Foursevens Quark Tactical QT2L-X Burst Mode review

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
I have the Foursevens Quark Tactical QT2L-X with Burst Mode here for review. This light was sent to me by Foursevens for review purposes. If you haven't seen my Quark X 123-2 review, you can see it here- click


For those of you who may not have heard, Foursevens has upgraded their popular QT2L-X by upgrading the circuitry to produce a massive amount of light in Max mode. Follow along to see just how much the light output in Max mode was increased compared to the QT2L-X non-Burst Mode.



Operation (Taken from Foursevens website):
"The Quark Tactical can memorize any two modes of output from its eight total modes to be instantly available. These two memorized modes are accessed by either tightening or loosening the head .
To have your Quark Tactical memorize a different mode: turn it on and loosen the head by a half-turn. Then tighten the head at least four times rapidly (twisting it tight then loose four times). After the fourth time leave the head tight or loose depending on which position you want to program.
The light will flash after three seconds to signal that it is ready to be programmed. Cycle through the eight available modes by clicking the tailcap off and on. The mode sequence is as follows:
· Moonlight-Low-Medium-High-Max-SOS-Strobe-Beacon
After finding your desired mode leave that mode on for ten seconds and the light will flash again to confirm that the mode has been memorized. To cancel programming simply turn the light off for three seconds before it flashes."



Specifications (Taken from Foursevens website):

DIMENSIONSLength: 4.5 inches
Body diameter: 0.86 inches
Head diameter: 0.86 inches
Weight (without batteries): 1.8 oz
LED EMITTERCREE XM-L2
VOLTAGE RANGE3V-9V
SPOT BEAMAngle: 13.9 degrees
Diameter at 3 meters: 730mm
FLOOD BEAMAngle: 73 degrees
Diameter at 3 meters: 4.44 meters
BRIGHTNESS LEVELSMoonlight: 0.5 lumens, 25 days
Low: 5 lumens, 4 days
Medium: 55 lumens, 14 hrs
High: 300 lumens, 3.2 hrs
Max:Burst at 780 lumens, 1 minute
then 390 lumens, 1.9 hrs
SPECIAL MODESStrobe: 10 hz, 1 hrs
SOS, 4 hours
Beacon, 12 hrs
REFLECTORTextured
BODY MATERIALType-III hard-anodized aircraft-grade aluminum
BEZEL MATERIALType-III hard-anodized aircraft-grade aluminum
LENS MATERIALImpact-resistant glass, sapphire coating, antireflective coating
INCLUDED ACCESSORIESBatteries, lanyard, split ring for keychain attachment, spare o-ring, holster, hand-grip






Some pictures:



Packaging-

20130722_182219.jpg





Included goodies-

20130722_182724.jpg





The light-

20130722_182406.jpg

20130722_182422.jpg





XM-L2 Emitter-

20130722_182356.jpg





Revised Circuit Board-

20130722_182535.jpg










For those of you who may not be aware, I have my own calibrated homemade integrating sphere for measuring lumen output of different lights. My sphere has been calibrated using lights that were measured in a professional lab sphere, so my lumen results are very accurate. However, due to common variables such as temperature differences, battery charge state differences, and even differences within the components used within each and every light, you should only use my results as an example of what one sample outputs in OTF lumens. If you purchase one of these lights I'm sure the output would be similar, provided all variables are similar, but your light may not produce exactly the same output as this sample. The output could be less, the output could be more, it just depends.

Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, here are my OTF lumen results:



Here it is in Max Mode. As you can see, this little light puts out a massive amount of light, especially for such a small light. I'm very impressed:

QT2L-XBurstModeOTFfrontlumengraph.png




And here it is directly compared to the previous Quark X without Burst Mode-

QuarkXvsQT2L-XBurtModeOTFLumengraph.png





[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] Here's my lumen data for this light running on a 17670 Li-Ion battery.[/FONT]

Oh, and I need to mention that the use of 17670 Li-ion's in this light has worked well for all of the 2xcr123 Foursevens lights I've ever tried, but there have been reports of others not being able to fit the 17670 into the battery tube because of its slightly larger diameter, so please try at your own risk. Foursevens recommends the use of cr123 primary batteries or rechargeable cr123 Li-Ion batteries in this light.


Max Mode AW 17670 Li-Ion-

QT2L-XAW17670MaxModeOTFLumenGraph.png




Quark X 17670 vs QT2L-X Burst Mode 17670 (both AW 17670)-

QT2L-XvsQuarkXAW17670MaxModeGraph.png




QT2L-X AW 17670 vs cr123 primaries-

QT2L-X17670vscr123maxmode.png




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] Here's my measured lumen data for various modes of this light.[/FONT]

I only tested out to 5 minutes in each mode because it would be extremely time consuming to run tests for each output mode until battery depletion. I have no way of data logging so I must remain with each light during every test session that I perform.

