Argo vs. EOS

[jbrett14]

I am looking to buy another headlamp and I have been considering one of these two.

Outside of this forum, from what I could find, I read a few great things about the Argo - brighter and a lot longer run time. Since they are both about the same price, why does it seem that the EOS gets so much more attention? Some of the EOS reviews talk as if it is a great light, yet it's run time, in high mode, is not very good at all, comparatively (1 hr. vs. 6 hrs).

Which would you recommend and why?

Also, if I choose the Argo, which would you choose between the (3)xAAA & the (2)x123 models? Why?

Your responses would be greatly appreciated.

I know it's not a ton of money, but I want to spend my $30 wisely.

Jonny

 

[sORe-EyEz]

i do not have to EOS, but i have the Argo HP 2xCR123, C4 LED.

i went for the CR123 as it cuts down on weight, & has a longer runtime vs the 3xAAA version, IIRC (the Streamlight website is down? :shrug. personally i find the hotspot too bright, vs the spill. i have a diffuser sheet to widen the spot to diffuse the spot & enlarge it.

as for the EOS earlier versions were said to have too narrow a beam to be useful. not sure about the updated version though.

generally, 3xAAA does not have the same capacity as CR123s or even AA. that is why the shorter the runtime. i do not want the batteries to go flat if i need to keep moving or during a downpour. if there is no issues on swapping batteries midway, the 3xAAAs will do. on battery change i prefer Argo HP's method to EOS's.

no issues with the hinges, once adjusted, they stay in place.

 

[mdocod]

Assuming the relatively low drain rates found on most LED headlamps...

AAA lithium primary: ~1.5WH stored energy. ~$2 per cell. $1.33/WH

CR123 lithium primary (USA made ONLY PLEASE!!! It's going on your HEAD!): ~4WH. ~$1.75 per cell. or ~$0.44/WH (technically speaking, you could spend anywhere from ~$1.25 or less all the way up to $10 per cell in this category. $1.75 is the SF price at many resellers online and is a conservative price point to compare to IMO).

---------

The cost of operation on primary cells may be of little concern when you consider how the light might be used. If you figure you will be using high output modes, or, in the case of the 4 mode EOS, the medium or high in most situations, then it makes more sense to go with the Argo. If you think the very low mode on the EOS may get used a lot in your application, then you may actually have a lower cost of operation with the EOS than with the Argo.

Lets forget cost of operation for a moment and just consider the technicality of dealing with the concept of battery swaps in the field. AAA cells are smaller and harder to grip, and will be installed in a spring loaded slot. Conditions where your hands are cold, or have gloves on them, or wet, etc etc, could all lead to more difficult battery changes on the EOS. With the tail-cap on the argo properly lubed up, it can be removed pretty easily, batteries just slide in and out. No fussing around.

Comparing the 2 lights beyond that point is pretty difficult because it heavily depends on which cells you are actually planning on using to run the light. The EOS on lithium primary cells delivers a similar 6 hour runtime on high from the review I was able to dig up on it. Cost to "fill up" on lithium AAAs is about double the cost of filling an Argo with CR123s. If you are planning on rechargeable options, the Argo HP runs great on a protected 17670 li-ion cell, which has about double the stored energy of 3xAAA NIMH cells.

I can't think of any reason to even consider the argo 3AAA model, the 2xCR123 is the better option there by far.

---

Just as a personal experience side note. I've had an HP for several years now. I upgraded from the original Luxeon to a Seoul and dropped a TIR optic in instead of the reflector. The thing has probably hundreds if not over a thousand hours of use on it. Can't tell ya how many times I've bashed the thing against stuff in those years. It's a surprisingly durable little hunk of plastic. I did have the tailcap start to split awhile back. I contacted streamlight and asked if I could buy a replacement tailcap, they send me 2 replacements tailcaps no charge and no questions asked. Keep it lubed up and this won't happen

-Eric

 

[cave dave]

I believe Princeton Tec actually uses Out the front lumens while Streamlight is using emitter lumens, hence the brightness of the EOS is actually same or a tad bit brighter than the Argo. Beam patterns are completely different though.

Also something doesn't quite smell right if the Argo uses the simialr efficiency emitter (rebel in the latest EOS) and same batteries and yet runs 6 times longer does it? It is because the two companies are measuring the runtimes in different ways.

From the Argo specs at brightguy:
"On high, the Argo headlamp will produce light for up to 7 hours.... At the 7 hour mark the Argo will produce 6 lumens of light."

Since both lights have upgraded their LED's to newer high efficiency LED's you can just compare these old reviews and about double the output numbers, but everything else should be about the same.

EOS Review

From flashlightreviews.com Argo Review
"Running the light {Argo} on high will burn through 3 AAA batteries in about an hour while medium and low power will give you light for about 2.5 and 6.5 hours respectfully."

 

[jzmtl]

I believe Princeton Tec actually uses Out the front lumens while Streamlight is using emitter lumens, hence the brightness of the EOS is actually same or a tad bit brighter than the Argo. Beam patterns are completely different though.

