Reading is fundamental. I suggest you re-read the last couple of pages.Your posts keep nudging the conversation away from reality (which further confuses those reading this thread).

I’m not taking sides in this thread but from a “benefit to prospective customers” angle, this thread is a murky shit show.

@Diz

What? Maybe you should review tlandoe07’s pictures as well. His soldering iron was used on the inside portion as well...and didn’t go all the way through...

I guess we were thinking the same thing and responding at the same time.

I will admit my ignorance of this subject led me to believe that there was giant hoodwink being perpetrated here.  My ASSumption was that mil-spec lenses were all glass, and that any presence of plastic was some kind of shady bidness.  I stand corrected.  It appears every occ lens has a combo of plastic and glass.  

So where does this all leave us?

It would now appear that while possibly inferior to other vendors, the lenses in question are at least a passable replacement for your build, as long as you don't have interchangeability issues between multiple -14's.

Should it be priced the same?  I guess that's what we're gonna find out, in the coming days.  As more guys use these in new builds, the data should start coming in.  It would appear that there wasn't price gouging going on, at least in comparison to other vendor parts.  I see Harris lenses going for 280 while these are 240.  It would appear there is a substantial mark-up, across the board, but not limited to the new guy.        

Does the OP owe the vendor an apology?  Well they both sorta went high-right.  Perhaps some assumptions were made, based on OP's knowledge and experience, which really pissed off the vendor, who also went to town.

Boy the soldering iron thing really threw me.  That's kinda the clincher here.  It would have been the smokin' gun, if not for the fact that all lenses would fail it.  If the OP did not know this fact (which is understandable, considering how you have to find that out), then that test was a red herring.  I admit, I saw it and went, da-yum, that just proved his point.

But no, it didn't.

@Synyster06Gates

Have a chance to read the rest of the way through yet?

Yep, I did. And it’s essentially a nothing-burger and were not really any further than we were when this started. Obviously a discrepancy in the quality of the lenses, and while I don’t have first hand knowledge - If they can’t be swapped back and forth I’m not sure how it meets Mil spec. Also the anti reflective coating thing. Whole thing is kind of confusing (like the entire NV industry less a few vendors seems to be). I don’t think UNV intentionally did anything wrong, but the way they responded is what put a lot of people off.

Interested to see more about the obvious quality differences. And coatings.

Agreed on the nv industry is super cloak and dagger.

I agree. That's the main thing that IMO should come out of this thread - If there is a difference in optical quality.

Ideally, we'd hear from someone other than sellers who may have a bias if they've already sold devices with these oculars or require to keep using them in order to sell products vs waiting on Carsons.

The OP was in a good position to evaluate since he does repairs and could swap the eyepieces using the same tube & objective. Hopefully we'll hear from others who have done or can do the same thing.

It's not really a smoking gun.

Tlandoe received glass that had some obvious quality differences. Some of the claims made were the lack of coating on the optics, reduced optical clarity (mostly around the extreme edges) and subcomponents that cannot be interchanged between lenses. He observed mold marks / bubbling on the inside edges of the lenses, identifying some component of the lens as plastic.

The assumption that was made here was that these issues, such as the reduced clarity, were a result of these components being made out of plastic. Turns out this isn't the case. As demonstrated by UNV, Carson uses some plastic lenses in their lens cells as well. All this means is that the issue isn't so much that the lens is plastic, but that it's not good plastic.

The rest of the problems don't evaporate simply because he was wrong on one point, nor does it suddenly increase the perceived clarity through the eye piece. There are points left unresolved. Those points that need further exploration. If it helps move the discussion along in any way: I have 4 of those "Apache" lenses sitting on my kitchen table and I can tell you they didn't come from the United States, nor from Apache, nor from AGM.

I'm not the biggest fan of Tlandoe, but this error was in no way fatal to the discussion. A nuking of the thread doesn't do anything but, well, require us to start this thread all over again from scratch. There are a lot of eyes on this thread that want it to continue.

Oh, and I'm not a customer of UNV, or any of their competitors. I literally can't be. So my contribution here isn't motivated by the cloak and dagger shadowmen scheming to bring down an industry member.