Low and Moonlight Modes-

QT2L-XLowMoonlight.png




High and Medium Modes-

QT2L-XHighMedium.png




And all modes in one graph-

QT2L-XHighMediumLowandMoonlight.png





In closing, I'm very impressed with this light. Not only does it output a tremendous amount of light in such a small form factor, it retains a very useable and long runtime in Max mode. For those of you who need (or want) large amounts of light in a small form factor, this is your light. Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoyed my review.
 
Last edited:

LnL

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
1
Great information! I've had a few FourSevens, and I'm considering getting one of these. Nice to know that it delivers better than advertised. Now I need to find a good supplier, as it appears my old supplier has gone belly-up...
 

AnAppleSnail

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
4,200
Location
South Hill, VA
Is the performance similar with a 17670, or is that a boring "Duh, yes" question? Thank you for the great information!
 

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
Is the performance similar with a 17670, or is that a boring "Duh, yes" question? Thank you for the great information!

That's actually a good question, and one that I'm curious of, too. I'm planning to test with a 17670 when I have time. Thanks for the kind words.
 

BigBluefish

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
I've liked the Quark Tacticals and had a few...but am now down to one Quark standard Hi-CRI. This might make me grab another Quark...that's some serious output on burst. But I'd probably need to send it off for an emitter swap, unless 4 Sevens comes out with a decent neutral or warm tint version.
 

SCEMan

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
1,873
Location
Treasure Valley, Idaho
I just picked up a QP2L-X (I have several tacticals) and have been using it with an AA body/14500. Awesome combo that on burst is brighter than my Eagletac D25LC2 clicky!
And no Moonlight preflash either :thumbsup:
 

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
4,873
Thanks for your review... very much appreciated.


For those of you who may not be aware, I have my own calibrated homemade integrating sphere for measuring lumen output of different lights. My sphere has been calibrated using lights that were measured in a professional lab sphere, so my lumen results are very accurate.


^^ Now this a real treat to hear - and an important statement no other reviewer around here seems to be able to claim. I've been really scratching my head with some of the so-called "ANSI FL1" claims that different manufacturers supposedly use for specs, but just don't make sense to my eyes. The differences between even reputable manufacturer marketing claims are significant (up to ~50%), making spec sheet comparisons a real joke, and started me testing my own lights with a light meter. Now glancing at this, and some of your past reviews, your lumen scale seems pretty closely aligned with FourSevens, which by many would be considered way over on the "conservative" side of the fence. Not knowing any better myself, I have chosen to calibrate my meter on Quarks (QPA2-X specifically) because I have found them to be the most consistently accurate across different modes and family members - not surprisingly, my numbers are pretty close to yours for matching lights. The downside of using this scale is that some lights become disappointing.


Couple of questions.... have you tested the actual lumen output of the lower modes on this Quark (I'm a low lumen fan)?, and if you get a chance to measure the 17670 output, could you also test a 14500 (SCEMan config)?, .... and lastly - have you tested any Zebralights :whistle:
 

CampingMaster

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
140
Location
Montréal, Québec, Canada
Who can explain me how come the Fenix PD35 has a Maximum of 850 lumens for 1h 15 min ; High 450 lumens for 2.5 hours and the QP2L-X BM can do only 1 minute at 780 lumens and 1.9 hours at 390 lumens ? Both of these flashlights use 2 x CR123A ( or RCR123A ) ; both of them use the XM-L 2 emitter ( U2 for Fenix and T6 for Quark ) and Fenix say on their Web site : « Fenix is proud to support the new ANSI/NEMA FL1 standards for lighting Equipment. All performance data is measured to these standards ». I am really confused. And I want to thank you very much ti-force for your review, I was waiting for it for several days, the info you give us is very useful for taking a decision.​
 
Last edited:

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
4,873
Who can explain me how come the Fenix PD35 has a Maximum of 850 lumens for 1h 15 min ; High 450 lumens for 2.5 hours and the QP2L-X BM can do only 1 minute at 780 lumens and 1.9 hours at 390 lumens ? Both of these flashlights use 2 x CR123A ( or RCR123A ) ; both of them use the XM-L 2 emitter ( U2 for Fenix and T6 for Quark ) and Fenix say on their Web site : « Fenix is proud to support the new ANSI/NEMA FL1 standards for lighting Equipment. All performance data is measured to these standards ». I am really confused. And I want to thank you very much ti-force for your review, I was waiting for it for several days, the info you give us is very useful for taking a decision.​

With regard to the short-term burst mode, Foursevens is known for under driving their lights, a similar practice to the US manufacturers. Makes a lot of business sense for companies that stand behind their product for 10+ years.

You can drive a truck through the different manufacturers' interpretations of the so called "ANSI" specs.... it's the point I was trying to make in my post above.

As an one simple example, you can look at Selfbuilt's reviews of the TK35 and the Maelstrom X10, both heavy hitter XML lights. The TK35 is spec'd at 820 but tested at 750lms while the X10 is spec'd at 640 but tested at 770lms. Batteries used for the specs may also greatly differ affecting runtimes.

