# Aspheric lenses - 52mm/37mm fl - 52mm/33mm fl - 50mm/35mm fl - 50mm/38.5mm fl ~ Best?



## wintermute (Jul 12, 2007)

So, I am looking into building an asperical mag light next (putting my 3xCree Mag on the back burner for now). Of these asperical lenses which are available...which one is the best for the Mag light and most throw??

52mm diameter w/ 37mm focal length
52mm diameter w/ 33mm focal length
50mm diameter w/ 35mm focal length
50mm diameter w/ 38.5mm focal length

I know that some have started to make due with the 50mm lenses, but if I remember correct the 52mm diameter lenses fit the best.

I am not familiar with optics off the top of my head, although I could sit down and figure it out using all of my physics books and such...but which one would be recommended for the best throw.

Also, bare emitter on hotlips (no reflector at all), bare reflector on hotlips w/large reflector, or LED on some type of pedestal that allows the use of either stock mag reflector or some other replacement reflector (like the Malkoff drop-ins)?

Those more familiar with the optics could really help in deciding which lens and configuration. Mosts posts around here are just builds, not info on different lenses, reflectors, etc.

Last, but not least, we need some more of these bezels. Everyone interested in an asperical mag...post in there to see if we can get another group buy going.


----------



## wintermute (Jul 12, 2007)

How far is the distance (in mm) from the back of an asperic lens to the LED mounted on a heatsink. This would be the ideal focal length without using any reflector I think.


----------



## MrMimizu (Jul 12, 2007)

I tried to get a 52/37mm from surplus shed but they ran out. Shipped me a 50/35mm instead. 


In this thread, the led is mounted on a hotlips with the pedestal cut off. That's a 52/37mm lens though. I'll have to measure it when I get my hotlips, but possibly it won't be necessary to remove the pedestal for a 50/35mm lens. 

I've noted in the Kiu bezel thread that I'd like one already. Not sure if it'll happen but if it does, I'm definitely in for one or two.


----------



## wintermute (Jul 12, 2007)

MrMimizu said:


> I tried to get a 52/37mm from surplus shed but they ran out. Shipped me a 50/35mm instead.
> 
> 
> In this thread, the led is mounted on a hotlips with the pedestal cut off. That's a 52/37mm lens though. I'll have to measure it when I get my hotlips, but possibly it won't be necessary to remove the pedestal for a 50/35mm lens.
> ...



There are other places to get the aspherical lenses - just cost 3x as much. But, when it comes to the total build cost - it's pretty minor. That's why I can get all 4 of those lenses. Just wondering what the distance is from the back of the lens to the emitter on a normal hotlips heatsink (and hence the ideal focal length).


----------



## MrMimizu (Jul 12, 2007)

Well, I have a hotlips with a lux III on it right now. 
I'm seeing about 27mm from where the bottom of the lens would be to the top of my LUX III. That is with the lens ON the pedestal of the hotlips and the mag about 3/4 twisted to the top. I can't guarantee the accuracy but it looks around there.

Would you mind letting me know where you are getting your lenses from?
I haven't been particularly successful while trying to google myself a lens.
For my 1C aspherical mag, I'll end up spending just over $300 I think.
custom mag body, AW C Li-ions and the charger for em are the bulk of it.



wintermute said:


> There are other places to get the aspherical lenses - just cost 3x as much. But, when it comes to the total build cost - it's pretty minor. That's why I can get all 4 of those lenses. Just wondering what the distance is from the back of the lens to the emitter on a normal hotlips heatsink (and hence the ideal focal length).


----------



## OhMyGosh (Jul 13, 2007)

http://www.surplusshed.com/ has several aspheres. Very reasonable prices.

As for focal length, a lower F ratio (focal length/lens diameter) will capture more light from the emitter. A longer focal length will make a smaller spot. I have some of these to play with but haven't experimented much yet. You might consider trying 2 lenses, one 'collimator' to capture most of the light, and one 'focuser' to change the spot size. A big problem with these is that they are not anti-reflection coated. That is OK for close to right angles, but as the angle increases you lose more and more light from reflection. Uncoated glass loses ~4% for each surface, ~8% per lens. But at oblique angles the loss is much higher.

Remember these are lenses - think overhead projector. They will make a 'picture' of the LED chip as a spot. some kind of diffuser close in front of the LED may give a better, more even spot.


----------



## KingGlamis (Jul 13, 2007)

I ordered the 50/35 yesterday. When it arrives I will surely post beam shots.


----------



## KrisP (Jul 13, 2007)

I got the 50mm x 35mm from Surplus Shed too. It's ok, but i'd like to buy a 52mm x 37mm if anyone knows another source as SS is out and not getting anoymore in stock.


----------



## wintermute (Jul 13, 2007)

Anti-reflective coating on these lenses costs ~$40 I think...so that drives up the price a bit. But some people may find it worth it.


----------



## KrisP (Jul 13, 2007)

wintermute said:


> There are other places to get the aspherical lenses - just cost 3x as much.


Where are these places?

Thanks.

From the other threads i've read on here, the 52mm x 37mm has the best throw.


----------



## wintermute (Jul 13, 2007)

Melles Griot Asperic Lenses.

52mm with 37mm focal length is here. 

This is why I wanted to know the distance from the emitter to the back of the aspheric lens:







See, Fb is 21.9mm - so the pest possible placement of the LED from the back of the aspheric lens would be 21.9mm. MrMimzu found the distance to be 27mm, so moving the emitter slightly closer to the back of the lens should provide more throw. 

The 52mm w/ 33mm focal length, the Fb is only 16mm - which would be bad.

Conversely, the 50mm w/38.5mm focal length, the Fb is 24.3mm - so if the emitter placement is indeed 27mm, then the 50mm w/38.5mm focal length should throw better. 

The moral here is for maximum throw, the LED should be Fb distance from the back of the asperic lens for best throw. Having the emitter at the exact focal point of the lens should focus the most rays straight ahead - of course the focal point is measured from the middle of the lens, so we have to look at the Fb number. 

Optimal distances from back of asperic lens to emitter:
52mm w/33mm fl = ~16mm
52mm w/37mm fl = ~22mm
50mm w/35mm fl = ~23mm
50mm w/38.5mm fl = ~24mm

So, considering the Fb for the 52/37 and the 50/35 are only 1mm apart - I would be surprised if they threw that much different.

You can get a magnesium fluoride AR coating on the 50mm lenses for $20 and on the 52mm lenses for $40.


----------



## wintermute (Jul 13, 2007)

Who's gonna take the thrower they have, and order a 50mm with 38.5mm focal length with MgF2 AR coating to see how it does. 

At the very least, those with the throwers already built should try moving the emitter to a distance Fb from the back of the lens to see if you get more throw.


----------



## cryhavok (Jul 13, 2007)

wintermute said:


> So, considering the Fb for the 52/37 and the 50/35 are only 1mm apart - I would be surprised if they threw that much different.




Check out this thread of mine a while back that kicked off the whole aspheric lens/Xr-E combo in a maglite.

The light above is a 50x35mm lens from surplus shed. Then on a whim, I ordered the 52mm lens. My new aspheric lens host is regulated at 1.5A and just by switching the lens, my lux @ 1 meter readings rise about 15,000 [email protected] 1 meter - a significant improvement. With my current setup, my light produces about 70,000 [email protected] 1 meter.

You can see a comparison between the 50 and 52mm lenses here



wintermute said:


> At the very least, those with the throwers already built should try moving the emitter to a distance Fb from the back of the lens to see if you get more throw.



Most everyone does...Remember that the maglite head is able to be unscrewed and screwed in quite a bit, most people find the optimal length very easy...just screw in or unscrew until you get a nice tight spot.


----------



## WadeF (Jul 13, 2007)

Will the 52/37 drop right into a Mag's head? Or do you have to customize the head?


----------



## wintermute (Jul 13, 2007)

cryhavok said:


> Check out this thread of mine a while back that kicked off the whole aspheric lens/Xr-E combo in a maglite.
> 
> The light above is a 50x35mm lens from surplus shed. Then on a whim, I ordered the 52mm lens. My new aspheric lens host is regulated at 1.5A and just by switching the lens, my lux @ 1 meter readings rise about 15,000 [email protected] 1 meter - a significant improvement. With my current setup, my light produces about 70,000 [email protected] 1 meter.
> 
> You can see a comparison between the 50 and 52mm lenses here



Cryhavok, what do you think caused the significant increase in lux readings at 1 meter between the 50mm/35mm fl and the 52mm/37mm fl lenses? What do you think the 50mm/38.5mm lens would do in the same host(AR coating on the 50mm lens is only $20)? The longer focal length of the 50mm/38.5mm lens with the shorter Fb might make it the best lens. You would be the best one to test this obviously. Also, the F-number of the 52mm/37mm fl is 0.71 while the 50mm/38.5mm fl is 0.77. Might be worth a try.


----------



## cryhavok (Jul 13, 2007)

WadeF said:


> Will the 52/37 drop right into a Mag's head? Or do you have to customize the head?



It has to sit on top of the bezel and you need to remove a bit of the bezel lip so the bezel ring can be screwed down a bit more. 



wintermute said:


> Cryhavok, what do you think caused the significant increase in lux readings at 1 meter between the 50mm/35mm fl and the 52mm/37mm fl lenses? What do you think the 50mm/38.5mm lens would do in the same host(AR coating on the 50mm lens is only $20)? The longer focal length of the 50mm/38.5mm lens with the shorter Fb might make it the best lens. You would be the best one to test this obviously. Also, the F-number of the 52mm/37mm fl is 0.71 while the 50mm/38.5mm fl is 0.77. Might be worth a try.




If you looked at the thread with the pictures comparing the two lens, you can see that the 52mm lens is significantly larger in height/depth. I also have a few other lenses and it seems that the ones that have the larger height/depth will focus better.

I believe I read somewhere that you can focus the 52mm setup better because the LED die is further away and more of a point source.


----------



## wintermute (Jul 13, 2007)

cryhavok said:


> If you looked at the thread with the pictures comparing the two lens, you can see that the 52mm lens is significantly larger in height/depth. I also have a few other lenses and it seems that the ones that have the larger height/depth will focus better.
> 
> I believe I read somewhere that you can focus the 52mm setup better because the LED die is further away and more of a point source.


I'm not sure if the larger diameter will help focus better, but the longer focal length might. That's why I tried to recommend the 50mm with thr 38.5mm focal length. The Fb would be 24mm, which could allow a better focus of the emitter, and you would not have to remove any of the stock bezel, ergo easier builds.

I'd be willing to pitch in $5 (by PayPal) to you to order this lens to try with your throwers. If a few other people did the same, you could test this last lens to see which one is best and have it not cost you a thing. I don't have the hosts to compare, so it makes no sense for me to order it, your experience with this stuff so far makes you the best tester. It's the only asperic lens in this size which hasn't been tried - and it has the longest focal length and highest F-number (0.77 vs. 0.71). Is anyone else willing to pitch in 5 bucks to order this lens if cryhavok is willing to test it?? (Although, don't forget - the AR coating on a 50mm lens is only $20 and that could improve light output by as much as ~8%!!).

I have to say cryhavok - *I really respect you for doing this whole aspheric lens thing first!* :bow: - :thumbsup:


----------



## shiftd (Jul 13, 2007)

just FYI, newbie (who is the first one to make a cree throw) has posted some beamshots in his old thread  here


----------



## KingGlamis (Jul 13, 2007)

So when measuring Fb, what is the exact point of F*? Do you measure to the tip of the emitter? The middle? The base?

With my Mag 4D with Mag LED emitter the max Fb I can get is 21mm, when measured from the tip of the emitter.

Edit: I can easily get 24mm by unscrewing the bezel and still have good thread engagement for the bezel.


----------



## cryhavok (Jul 14, 2007)

Yep, as far as I can remember, NewBie was the first to try a lens with the XR-E :thumbsup:

The only problem with the 50mm lens is that it actually fits inside the maglight head, so there is no way to have it rest at the front of the light by itself. When I used the 50mm x 35mm lens, I had to put a UCL between the lens and the head so the lens would have something to sit on. Alternatively, you could just use the reflector to create a platform.

With the 52mm lens, it sits on top of the head like the window. Some of the top threads had to be removed so that the bezel ring would screw down completely (you can screw down the bezel without doing this step, but it doesn't go down far enough to cover the O-ring).

I'm not sure if the 50mm/38.5 fl lens would be a good choice. I believe what makes the lens a really good thrower has to do with the center thickness. I have another lens that is in the 60mm+ diameter, with a relatively short fl, but it's center thickness is not much. It does focus the light, but not to the really tight projection like my current 52x37 fl lens. 

