Zebralight SC52: 280 lumens?????

I just got my SC52 to serve as my EDC while my Quark XP-G2 goes for repairs. I am disappointed by the brightness of the SC52. It comes nowhere close to the Quark in a ceiling bounce test ... like not even a contest despite being rated as 100 lumens brighter. In fact, side by side it's difficult to see any difference between my H51w and the SC52.

Back when I got the H51w I was pretty convinced that Zebralight was fudging the lumen number a little bit since it was WAY less bright than the Quark despite being rated as 172 lumens and the Quark XP-G2 S2 for 180. Now I'm convinced that ZL's numbers are nowhere close to reality. That, or FourSevens is under-reporting their lumens by a factor of two.

beamis said:

I just got my SC52 to serve as my EDC while my Quark XP-G2 goes for repairs. I am disappointed by the brightness of the SC52. It comes nowhere close to the Quark in a ceiling bounce test ... like not even a contest despite being rated as 100 lumens brighter. In fact, side by side it's difficult to see any difference between my H51w and the SC52.

Back when I got the H51w I was pretty convinced that Zebralight was fudging the lumen number a little bit since it was WAY less bright than the Quark despite being rated as 172 lumens and the Quark XP-G2 S2 for 180. Now I'm convinced that ZL's numbers are nowhere close to reality. That, or FourSevens is under-reporting their lumens by a factor of two.

Click to expand...

I have read a variety of threads here on CPF which touch on this same subject.
Either some lights are over-rating their output, or some are under-rating, according to light meter testing that I have read here.

I would check selfbuilt's reviews for a good comparison to other lights. I can tell you that my sample seems to support the output claims. My SC52 on Eneloop outperforms my Quark AA Tactical on 14500 (which should be about 210 lumens). Countdown til reppans arrives in this thread....

beamis said:

That, or FourSevens is under-reporting their lumens by a factor of two.

Click to expand...

[email protected] said:

With regards to the outputs, we measure out the front for all of our flashlights. As some have said here, we like to under promise and over deliver. That isn't to say our outputs ratings are not accurate, though. There are a lot of factors that go into how your eye perceives lumen output.

Click to expand...

Wiggle said:

I would check selfbuilt's reviews for a good comparison to other lights. I can tell you that my sample seems to support the output claims. My SC52 on Eneloop outperforms my Quark AA Tactical on 14500 (which should be about 210 lumens). Countdown til reppans arrives in this thread....

Click to expand...

Selfbuilt's review is what convinced me that maybe my experience with the H51w was a fluke. If this SC52 is 290 lumens OTF, then my XP-G2 Quark is over 300 OTF.

EDIT - Cree reports 300 lumens at 700 mA, and around 2.85V at 700 mA for the cool white XML. That's 1.995W. Just about enough power for an Eneloop to last 68 minutes. ZL report 0.9 hours runtime, which establishes an efficiency of somewhere around 80%. That means the driver and reflector each has to be 90% efficient or better to get 290 OTF lumens from one Eneloop for 54 minutes. Is ZL really pulling that off? That's pretty amazing.

XP-G2 vs XM-L, perhaps it's a case of lumens vs lux?

Calibrated, certified integration spheres and statistically significant sample sizes are very expensive and are seldom done by anyone but the manufacturers. I expect most big name manufacturers are truthful to the ANSI standards. Some may tend to over sample or understate to reduce the likelihood of underperforming individual samples. Some may test to the minimum standard. Some probably lie.

As mentioned, there are a lot of factors that go into our perception of brightness and we are not very good at it even in side by side comparisons, let alone sequential ones.

My experience with ZL has been good and I have not been able to visually dispute their claims. But their floody nature and often poor tint can certainly lead to the impression that they are not as bright as stated. Maybe you just got a bad sample. Or maybe the buzz here that they overstate their output numbers is correct. Personally I think that buzz is wholly unsupported as all the claims are based on relative comparisons to other samples stated outputs so no calibrated integration spheres, and no statistically significant sample sizes. Even those point to relatively accurate numbers at easily measured light levels and at the extremely low levels where their appears to be more difference, the experimental error can account for the differences given the nature of the equipment.

Bottom line is, if the light doesn't perform to your expectations, talk to ZL or the dealer. You can likely return or exchange it. I've returned ZLs due to a horrid tint, but have been ok with the brightness and intensity for EDC use.

beamis said:

I just got my SC52 to serve as my EDC while my Quark XP-G2 goes for repairs. I am disappointed by the brightness of the SC52. It comes nowhere close to the Quark in a ceiling bounce test ... like not even a contest despite being rated as 100 lumens brighter. In fact, side by side it's difficult to see any difference between my H51w and the SC52.