Streamlight hand held flashlights all use OTF figure, not sure about their headlights but I'd imagine they are the same.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

some links with pic of the EOS.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=211817
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=216605

a comprehensive write-up on many headlamps by Half-Watt.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=204268
non on EOS though...:thinking:

 

[half-watt]

currently own every version of the Eos, including the original no longer produced and all past and present version of the Argo and Argo HP (with the exception of the original 3xAAA Argo which, IMO, wasn't worth owning due to its performance regarding burntime). the current 3xAAA Argo is very nice, but takes a "backseat", IMO, to the Argo HP. the two new Eos HLs are nice, but i still prefer the C4 version of the Argo HP due to the 2xCR123A or 1x17670 power source.

the current C4 Argo HP is the way to go, IMO. i like them enough to give them to others as a gift. it's a good design with 4.75h of dead flat regulation on HI before dropping out of regulation, but continuing to run for a while longer with decreasing output. check out this review of the original (non-C4) Argo HP from CPF's Quickbeam ==>http://flashlightreviews.woodlandsconnection.com/flashlightreviews/reviews/streamlight_argohp.htm

the reasoning used by mcodod is quite convincing, to me at least. +1 to his excellent post. i can't add a single thing to it.

i've often used $1 each Titanium cells in it. a dozen Surefire cells can be purchased from BrightGuy.com quite reasonably for $21 sans shipping ==> http://www.brightguy.com/products/3V_Lithium_Battery_(12_Pack,_SureFire).php

no matter which one you purchase, i don't feel that you've made a bad choice. however, IMO (YMMV), the newest C4 version of the Argo HP is the way to go. the only application that i've engaged in where it would *NOT* be the wisest choice would be Thru-Hiking, or any activity where you will need to find CR123A cells when away from home. in some cases you won't be able to easily locate them (especially if you can't drive due to no car, e.g. Thru-Hiking), or when you do find them they will be up to $5 per cell. this is the only caveat. if you can carry all the CR123A cells that you will need for your planned use/adventure, then, IMO, this is the best primary/non-rechargeable power source available.

 

[yellow]

EOS is much smaller,
EOS is considerably brighter (therefore less runtime)
if there were an EOS with an additional really powerful high but the battery compartment of the Apex and enough sink material to stand that abuse, that were THE headlamp

ARGO HP (2*CR123 model) also runs with a 17650 Li-Ion, so that is should be the primary power source.
Change led to actual Seoul P4 or Cree XR-E and mod it to 18650, to run on the same cells as the handhelds.


If these changes - 18650 battery and "normal tech" led - were made already (remember it is 2 years for the Cree revolution now) that light were the bomb!

 

[cave dave]

If you use rechargeables almost exclusively, then I don't think 17650 really has any more capacity than 3xAAA. The numbers suggest that the 3AAA actually has more capacity, but the numbers are often deceptive. There is no easy way to get an 18650 in the Argo.

Both lights are good, I would recommend basing your decision on beam profile. Also the old EOS levels had a bigger spread than the old Argo. I doubt they changed that with the upgraded emitters. The Argo levels might be all to close together.

 

[pec50]

I have several versions of the EOS (Lux, Seoul, Rebel) standard and bike mounts, as well as the newer C4 Argo. I much prefer the EOS over the Argo due to the extremely focused beam of the Argo. I finally modded the Argo with a diffusing lens which made it a bit more useful.

My favorite is the newer bike version of the EOS as it is an independent light that can be clipped to several included mounts such as headband, bike mounts, or mount allowing flexible attachment e.g. an angle-head on one's backpack webbing.

 

[mdocod]

If you use rechargeables almost exclusively, then I don't think 17650 really has any more capacity than 3xAAA. The numbers suggest that the 3AAA actually has more capacity, ....

I'm not sure how you are coming to this conclusion:



AAA cell: 1.2V x 800mAH capacity = 0.96WH
x3 = 2.8WH

17670 cell: 3.6V x 1,500mAH capacity = 5.4WH

2.8WH for 3xAAA vs 5.4WH for 1x17670.

Technically you could call a 17670 a 3.7V 1,600mAH cell and make the 3AAA cells look even worse... On the other hand, you can't really use a higher capacity AAA cell for comparison because they don't come as LSD cells, which a LiCo is naturally.

The sad thing is that a single 14500 size cell (or AA) will actually closely match the total stored energy of 3AAA cells in rechargeable formats.

I'd rather carry a single LiCo 14500 over 3xAAA NIMH cells any day

-Eric

 

[jbrett14]

I want to thank you guys for the posts. They have been most helpful.

I appreciate the time that each of you took to help me.

Jonny

 

[cave dave]

I'm not sure how you are coming to this conclusion:
...
2.8WH for 3xAAA vs 5.4WH for 1x17670.

-Eric

Sorry, off the top of my head I was thinking true capacities for 17670 was about 1000mAh, about the same as a top notch Nimh. Nominal voltages would be the same. I should check my facts befoer I post. I don't think any of the LiIon really live up to their label claims though. I'm sure Silverfox has the data in tables somewhere.