I just measured my 52x37mm lens and it has a center thickness of 23mm. The 50x38.5mm lens has a center thickness of 20mm. The only lens that seems to have a better center thickness is the 52 x 33mm lens, which is 25mm. 

I'd love to order and try them both, but I don't know what I'd do with them if they don't work out :shrug: I appreicate your offer, though :wave:


----------



## KrisP (Jul 14, 2007)

cryhavok said:


> The only problem with the 50mm lens is that it actually fits inside the maglight head, so there is no way to have it rest at the front of the light by itself. When I used the 50mm x 35mm lens, I had to put a UCL between the lens and the head so the lens would have something to sit on. Alternatively, you could just use the reflector to create a platform.


I found this problem and ended up having to fine a 50mm outside diam. x 3mm thick O-ring. It was tight enough but the O-ring still wouldn't sit on the lip perfectly so I have to put a few drops of glue to hold it in place. 
Did the UCL cause any issues with the light?


----------



## MrMimizu (Jul 14, 2007)

Now that is very interesting. I have a mag 2C here in which my 50/35 JUST barely fits inside the head. It drops about 2mm down and rests on the inside edge of the head. I don't need to put in a UCL or the reflector for it to sit on.

As you can see in my photos, the lens fits in perfectly. Of course, this is NOT the head I'll be using so it's possible this solution won't work on the head that I receive from Mirage Man.

















cryhavok said:


> The only problem with the 50mm lens is that it actually fits inside the maglight head, so there is no way to have it rest at the front of the light by itself. When I used the 50mm x 35mm lens, I had to put a UCL between the lens and the head so the lens would have something to sit on. Alternatively, you could just use the reflector to create a platform.


----------



## KrisP (Jul 14, 2007)

That is exactly how my 50x35 sits in my D-size head, but when you screw the bezel on there is still space for the lens to move, therefore an o-ring or some other sort of spacer is required.


----------



## wintermute (Jul 14, 2007)

cryhavok said:


> I'm not sure if the 50mm/38.5 fl lens would be a good choice. I believe what makes the lens a really good thrower has to do with the center thickness. I have another lens that is in the 60mm+ diameter, with a relatively short fl, but it's center thickness is not much. It does focus the light, but not to the really tight projection like my current 52x37 fl lens.
> 
> I just measured my 52x37mm lens and it has a center thickness of 23mm. The 50x38.5mm lens has a center thickness of 20mm. The only lens that seems to have a better center thickness is the 52 x 33mm lens, which is 25mm.
> 
> I'd love to order and try them both, but I don't know what I'd do with them if they don't work out :shrug: I appreicate your offer, though :wave:



I am going to have to respectfully disagree that what makes the light a good thrower is the "center thickness" known as Tc. What is going to collect more light into a more concentrated area in a configuration such as this is the F-number and the focal length. The 50x38.5mm has a higher F-number and focal length (even though the Tc is smaller). I may be wrong, but using lenses of this type is new enough that I think trying other options would be best.

Is no one else interested in testing this? The lens costs $28, I'll pitch in $10 to anyone who would be willing to test the lens and post results. Will anyone else pitch in $5 or $10 to have this lens tested as well?? 

From other sellers, they have 50mm diameter lenses with 35, 38.5, 39, 42.5, 49, 55mm focal lengths. For the 52mm, I've only been able to find 33 and 37mm focal lengths. There has to be a reason that there are so many different focal length versions for the 50mm. Another manufacturer of aspheric lenses has info on sizes available here: http://www.optarius.com/dl-asphcond.pdf

I just figure that testing the longer focal length is worth the time. If it doesn't perform up to your specs and you don't want to keep it - put it up for a CPF auction and donate the money to CPF. That solves the issue of what to do with them if they don't work out. 

We're trying to do the exact opposite of what the aspheric lenses are for - so it's hard to tell what will work best without testing. I don't know what the focal length of your 60mm lens is, but you are basing the idea that center thickness provides the best results by comparing only 2 lenses of similar diameter and focal length. The 37mm focal length works better then the 35mm focal length, so why not try the 38.5mm focal length.



MrMimizu said:


> Now that is very interesting. I have a mag 2C here in which my 50/35 JUST barely fits inside the head. It drops about 2mm down and rests on the inside edge of the head. I don't need to put in a UCL or the reflector for it to sit on.
> 
> As you can see in my photos, the lens fits in perfectly. Of course, this is NOT the head I'll be using so it's possible this solution won't work on the head that I receive from Mirage Man.



