next time I'm in the market for the kind of lenses they sell they are the first vendor I'll look to.
 
Epoxy might work but it could be tricky to work with and there wouldn't much room for error.

I'm not sure food grade epoxy would make a difference for our purposes. With food grade epoxy adhesives the idea is that they are completely inert once they have fully cured. But that doesn't mean that during the curing process when there is a reaction going on between the two epoxy components that chemical fumes are not being released that could negatively effect the delicate dielectric coatings on the dichroic filter or lens surface.

I guess it could be worth a try. I think one idea with any of these adhesive suggestions might be to apply a dab to pieces of scrap glass, plastic and metal and then observe closely to see if there is any fogging or other evidence of outgassings near the glue. For me, I've got a couple of IR-cut filters from old CCTV cameras I've dismantled along with some old crappy dash cam lenses from old cameras that I can experiment with before committing to a lens I wouldn't want to damage.

It says on the website that all of the components have to be food safe, so they may at least be less corrosive than the typical toxic ingredients
 
It says on the website that all of the components have to be food safe, so they may at least be less corrosive than the typical toxic ingredients

not sure what they use but I know that dentists use a UV cured adhesive for some of the stuff they do, odds are that wouldn't be giving off anything toxic, no idea what type of glue it is and what the ingredients are, possibly similar to the food safe stuff
 
Here is a source for the Loctite 352 for not $50, just 1/2 that :):

https://www.mcmaster.com/#ultraviolet-curing-adhesives/=1basaef

You need your own UV curing light though. Unfortunately, these are meant to cure at 265 and 250 nm. Most cheap UV LEDs put out light at much higher wavelenghts (400 nm) :(. Bug lights and "black lights" may work too.

Not the best bang for the buck if all you use it for is attaching a couple filters on your lenses. However, I am sure that other uses can be found for what is an instant bonding adhesive.
 
Here is a source for the Loctite 352 for not $50, just 1/2 that :):

https://www.mcmaster.com/#ultraviolet-curing-adhesives/=1basaef

You need your own UV curing light though. Unfortunately, these are meant to cure at 265 and 250 nm. Most cheap UV LEDs put out light at much higher wavelenghts (400 nm) :(. Bug lights and "black lights" may work too.

Not the best bang for the buck if all you use it for is attaching a couple filters on your lenses. However, I am sure that other uses can be found for what is an instant bonding adhesive.

Yeah, I found some on Amazon for $28.00, except that the shipping was expensive and it was not eligible for "Prime" shipping. Thanks for the link. When I did a general internet search there were many references to this product but not many links for purchase other than on Amazon.
 
not sure what they use but I know that dentists use a UV cured adhesive for some of the stuff they do, odds are that wouldn't be giving off anything toxic, no idea what type of glue it is and what the ingredients are, possibly similar to the food safe stuff

I have a dental appointment coming up in two weeks for a six month cleaning and I'll ask my dentist about this when I see her. She's the kind of person who would be into talking about stuff like this, so it should be a fun conversation. My hunch is that whatever UV materials are used for dental work it probably costs a fortune!
 
Back
Top