Warning: this overview of the Turbo head options for the Eagletac GX/SX/MX25L2 is a lot more pic heavy than usual, due to the outdoor beamshots. :sweat:
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 1, 2013: I have just posted a review of the SBT-70 version of this light (i.e., maximum throw version of this series).
Following up on my recent Eagletac GX/SX25L2 and MX25L2 reviews, Eagletac has sent me the various Turbo head options to evaluate.
As this will involve a lot of pics and animated GIF outdoor beamshots, I thought I would do a separate thread to compare and discuss the Turbo options for the whole family. Please see my earlier reviews above for a detail analysis of the performance and features of the various lights, as this thread will focus on the beam differences between the Standard and Turbo heads.
As a reminder, this series is distinguished by the battery source used (2x18650 for the GX, 2x26650 for the SX, and 2x32650 for the MX), and the emitter (Cree XM-L2 for the GX/SX, and Luminus SST-90 for the MX). All my review samples featured bundled replaceable battery packs and built-in chargers.
Note that you can buy the lights in either form (Standard or Turbo head), but there is an additional cost to acquire the Turbo head separately. Current MSRPs that I've seen for the Turbo heads alone are ~$49 for the GX/SX Turbo head, and ~$119 for the MX25L2.
One quick comment before we get started: the Turbo head upgrade option comes with a nice screw-on plastic plug (with o-ring), that can be used to keep the unused head (Standard or Turbo) sealed when not in use.
First off, let's see how the Turbo head versions look, relative to the Standard heads (Standard first, followed by Turbo):
From left to right: Eagletac Protected 18650 (3400mAh); Eagletac GX25L2, SX25L2, and MX25L2.
And here is a side-by-side comparison:
From left to right: Eagletac Protected 18650 (3400mAh); Eagletac GX25L2 Standard Head (alone), GX25L2 with Turbo Head, SX25L2 with Turbo head, SX25L2 Standard Head (alone).
From left to right: Eagletac Protected 18650 (3400mAh); Eagletac MX25L2 with Turbo Head, MX25L2 Standard Head (alone).
First thing you may notice is that while the standard head of the SX25L2 was larger than the GX25L2, the Turbo heads have a fairly similar size between these models. Also, the MX25L2 now had a flat black aluminum bezel on the Turbo head.
Let's see how they measure up exactly:
All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed (unless indicated):
Eagletac GX25L2: Weight: 198.3g (with battery pack: 290.1g), Length: 224mm, Width (bezel): 39.5mm
Eagletac GX25L2 Turbo: Weight: 320.7g (with battery pack: 412.5g), Length: 251mm, Width (bezel): 62.0mm
Eagletac SX25L2: Weight: 279.4g (with battery pack: 470.3g), Length: 239mm, Width (bezel): 47.0mm
Eagletac SX25L2 Turbo: Weight: 343.4g (with battery pack: 534.3g), Length: 255mm, Width (bezel): 62.0mm
Eagletac MX25L2:Weight: 468.7g (with battery pack: 744.2g), Length: 266mm, Width (bezel): 62.0mm
Eagletac MX25L2 Turbo:Weight: 698.6g (with battery pack: 974.1g), Length: 292mm, Width (bezel): 91.3mm
I had already determined in my GX/SX25L2 review that those two models have similar output level on Max. With the comparable Turbo reflectors between the models, the difference really comes down to runtime now (which is based on the capacity of the 18650 vs 26650 cells used). I would expect no significant difference in throw between these two models with Turbo heads installed.
The MX25L2's Turbo head is massive, and brings us into the territory of the Olight SR95 (which is 87mm in diameter).
Here are some direct comparison pics of the standard and Turbo heads:
GX25L2:
SX25L2:
MX25L2:
The quality and design of the Turbo heads matches the rest of the build. I suggest you refer back to my earlier GX/SX25L2 and MX25L2 reviews for more information on the build, user interface, circuit features, etc.
Beamshots:
All lights are on their standard battery, about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences.
GX/SX25L2:
Obviously, the Turbo heads are more focused for throw. Overall spillbeam width also seems slightly narrower. Please see my earlier GX/SX25L2 review for additional white wall beamshots comparing to other lights in this class.
For the MX25L2, I am including a couple of recent SST-90-based lights in the comparisons below.