That looks very good - it seems like the fit is very nice. Hence, why I wish someone would try the 50x38.5mm lens. It seems that the 50mm lens fits in perfectly with the host, hence my desire to get a 50mm lens which works best.

Since the 52mm x 37mm lenses are no longer available from the Surplus Shed, for me to test the 52x37mm against the 50x38.5mm - I would have to buy both lenses for $56...hence why I am willing to donate $10 to the testing (hopefully a couple other people will do this as well). If the lens doesn't perform up to the same level as the 52x37mm, I'm sure someone would still use it - so we can auction it off and the proceeds go to CPF. If the lens does work well, then the tester can just keep the lens. 

Who is with me?? :twothumbs - anyone with the 52mm x 37mm lens who would like to test the 50mm x 38mm just PM me your PayPal address and I will send the donation money to support the testing. At the very least, CPF will get $25-$30 out of the whole thing when we auction it off later (or the tester gets the great new lens).


----------



## MrMimizu (Jul 16, 2007)

I ordered a coated 55x38.5mm coated lens along with another 50x35 lens. I don't know if the 55 will fit in a maglight head but if it does, I can tell you if I can see any real difference. At the very least, I can rest it on top of the light and see turn the head all the way down. Should do the trick. 

Also, don't you think you might be over analyzing all this?
Why not just buy the $5 lens from Surplus Shed, pop it in your setup and when another cheap lens comes available, pick it up. For myself, the numbers don't mean a thing. Having 532432 more lux @ 1m vs my 50x35mm lens doesn't tell me a thing. As long as the beam looks good when I turn it on, I'll be happy.






wintermute said:


> Since the 52mm x 37mm lenses are no longer available from the Surplus Shed, for me to test the 52x37mm against the 50x38.5mm - I would have to buy both lenses for $56...hence why I am willing to donate $10 to the testing (hopefully a couple other people will do this as well).
> Who is with me?? :twothumbs - anyone with the 52mm x 37mm lens who would like to test the 50mm x 38mm just PM me your PayPal address and I will send the donation money to support the testing. At the very least, CPF will get $25-$30 out of the whole thing when we auction it off later (or the tester gets the great new lens).


----------



## wintermute (Jul 17, 2007)

MrMimizu said:


> Also, don't you think you might be over analyzing all this?
> Why not just buy the $5 lens from Surplus Shed, pop it in your setup and when another cheap lens comes available, pick it up. For myself, the numbers don't mean a thing. Having 532432 more lux @ 1m vs my 50x35mm lens doesn't tell me a thing. As long as the beam looks good when I turn it on, I'll be happy.



Over analyzing it?? Ummmm...ok 

I like to look at how something works and then figure what is the most efficient way to accomplish that goal. If that means I am over analyzing this, then I over analyze things all day, every day.. 

I actually like to test things...try things...find what works best - rather then just go by saying "Well, so and so says use 'X' - so I'm going to use 'X' " I have a desire to understand which optic works better and why. :thinking:

No disrespect to cryhavok, but just saying "center thickness is what makes a good thrower" doesn't really clear things up for me. I'm sure someone on here has a better understanding of optics and can explain what makes one lens work better then another. Aspheric lenses are used in some types of eyeglasses - and technology progresses they have been able to make a lens with a smaller center thickness and still focus light in the eye equally well. 

I'll do more research on my own regarding this and see what information I can find. I was just hoping that someone with an advanced understanding of optics would chime in with more info. :candle:


----------



## gearbox (Aug 11, 2007)

wintermute said:


> Over analyzing it?? Ummmm...ok
> <snip>
> I'll do more research on my own regarding this and see what information I can find. I was just hoping that someone with an advanced understanding of optics would chime in with more info. :candle:


Very simple, good man.
You see, the wave with the initial spacial angle of approach, respresented as sinθ1, has a specific velocity, known as v1, and a sepcific refractive index, known as n1. This "incident" angle is ever so slightly changed upon entering another medium, which has it's own refractive index (n2) caused by the differential transmogrification of the first velocity to the velocity of the wave now observed within the second material. The new velocity is, of course, known to be v2, with an exiting angle of sinθ2. This ratio is most often explained mathematically as such: (sinθ1 divided by sinθ2) is (v1 divided by v2) times (n2 divided by n1), you see?
Jolly good.:twothumbs


----------



## Norm (Aug 11, 2007)

MrMimizu said:


> Now that is very interesting. I have a mag 2C here in which my 50/35 JUST barely fits inside the head. It drops about 2mm down and rests on the inside edge of the head. I don't need to put in a UCL or the reflector for it to sit on.
> 
> As you can see in my photos, the lens fits in perfectly. Of course, this is NOT the head I'll be using so it's possible this solution won't work on the head that I receive from Mirage Man.


This is the Lens I used an extra O ring under the bezel and it all goes together perfectly. I took a few mm of the top of the battery tube to let the heat sink sit a bit away from the lens (instead of trimming the pedestal) focuses perfectly.
Norm


----------



## mikus (Aug 12, 2007)

I was holding what I believe is a 50mm/35mmfl aspheric lens in my hand while surfing yesterday, and happened to spot this thread. I think I'm hooked; I'll have to build one.

FWIW, the lens I'm holding came out of a Hella fog light, used on 3rd gen volkswagens, among others. It used a 55 watt H3.


----------



## kanarie (Aug 13, 2007)

> I ordered a coated 55x38.5mm coated lens along with another 50x35 lens. I don't know if the 55 will fit in a maglight head but if it does, I can tell you if I can see any real difference. At the very least, I can rest it on top of the light and see turn the head all the way down. Should do the trick.


I am curious!



I have got the *50mm/35mm from * http://www.surplusshed.com/
Happy with it; it is a perfect fit and it gives a very tight beam using my stock mag 3D (with a direct drive KLC8 led bulb) the hotspot (you can clearly see the square die) is at the smallest 12cm @ 4meters distance. 
Only thing that disturbs me are the rings

Also I am waiting for some other (cheap) source for a *50mm/38.5mm or a* *52mm/37mm* am curious if that one will give a even tighter beam. Next on the list is a rebel and a decent driver.
here are some shots (at -2 stop and lights on it is still overdriving the cam)


----------



## AlexGT (Aug 16, 2007)

I recieved my PL1027 50 mm x 35 mm aspheric and noticed that there was some play in the lens, I installed a Danco #88 oring (2 1/8 O.D. x 1 15/16 ID) and it fits perfect, no more play and the seal is great.

AlexGT


----------



## faiz23 (Aug 17, 2007)

it seems like the 52/37 is the best lens right now for the aspheric mag, does anyone have a source except for surplus shed and melles griot direct at 

http://shop.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/detail.asp?pf_id=01 LAG 123&plga=098784&mscssid

trying to find someone who has it cheaper and surplus shed is out of stock with no date for about a month


----------



## moraino (Aug 19, 2007)

faiz23 said:


> it seems like the 52/37 is the best lens right now for the aspheric mag, does anyone have a source except for surplus shed and melles griot direct at
> 
> http://shop.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/detail.asp?pf_id=01 LAG 123&plga=098784&mscssid
> 
> trying to find someone who has it cheaper and surplus shed is out of stock with no date for about a month



I looked at this one and it is coated. Don't no how it compared to LP1072 from Surplus Shed which is not available now.


----------



## sandinnateman (Aug 22, 2007)

kanarie said:


> I have got the *50mm/35mm from *http://www.surplusshed.com/
> 
> Only thing that disturbs me are the rings


 
I got the same lens and am having the same issue with the rings. The center focus is impressive but there are several rings on it and there is one ring at the very outskirts that is super annoying.

Any way to fix that?


----------



## VidPro (Aug 25, 2007)

sandinnateman said:


> I got the same lens and am having the same issue with the rings. The center focus is impressive but there are several rings on it and there is one ring at the very outskirts that is super annoying.
> 
> Any way to fix that?


 
stop aiming it at the white wall, and go outside and use it :thumbsup:
the best cheap surplus shed lens was all snapped up, and not available at surplus shed anymore, the lesser one, that is not so perfect for the job, but still works has lots of extra unfocused light.

if you still have the reflector in, put black paper over the reflector , and see if that is the light that you do not like being there.
if its the light from the reflector, you could say put some Glow Vynal over it, and then the light going to the reflector does something usefull. glow vynal has a very poor adhesive, so it could potentially be removed.


----------