Comparisons of spec sheets between different manufacturers can be a real joke - you won't find much consistency in the ANSI specs - just the independent reviews here on CPF. And even then, our independent reviewers will only be consistent within themselves - less so with each other - ie, Ti-force's lumen scale will be different than Selfbuilt's.
 
Last edited:

defloyd77

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
2,631
Location
Wisconsin
Who can explain me how come the Fenix PD35 has a Maximum of 850 lumens for 1h 15 min ; High 450 lumens for 2.5 hours and the QP2L-X BM can do only 1 minute at 780 lumens and 1.9 hours at 390 lumens ? Both of these flashlights use 2 x CR123A ( or RCR123A ) ; both of them use the XM-L 2 emitter ( U2 for Fenix and T6 for Quark ) and Fenix say on their Web site : « Fenix is proud to support the new ANSI/NEMA FL1 standards for lighting Equipment. All performance data is measured to these standards ». I am really confused. And I want to thank you very much ti-force for your review, I was waiting for it for several days, the info you give us is very useful for taking a decision.​

The PD35 has a max of 850 lumens, but not 850 lumens for 1h 15 min, ANSI runtimes are to 10% of original output. They don't say how long it's 850 lumens for and what it drops down to.
 

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
Thanks for the kind words, everyone. Here's some more data (I'll also update the first post with some of this data).

Oh, and I need to mention that the use of 17670 Li-ion's in this light has worked well for all of the 2xcr123 Foursevens lights I've ever tried, but there have been reports of others not being able to fit the 17670 into the battery tube because of its slight larger diameter. Just wanted to mention this.

AnAppleSnail-

Max Mode AW 17670 Li-Ion-

QT2L-XAW17670MaxModeOTFLumenGraph.png




Quark X 17670 vs QT2L-X Burst Mode 17670 (both AW 17670)-

QT2L-XvsQuarkXAW17670MaxModeGraph.png




QT2L-X AW 17670 vs cr123 primaries-

QT2L-X17670vscr123maxmode.png




Reppans-

I only tested out to 5 minutes in each mode because it would be extremely time consuming to run tests for each output mode until battery depletion. I have no way to datalog so I must remain with the lights during each test session to record data.

Low and Moonlight Modes-

QT2L-XLowMoonlight.png




High and Medium Modes-

QT2L-XHighMedium.png




And all modes in one graph-

QT2L-XHighMediumLowandMoonlight.png




And here's the data for the SCEMan config (14500). I would like to mention that I would certainly exercise caution when/if using any 14500 Li-ion with a max discharge rating of no more than 2c in this configuration. I measured 1.9 amps current draw in max mode with a 17670 Li-Ion for the full 60 seconds in max mode until the timer cut current back to 1.3 amps. I certainly wouldn't use a non-reputable brand 14500 and I wouldn't even consider using a non-protected 14500. I'm not here to tell you guys how to safely use your lights, but merely wanted to mention this for anyone reading these results that may not be aware of these types of safety precautions that should be followed to ensure safe usage.

AW protected 14500 Li-ion's are rated at 750mAh (.75 amp hr), but if I'm not mistaken, these batteries have been tested to have a lower capacity. 500 or 600mAh seems to pop out in my head. Or maybe I'm thinking about the RCR123's. At any rate, I would certainly be careful when using a single 14500 or 16340 Li-ion in this setup. I did my testing using an AW 14500 IMR LiMN, which has a much higher discharge rating at 4 amps continuous draw. For all I know a Li-Ion 14500 may not even be capable of delivering the full current to this light and could possibly cause the current draw to actually be lower, and within the safe operating range of those batteries.

Ok now that I've got that out of the way, here are my results-

QT2L-X with AW 14500 IMR Max mode-

QT2L-XAWIMR14500Max.png




Same as above vs AW 17670-

QT2L-XIMR14500vs17670Liion.png




And here's the Foursevens included cr123 primary battery run thrown in with the previous two-

QT2L-XIMR14500vs17670vscr123primaries.png
 
Last edited:

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
4,873
Thanks Ti-force.... excellent info - just wanted to see if the lower mode outputs were in the ballpark of the specs, not expecting runtime tests at all. I've recently rec'd a light that was ~ 4-10x off spec in the lower modes, and that drives me nuts since those are the most often used for me. Great point on safety with the 14500s.
 

tobrien

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
4,861
Location
Georgia Highway 441
nice review man! i like how clear and easy to read/interpret you made your graphs!

i see they include a spring on the head contact now, nice!
 

michaelmcgo

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
267
nice review man! i like how clear and easy to read/interpret you made your graphs!

i see they include a spring on the head contact now, nice!

I wonder if they changed the spring on the trail and if that will affect lego-ing.
 

tobrien

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
4,861
Location
Georgia Highway 441
I wonder if they changed the spring on the trail and if that will affect lego-ing.
i have my doubts about it affecting LEGO-ing personally, i think any lego-disabling changes would have to be much more drastic
looks like a flat coiled contact pad to me

now that you mention it, you may be right, but it may be the angle of the pic
 
Top