MX25L2:
The overall beam pattern (spillbeam width and hotspot width) of the MX25L2 Turbo is intermediate to the Skilhunt K30 and Olight SR95. However, the peak intensity is actually higher than either of these comparable lights – but that's hard to see in white wall shots at 0.75m. Check out the outdoor shots below, or scroll down for a detailed output/throw table.
Outdoor Beamshots
And now, what you have all been waiting for – outdoor beamshots. For these, everything is done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography (i.e. the road dips in the distance, to better show you the corona in the mid-ground).
FYI, any "streaks" you see across the images are bug-trails. Flying insects are often attracted to the bright lights, and their flight trails get captured as swirly streaks due to the long exposure time. Also, ignore any tint differences below – they are mainly due to the automatic white balance setting on the camera.
Let's start by comparing each light one at a time – starting with wide-angle shots, and then close-ups on the hotspots:
GX25L2:
SX25L2:
MX25L2:
Clearly, the Turbo heads all make a huge difference to how far the lights throw.
To help you compare models, here are the various head types together, starting with the standard heads, followed by the Turbo heads:
Standard Heads:
Turbo Heads:
Since the GX25L2 and SX25L2 Turbo heads have the same relative throw (and my SX25L2 pics came out a little better focused), let's compare this light to other lights in the heavy thrower class. For these comparisons, I am using the furthest throwing XM-L/XM-L2 lights in my current collection.
As you can see, the GX/SX25L2 is certainly in the same category as these other top throwers (although not quite as tightly focused as some of them). But again, these are the best XM-L/XM-L2-class throwers in my collection at the moment, so this is a very impressive showing for the GX/SX25L2 Turbo.oo:
I didn't have my other Luminus SST-90-based lights with me on this latest outdoor excursion, but here is a comparison of the MX25L2 to the new MT-G2 lights:
As you can see above, the MX25L2 Standard head manages to at least match (and slightly exceed) the throw of the MT-G2 lights - the Turbo head knocks it into another ballpark. Sorry about the lack of SST-90 comparisons ... if I get the chance to do some more super-high output comparison tests, I will update this thread. :wave:
UPDATE OCTOBER 4, 2013:
Here is an additional comparison of the MX25L2 SST-90 with Turbo head to the Olight SR95 (also SST-90):
You can see both the output and throw of the MX25L2 Turbo head exceed the SR95, when matched with the same emitter (although the difference isn't huge)
Also, please ignore any tint differences above – they are mainly due to the automatic white balance setting on the camera.
Testing Method:
All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.
I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lightbox values to Lumens thread for more info.
Throw/Output Summary Chart:
My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).
My updated summary table confirms what you can see in the beamshots – the Turbo heads provide a significant improvement in throw, moving these Eageltac models up toward the top of their respective emmiter classes. :wave:
Output/Runtime Graphs:
Again, check out my full reviews of the GX/SX25L2 and MX25L2 to see how these lights compare to others in their respective classes.
One thing I will update here – Eagletac sent me a couple of their 3400mAh protected 18650 cells (presumably based on the Panasonic NCR18650B). I had previous determined that their bundled battery pack for the GX25L2 (3100mAh cells) performed comparable to other 3100mAh cells in my collection (all based on Panasonic NCR18650A).
Let's see how these Eagletac 3400mAh cells compare in the GX25L2:
The 3400mAh Eagletac cells certainly have more capacity than the standard 3100mAh cells.
Potential Issues
The main limitation of the Turbo heads is the larger size and weight. This may make carrying the lights more awkward.
The Turbo heads can be expensive to purchase separately (current MSRP is ~$49 for the GX/SX models, and ~$119 for the MX).
Preliminary Observations
As promised, this was a picture heavy update. :sweat: But hopefully it has given you a feel for how the Turbo heads compare to the Standard head models I reviewed previously. To put it simply, the Turbo heads propel the GX/SX/MX25L2 lights into the current top-end of throw class champions (for their respective emitters). :wave:
It really comes down to whether or not you need all that throw. Speaking as a typical suburban/city dweller, I find current regular-sized high-output lights exceed my actual throw needs. But if you need or crave the maximum possible reach, these Turbo heads do not disappoint.
Of course, you do loose some ease and flexibility of carry with these larger heads. The SX25L2 is probably the one model that retains the most proportional dimensions (i.e., the Turbo head version doesn't seem that much out of place). I guess it comes down to whether you want to look like you are carrying an updated Mag/Stinger-style light (with Standard head). or a portable throw cannon (with Turbo head). :laughing:
Hope you found all the beam comparisons helpful.