Back when I got the H51w I was pretty convinced that Zebralight was fudging the lumen number a little bit since it was WAY less bright than the Quark despite being rated as 172 lumens and the Quark XP-G2 S2 for 180. Now I'm convinced that ZL's numbers are nowhere close to reality. That, or FourSevens is under-reporting their lumens by a factor of two.

Click to expand...

Just curious... but are you performing the ceiling bounce test correctly?

Hold one light in your hand and point it at the ceiling in a dark room. Then look at a point on the floor well below the light ... not the ceiling. Then do the same for the other light. If you're looking at the hotspot on the ceiling you're doing it wrong.

Fireclaw18 said:

Just curious... but are you performing the ceiling bounce test correctly?

Hold one light in your hand and point it at the ceiling in a dark room. Then look at a point on the floor well below the light ... not the ceiling. Then do the same for the other light. If you're looking at the hotspot on the ceiling you're doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm sure. What would be the point of a ceiling bounce test if you weren't looking at 'bounced' light?

Welcome to the "Zebralight Troll" club

Yeah, I recall that H51w vs QAA2-S2 thread back in 2010 or 2011 - that thread got me started metering my own lights and to realize how useless the ANSI standards are - every manufacturer still employs their own level of conservatism/exaggeration, and the rules are wide enough to drive a truck though.

So who's being conservative and who's exaggerating?

As a sub-lumen AA collector, I calibrate my light meter with a lumen scale that matches most of my lights and modes which are from Foursevens, Thrunite, Eagletac, Sunwayman, and most recently Malkoff, and of course this scale is significantly more conservative than the Selfbuilt/Zebralight scale. I later came across ti-force's reviews and found my lumen scale matched his. For the QAA2-X /QP2A-X (my primary calibration light), which both TF and SB have reviewed, their lumen estimates differed by 60-80 lumens at max and stepdown - I consider that kind of significant.

Here's what ti-force claims...

For those of you who aren't aware, I have my own calibrated homemade integrating sphere (I have two, actually) for measuring lumen output of different lights. My sphere's have been calibrated using lights that were measured in a professional lab sphere, so my lumen results are very accurate.

Click to expand...

and what Selfbuilt claims.....

The point is that the relative value accuracy of my measures remains remarkably high. So, for example, if I estimate one light at 270 lumens and another at 300 lumens, you can feel fairly comfortable with the conclusion that the second light is indeed about 10% brighter. But whether or not that is really 240 and 265 lumens (or 300 and 330 lumens , etc, etc.) I cannot say with any certainty.

Click to expand...

While I use TF's scale, I completely support Selfbuilt's relative value accuracy data and always try to reconcile with his findings. So take a look at one of SB's relative output/runtime graphs on how ZL's "280" lumens compares with a few other manufacturer's 280 (and less) lumens (SB's graph, my annotations taken from his reviews):



As much as I hate to say it, I think SB should stick with lumen scale he is using - if he were to use a more conservative one, I think a few manufacturers might stop submitting lights for his review .

I don't know if I'm truly a ZL troll as much as a truth-in-advertising/warranty/CS troll. I alway said the ZL lights are very nice - the SC52 is brightest and (on average) most efficient in my 1xAA collection (but nowhere near what a comparison of specs suggests), it has one of the nicest UIs, it's one of the smallest, etc. - I'll stop short of build quality, though, due to LT reliability concerns (this place used to be littered with ZL reliability polls, now vastly improved). But yeah the combination of ZLs marketing, warranty and CS policies kind of bring me to them a lot....sorry

Wiggle said:

... My SC52 on Eneloop outperforms my Quark AA Tactical on 14500 (which should be about 210 lumens). Countdown til reppans arrives in this thread....

Click to expand...

I agree with you here Wiggle, the SC52 on an Eneloop should outperform the QAA2-S2 on 3V+ (it's an old light) - I would also put the SC52 around ~220-230 lm mark that others have suggested in other thread...... And in before the lock .

reppans said:

I agree with you here Wiggle, the SC52 on an Eneloop should outperform the QAA2-S2 on 3V+ (it's an old light) - I would also put the SC52 around ~220-230 lm mark that others have suggested in other thread...... And in before the lock .

Click to expand...

Well, I just did a ceiling bounce test with a camera to make sure there wasn't any bias on my part. I set the camera up on a tripod pointed at a white wall. I set up the QAA2-S2 and the SC52 in the exact same spot for each photo. The QAA2-S2 is indeed slightly brighter, but just by a hair. Still, the 290 OTF lumens reported by Selfbuilt's test is 64% more than the 177 OTF lumens for the QAA2-S2, and yet the Quark is still brighter.

BTW, to the OP,

if you have a smartphone, you could use a free light meter app to objectively compare the relative outputs of the two lights. And instead of a ceiling bounce, you could use a horizontal bounce as one guy did that original H51w/QAAS2 thread (works quite well if you don't have a lightbox)... They'll be rough estimates, but I think better than you can visually detect with the naked eye. If you're interested, I could also tell you how to use that to calibrate to, and meter for lumens.

EDIT.... You beat me to the enter button.. Although I'd still recommend the horizontal bounce in a narrow hallway and matching the full beam sizes between both lights held close to the wall.

Although inexact, I don't think the margin of error is large enough for a 290 lumen light to appear more dim than a 177 lumen light. One of these lights is grossly under- or over-rated.

beamis said:

side by side it's difficult to see any difference between my H51w and the SC52.

Click to expand...

Sounds to me that you can't seem to get the light into H1. Have you tried a lithium primary yet?

reppans said:

As much as I hate to say it, I think SB should stick with lumen scale he is using - if he were to use a more conservative one, I think a few manufacturers might stop submitting lights for his review .

Click to expand...

As much as you hate saying it, you seem to say it quite often.

One more thought, the only way I got 220 lms (conservative 47s lumen scale) from my SC52 was when the Eneloop was fresh off my C9000 charger. With a minute or two of runtime (or if the cell sat for a few days) the best I could get was 200 lms which the light would hold for a while. You can also see the quick output drop-off from Selfbuilt's graph above.

Your Quark being both under-driven and dual cell will be able maintain a much flatter output/runtime curve. If you want, try charging the cells overnight and repeating the test immediately off the charger. That might tip the scale the other way... But it won't change your conclusion.

Mr Floppy said:

Sounds to me that you can't seem to get the light into H1. Have you tried a lithium primary yet?

Click to expand...

I hadn't, but on your suggestion I tried an Energizer Advanced lithium AA and it made no difference. I'm getting H1 because I can get both H2 levels and they're both dimmer.

I think I just have to resign myself to applying a 0.6 multiplier to Zebralights in the future if I want to compare them to my Fenix or 4Sevens lights. If 4Sevens' XML AA2 lights are similarly rated, a ZL won't compare until ZL has a light they claim at 560 lumens.

SC52 requires a very healthy NiMH to achieve maximum performance. i've noticed large differences in output when using different cells

ceiling bounce isn't a very accurate way of comparing them because zebralights tend to have heavier texturing on the reflector than quarks, not to mention XPG vs XML

since you don't have a calibrated sphere the easiest way to compare them is by measuring tailcap current

I have a ZL SC52 and a Quark x AA2. They are both rated at 280 lumens and I believe both have the same led. Their beam profiles are almost the same, but my Quark has a whiter tint. I got the cool SC52, but its beam tint is noticeably warmer than the Quark. The Quark appears brighter, but not by a whole lot. I would attribute this to the difference in tint though.

I rate the output of the SC52 (with a freshly charged Eneloop) roughly as follows:

High 1: 230
High 2A: 150
High 2B: 90

As a comparison, I measure the Quark QP2A-X roughly as follows:

Max: 360
Max, after 3-minute step-down: 260
High: 120


So, yes, ZL definitely overstates their output, on all levels except the medium modes (I get roughly what ZL claims for the mediums). The low modes are overstated more than the high modes.

But all that makes sense, when you look at lumens/watt. Both lights are roughly the same when it comes to efficiency.

Overclocker said:

ceiling bounce isn't a very accurate way of comparing them because zebralights tend to have heavier texturing on the reflector than quarks, not to mention XPG vs XML

Click to expand...

I was just going to say, I don't like this "ceiling bounce" stuff. Not that I have a better idea, or any ideas at all, but it just doesn't speak to me about the perceived brightness. Flood vs. throw always tricks you eyes. I find it best to simply turn them both on a do a real comparison outdoors and indoors. I know it's subjective and boring without hard numbers, but so is actually using a light for daily tasks.