At the end of it all, as Pat would say, learning has occurred.  Assumptions were made, based on the evidence presented.  In retrospect, it would have been nice if someone would have said every occ lens has a combo of glass and plastic a little earlier in.  

But again it appears that there is a distinct difference in quality, and from the OP's perspective, this, plus the lack of interchangeability led him to make certain conclusions.

Then due to our ignorance of certain things, like the composition of lenses, "discussion" ensued.

But I disagree with those that say this was a WAFWOT.  First of all it was entertaining, whether you want to admit that or not.  Perhaps not from everyone's perspective, but still.  Secondly, we did learn things, not only from the tech side, but also about the industry itself.  Maybe a circuitous route, but we got there.

I am planning another -14 build in the near future.  This thread has been highly enlightening.  The NV industry appears to be rapidly emulating the AR one, in that various tiers of parts quality are making their appearance, in keeping with market demand.  And much like the M4 TDP, knowledge is being hoarded by those in competition to make and sell these things.  Some use this ignorance to bamboozle the public.  Whether that is the case here, is unclear, or at least at what level the bamboozery occurred.  But in the industry as whole, things are certainly changing, and it is good to be aware of that.  If a  little embarrassment at jumping to the wrong conclusions is the cost of that knowledge, I'm down with it.

+1

Question for clarity - did both the Carson and Apache eyepieces that were pierced with the soldering irons burn all the way through the glass and plastic elements, or did the irons stop and not penetrate the glass outer lens? Wasn’t clear from the photos.

But that was the amusing part to watch lol.

Yeah no shit, I didn't think it was that clear either.  It looked to me that it burned right through the Apache lens.  We now know different, but whatever.

Yeah it was funny, if you are the one that "knows" and you get to watch everyone else show their ass.  Since I said this was entertaining, for some at least, then I can't bitch when the joke's on me.  

And it seems a lot of guys have 20-20 hindsight and act like they were all in it, watching us show our asses, while they just float above the fray, with their infinite wisdom.  I'd bet the number of guys that actually knew this could be counted on one hand.

Yeah maybe I fell on my head but it wasn’t clear. Looked like one went all the way through and maybe the other didn’t. So they are different?

This thread sorta....sucks. I don’t care about the drama. Is there legit differences here?  If so enough to make a real world difference? And the actual cost is somewhat interesting.

More than one thing can be true at a time:

1) in my own comparisons, detailed earlier in the thread, there is definitely edge distortion present in these lenses. It's worth pointing out that it's not just AGM eyepieces that are not on-par with other, more traditional options: the lack of coatings on the objective lenses also contributes to significant flaring, observed in both the PVS-14 compatible objective lenses and also those used in the NVG40 and NVG50 systems. In examining about a dozen different eyepieces from different manufacturers, all components interchange with one another and function as designed, with the exception of the AGM. It can be force fit into some diopter rings, but doesn't function properly when doing so. Take that for what you will, that's probably not a big deal to most, which I understand.

2) I have learned a thing or two myself. The use of polycarbonate lens cell components doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of quality, and it appears that this is more common than originally assumed. I am happy to admit a miscalculation on that point. It was also never the original point of contention, and regardless of the composition of these lenses (and any others), the above point still stands.

I seem to keep having to stress that this was never intended as a jab at a particular vendor, although I can see how it was interpreted as such based on posts made early on in the thread that were quickly redacted. I will acknowledge that my responses to them after their interactions on this board were less than appropriate. For that, I do apologize. I will not edit or remove any statements I made, as I take full ownership of them. I can admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong. I don't know if shady business was going on with the vendor, or if they were misinformed by their supplier, or whatever the case may be. That doesn't change point #1 above though, which should be the real takeaway from this thread. But to Tyler and his team, I think they are owed a public apology for the way I addressed them, and I am not ashamed to come forward and apologize for that offense.

Additionally, I should clarify my remarks made to members of this forum who jumped on with the vendor. I have no issues with being loyal to a company that has treated you well, and I did not intend to call out those who side with UNV based on good service. The point I was making was specifically with reference to the poor quality glass and how I don't know what I am talking about and UNV is completely in the right and absolved of any wrong in this. So for those of you who that statement was directed toward, I also apologize.  

I made the critical error in creating a sideshow on a tech board by taking what I see as an issue with some glass that's entered the market, and allowed it to become a pissing contest by failing to keep an cool head and an objective approach. Hopefully those on this board can see through the BS and take the information for its intended purpose, which is to educate and inform.

That there takes a lot of sack.  Say what you want about the OP, but he took his lumps, admitted what he did wrong, and apologized.  To me that's the whole deal.  It's not what you did, everybody fucks up, it's how you handle it afterwards.  Chapeau OP.

Very impressive that you came out and appologized for that. I do think you came from a good place and seeing your side with what you knew at the time I can see how you were pissed off.

Im mostly an impartial observer in this thread as I neither own any agm glass nor am I a customer of UNV. Just interested in nv tech and wanting to learn.

I agree.   Nothing that's happened up until this point has resolved any questions re quality of the glass

Nvm.  Not pertinent.

Agreed

Well said

If you haven’t done so already, maybe put a TL’DR summation in the OP to squash any disinfo that a reader may arrive at in the event they don’t make it all the way to the end of the thread.

Depending on where you stop reading, one can come to wildly different conclusions with the info provided.

Nope, and that’s the whole issue, for me anyways.

I took this thread as: I was sold Mil-Spec Carson glass at Carson prices and received Apache/AGM glass at Carson Prices, where as the AGM glass produced visual defects and did not readily interchange with Carson components. Has any of that been proven untrue?

I feel terrible for those 2 lens cells that were destroyed with a soldering iron. ouch.

This thread is something else. Anyone want to part with one of these AGM lenses before I buy direct from them? Eager to do my own testing.

While it's possible they have no AR coatings, I am not entirely convinced yet. More to it than just the visual tint of the glass. Other -14 oculars from different manufacturers have a variety of AR coating shades due to variability. All are "mil spec".

FWIW, I thought it was common knowledge that -14 oculars used optical grade plastic. Possible the quality with the AGM lenses is way lower. Always been careful to avoid scratching my oculars because they're plastic.

Maybe this can help. Same device, same tube, same backdrop l, same diopter and focus settings. You be the judge.

Attached File

Attached File

Attached File

Wow. So in your opinion would the  comparison done in another thread recently between a l3 filmless Carson glass 14 & a apache glassed Elbit thin filmed WP 14 be an apples to apples comparison?  Or would the Elbit be at a disadvantage with what could be argued as lesser quality glass?

I am not sure, but it does look similar to what OE is selling looking at the lock ring used to hold down the front objective lens cell.

See here http://www.optronics.co.il/oe-14/
And here http://www.optronics.co.il/part_product/oe-14/

I have heard that OE get their lenses from Qioptiq in Singapore, which would explain the similarities between the mentioned Apache/ AGM lenses. (same orange o-ring on the ocular and glossy finish)

I can only speak for the OE lenses, I have worked with them in the past and they save on the coating to get price down and overall build quality is a bit below that of Carson in my opinion. They are definitely a lot more affordable for that reason.

There are a lot of OE pvs-14 housings floating around right now.

You cant judge anything by those photos, there`s no information in them and the`re out of focus, the edge should be crisp and clean around the perimeter. Like this - Attached File

I think that’s what he was referring to. The edge shading and distortion.

The photos themselves are out of focus and do not convey any meaningful information. There is a right way to test glass for distortion. There are viable ways to visualize and qualitatively compare distortion and other artifacts. Those pics do not do that.

The images actually are in focus, they are just looking at a wall and not the highest resolution so it’s not the cleanest image, especially if it’s blown up on a computer screen. Either way, the distortion around the edge is definitely present and is more pronounced when viewed with the naked eye. Here’s a shot of a textured tile bathroom wall that you can see a little better.
Attached File


I’m not the only one who’s noticed, and maybe you really just have to see it first hand to see an issue. I guess try some out for yourself if you don’t want to take my word for it.

A good friend of mine, who knows nothing about this thread, actually noticed the same distortion. His came on a complete system that he paid $7k for.
Attached File

Attached File

I have a few sets of agm glass showing up next week. I will also try to grab some pics, though i will not be doing any melt testing, you crazy sob's...

I would also like to see pics through agm objectives with carson eyepieces and carson objectives with agm eyepieces as well if anyone currently has both. I want to see the edge distortion.

If they are anything like the nvg-40 and nvg-50 glass, it is indeed imferior, but totally passable for most ppl. I guess the same could be said about pinnacle tubes and filmless tubes. If you paid for filmless, and got pinnacles, you'd be pissed, even though, "a tubes a tube" and pinnacles are generally great tubes...

I’m experiencing the EXATCT same thing in one of my tubes right now. There’s a certain point in the image that seems to have .02 magnification more than the rest of the image and makes it seem to almost ‘wave’ as you glance past it. I’m banging my head on the wall trying to figure it out. Does an IIT have the capacity to create magnification in and of itself? The way I understand how they work, it doesn’t.

Now this is good stuff. I would love to see more comparision pics of the different lenses.

What is the practical difference here.  If a guy is stationary, sitting to ambush hogs, yotes, etc. probably not an issue.  Or staring at stars.  But if you are mobile, with a rapidly moving picture, could be an issue.  The edge distortion could be a distraction.

So yeah, depends on end-user; some may not know/care; some are more discerning and it does matter.  

Don't doubt there's distortion. It's noticeable with the tile wall. Looking at a uniform scene is not the right way to pick up that distortion. I'm also fundamentally skeptical of phone pics being in focus on a flat scene as the camera will try to autofocus. Yeah, autofocus can be disabled on most phones. There's a reason why I use a manually configured DSLR clamped to the eyecup retaining ring for any detailed through the tube comparison pics.

Try printing out some graph paper and focusing closer up. That distortion will probably be much more telling.

Yeah graph paper like a 0.5 inch grid. Focused at about 3-5 feet would be perfect. I need to figure out how to clamp my tubes to my dslr. Info on your setup?

Is that lock ring exclusive to OE or are there mil spec quality objectives that use it as well?

WOW 7 pages of this!!!!

I almost feel like there should be another thread with facts and information that was learned in this thread.  Just without all the drama caused in this one.

That's just kinda how it works.

The plot thickens

I’ve refrained from continuing to post on this matter.

But: LOL

UPDATE: This glass is made by Optronics Engineering from Israel.

Numerous vendors import this glass, and resell to other vendors. Some of the following vendors are confirmed to use this type of glass in some of their systems:

AGM Global
Night Vision Inc (Supposedly no longer uses)
Steele Industries (discontinued use as of APR 2020)
HEAT Inc.
Costa Defense
Black Phase Tactical
Kosher Surplus
KDSG

Is it junk? Having had the opportunity to work with quite a decent amount of it recently, I think it's probably perfectly serviceable for most guys. If you're a discerning individual, or are very performance driven, you probably would prefer better stuff. What with the boom on night vision sales lately, and dealing with long lead times, I would be un-surprised to see more and more of this in the market and it becoming a pretty standard option.

Do they all exhibit the same amount of edge distortion/bubbles/defects or have there been samples that have less/more than the example that you showed?

Also, it's still super clear to me that the AR coating is different; has anybody took a look or tried to test how that has impacted the performance?

From the 20 eyepieces I’ve used, all showed some degree of edge distortion. Some really bad. Some hardly noticeable.

All 12 objective lenses exhibit flaring when looking across a light source. Optical clarity appears the same, but the glare is noticeable.

One vendor even sent me a complete housing kit to test out and get some feedback. His observations are in line with mine and he sells these at a discount compared to Carson or Elbit housings

Damn, that makes everything worse IMO. At least if the quality is consistently at a certain level, you'd know what to expect but now you would have to assume the worst and hope for the best.

This explains why I have such bad edge distortion with my DTNVG's from Steele and Heat.