----
Turbo heads and batteries were provided by Eagletac for review.
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 1, 2013: I have just posted a review of the SBT-70 version of this light (i.e., maximum throw version of this series).
Following up on my recent Eagletac GX/SX25L2 and MX25L2 reviews, Eagletac has sent me the various Turbo head options to evaluate.
As this will involve a lot of pics and animated GIF outdoor beamshots, I thought I would do a separate thread to compare and discuss the Turbo options for the whole family. Please see my earlier reviews above for a detail analysis of the performance and features of the various lights, as this thread will focus on the beam differences between the Standard and Turbo heads.
As a reminder, this series is distinguished by the battery source used (2x18650 for the GX, 2x26650 for the SX, and 2x32650 for the MX), and the emitter (Cree XM-L2 for the GX/SX, and Luminus SST-90 for the MX). All my review samples featured bundled replaceable battery packs and built-in chargers.
Note that you can buy the lights in either form (Standard or Turbo head), but there is an additional cost to acquire the Turbo head separately. Current MSRPs that I've seen for the Turbo heads alone are ~$49 for the GX/SX Turbo head, and ~$119 for the MX25L2.
One quick comment before we get started: the Turbo head upgrade option comes with a nice screw-on plastic plug (with o-ring), that can be used to keep the unused head (Standard or Turbo) sealed when not in use.
First off, let's see how the Turbo head versions look, relative to the Standard heads (Standard first, followed by Turbo):
From left to right: Eagletac Protected 18650 (3400mAh); Eagletac GX25L2, SX25L2, and MX25L2.
And here is a side-by-side comparison:
From left to right: Eagletac Protected 18650 (3400mAh); Eagletac GX25L2 Standard Head (alone), GX25L2 with Turbo Head, SX25L2 with Turbo head, SX25L2 Standard Head (alone).
From left to right: Eagletac Protected 18650 (3400mAh); Eagletac MX25L2 with Turbo Head, MX25L2 Standard Head (alone).
First thing you may notice is that while the standard head of the SX25L2 was larger than the GX25L2, the Turbo heads have a fairly similar size between these models. Also, the MX25L2 now had a flat black aluminum bezel on the Turbo head.
Let's see how they measure up exactly:
All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed (unless indicated):
Eagletac GX25L2: Weight: 198.3g (with battery pack: 290.1g), Length: 224mm, Width (bezel): 39.5mm
Eagletac GX25L2 Turbo: Weight: 320.7g (with battery pack: 412.5g), Length: 251mm, Width (bezel): 62.0mm
Eagletac SX25L2: Weight: 279.4g (with battery pack: 470.3g), Length: 239mm, Width (bezel): 47.0mm
Eagletac SX25L2 Turbo: Weight: 343.4g (with battery pack: 534.3g), Length: 255mm, Width (bezel): 62.0mm
Eagletac MX25L2:Weight: 468.7g (with battery pack: 744.2g), Length: 266mm, Width (bezel): 62.0mm
Eagletac MX25L2 Turbo:Weight: 698.6g (with battery pack: 974.1g), Length: 292mm, Width (bezel): 91.3mm
I had already determined in my GX/SX25L2 review that those two models have similar output level on Max. With the comparable Turbo reflectors between the models, the difference really comes down to runtime now (which is based on the capacity of the 18650 vs 26650 cells used). I would expect no significant difference in throw between these two models with Turbo heads installed.
The MX25L2's Turbo head is massive, and brings us into the territory of the Olight SR95 (which is 87mm in diameter).
Here are some direct comparison pics of the standard and Turbo heads:
GX25L2:
SX25L2:
MX25L2:
The quality and design of the Turbo heads matches the rest of the build. I suggest you refer back to my earlier GX/SX25L2 and MX25L2 reviews for more information on the build, user interface, circuit features, etc.
Beamshots:
All lights are on their standard battery, about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences.
GX/SX25L2:
Obviously, the Turbo heads are more focused for throw.
Overall spillbeam width also seems slightly narrower. Please see my earlier GX/SX25L2 review for additional white wall beamshots comparing to other lights in this class.For the MX25L2, I am including a couple of recent SST-90-based lights in the comparisons below.
MX25L2:
The overall beam pattern (spillbeam width and hotspot width) of the MX25L2 Turbo is intermediate to the Skilhunt K30 and Olight SR95. However, the peak intensity is actually higher than either of these comparable lights – but that's hard to see in white wall shots at 0.75m.
Check out the outdoor shots below, or scroll down for a detailed output/throw table.Outdoor Beamshots
And now, what you have all been waiting for – outdoor beamshots.
For these, everything is done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography (i.e. the road dips in the distance, to better show you the corona in the mid-ground). FYI, any "streaks" you see across the images are bug-trails. Flying insects are often attracted to the bright lights, and their flight trails get captured as swirly streaks due to the long exposure time.
Also, ignore any tint differences below – they are mainly due to the automatic white balance setting on the camera.Let's start by comparing each light one at a time – starting with wide-angle shots, and then close-ups on the hotspots:
GX25L2:
SX25L2:
MX25L2:
Clearly, the Turbo heads all make a huge difference to how far the lights throw.
To help you compare models, here are the various head types together, starting with the standard heads, followed by the Turbo heads:
Standard Heads:
Turbo Heads:
Since the GX25L2 and SX25L2 Turbo heads have the same relative throw (and my SX25L2 pics came out a little better focused), let's compare this light to other lights in the heavy thrower class. For these comparisons, I am using the furthest throwing XM-L/XM-L2 lights in my current collection.
As you can see, the GX/SX25L2 is certainly in the same category as these other top throwers (although not quite as tightly focused as some of them). But again, these are the best XM-L/XM-L2-class throwers in my collection at the moment, so this is a very impressive showing for the GX/SX25L2 Turbo.
oo:I didn't have my other Luminus SST-90-based lights with me on this latest outdoor excursion, but here is a comparison of the MX25L2 to the new MT-G2 lights:
As you can see above, the MX25L2 Standard head manages to at least match (and slightly exceed) the throw of the MT-G2 lights - the Turbo head knocks it into another ballpark. Sorry about the lack of SST-90 comparisons ... if I get the chance to do some more super-high output comparison tests, I will update this thread. :wave:
UPDATE OCTOBER 4, 2013:
Here is an additional comparison of the MX25L2 SST-90 with Turbo head to the Olight SR95 (also SST-90):
You can see both the output and throw of the MX25L2 Turbo head exceed the SR95, when matched with the same emitter (although the difference isn't huge)
Also, please ignore any tint differences above – they are mainly due to the automatic white balance setting on the camera.
Testing Method:
All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.
I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lightbox values to Lumens thread for more info.
Throw/Output Summary Chart:
My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).
My updated summary table confirms what you can see in the beamshots – the Turbo heads provide a significant improvement in throw, moving these Eageltac models up toward the top of their respective emmiter classes. :wave:
Output/Runtime Graphs:
Again, check out my full reviews of the GX/SX25L2 and MX25L2 to see how these lights compare to others in their respective classes.
One thing I will update here – Eagletac sent me a couple of their 3400mAh protected 18650 cells (presumably based on the Panasonic NCR18650B). I had previous determined that their bundled battery pack for the GX25L2 (3100mAh cells) performed comparable to other 3100mAh cells in my collection (all based on Panasonic NCR18650A).
Let's see how these Eagletac 3400mAh cells compare in the GX25L2:
The 3400mAh Eagletac cells certainly have more capacity than the standard 3100mAh cells.
Potential Issues
The main limitation of the Turbo heads is the larger size and weight. This may make carrying the lights more awkward.
The Turbo heads can be expensive to purchase separately (current MSRP is ~$49 for the GX/SX models, and ~$119 for the MX).
Preliminary Observations
As promised, this was a picture heavy update. :sweat: But hopefully it has given you a feel for how the Turbo heads compare to the Standard head models I reviewed previously. To put it simply, the Turbo heads propel the GX/SX/MX25L2 lights into the current top-end of throw class champions (for their respective emitters). :wave:
It really comes down to whether or not you need all that throw. Speaking as a typical suburban/city dweller, I find current regular-sized high-output lights exceed my actual throw needs.
But if you need or crave the maximum possible reach, these Turbo heads do not disappoint. Of course, you do loose some ease and flexibility of carry with these larger heads. The SX25L2 is probably the one model that retains the most proportional dimensions (i.e., the Turbo head version doesn't seem that much out of place). I guess it comes down to whether you want to look like you are carrying an updated Mag/Stinger-style light (with Standard head). or a portable throw cannon (with Turbo head). :laughing:
Hope you found all the beam comparisons helpful.
----
Turbo heads and batteries were provided by Eagletac for review.
Last edited:
