Klarus XT2C

[Labrador72]

I've checked and it's the AOD-S: it fits the XT2C fine, a bit snug but perfectly in place and doesn't move.

Are we talking about the same diffuser? The one I'm reffering to is this one: http://www.fenixlight.com/viewnproduct.asp?id=135

 

[kj2]

Are you sure? Maybe you have the AOD-M or AOD-L?
I still have the diffuser packaging, maybe I'm the one who got the size wrong.

It says AOD-S and I also have the M and L. But my S doesn't fit at all.

 

[Labrador72]

Wow that's strange - we either have different diffusers or we have different XT2C lights! :laughing:

 

[kj2]

Wow that's strange - we either have different diffusers or we have different XT2C lights! :laughing:

Have tried again just now, and with a little bit harder pushing it will go on. But not very far, around 2mm.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

I like Klarus but the updated xt2c falls a bit short. I think the pd32 ue wins out when compared to this. I still like how the xt2c looks rather than the fenix pd32 ue though.

Out of curiosity, where do you think it falls short? I was just thinking that this version has leapfrogged the pd32/tn12/etc for me! I realize the Klarus has 15% less lumens, but that will be barely visible to the naked eye. But the UI absolutely crushes the TN12's, and easily bests the PD32's based on the fact that you can change modes without repositioning the light. And it has a lower, long-running low (if the specs are to be believed, and I realize that's an iffy proposition). Obviously, there's a lot of subjectivity in the UI -- XT's is easily best for defensive use and better if you often switch modes during use, PD32's works better if you always want to come on in a preset lower mode).

Still, for me the UI advantages, and to a lesser extent the lower low, are more important than a 15%-20% disadvantage in high mode, though I do wish Klarus would push the high more

 

[Labrador72]

In essence the XTUI is boring but I agree is probably the most functional and easy-to-use UI out there.
If Klarus released an EDC version of the XT series - same as the XT but with a head-loosened state for Low > High and optional mode memory - it would be very successful.

For EDC I nearly always carry a PD31 with forward clicky as the UI is more flexible than the Klarus XT one but when I go out at night I often go for the XT2C. In fact the two lights complement one another in a way, each having its pros and cons.

Regarding the XT2C UI besting the PD32, I think you are being very lenient: the XT2C puts simply the PD32 UI to shame. Fenix have become obsessed with this head switch.... I think it works well only if you tend to use the light at the same output most of the time, otherwise it has some serious limitations:
1. The only way to know what output the light goes on is to remember the last output mode. Possible but not sure, especially if you tend to use all the brightness levels.
2. Memory cannot be disabled: some people like their lights to always come on on turbo or low. The memory in the PD32 cannot be disabled so you have to live with mode memory even if it's not your thing.
3. For lights of this size I very much prefer tail switches. The reason why is very simple: the light has one front and one rear so it's always very easy to find the switch even in the dark and I like to hold smaller lights in ice-pick style. Some people prefer side switches which is perfectly fine. I think both have pros and cons. Now the problem with the PD32 is that having both a rear clicky for on/off and a side switch for mode selection is highly unpractical. Personally I find it much better to be able to operate a light EITHER from a side switch or a rear one, having to use both works well if you don't change modes a lot.

Again if you use the light at the same brightness level most of the time, the PD32 can be a great light, especially if paired with an XT2C they would complement one another too.
Fortune tellers and palm readers might also be happy with it because they would know what mode they will need the light to be on next time they have to use it.
For me though, the side switch and mandatory memory in place of the head tight/head loose states has been and will be a deal breaker.

 

[TheVat26]

Just bought the xt2c (470 t6) from going gear a couple of weeks ago. Didn't go for the updated 580 version because of the lower runtimes. Comparing the output of the xt2c to my Klarus rs11, at 50 yards I can barely tell a difference in brightness with the rs11 being a slightly brighter. The 470 version was on sale for 44 bucks while the 580 is 60. Xt2c is definitely floodier than the larger head of the rs11 and will probably reach 120 yards versus 160+ I get with the rs11.

I wanted the 580 version but couldn't wrap my head around the idea that the latest and greatest led didn't offer better runtimes like any other upgraded models. The new xt11 is a lot brighter with improved efficiency. Does the smaller body of the xt2c offer less heat dissapation and this leads to less efficiency? Going gear guys didn't have the answer so the tried and true 470 version was a winner for me and a bargain at 44 bucks. Very pocketable, and more than enough tactical light when needed, and the excellent UI for switching modes if needed. Btw, the pocket clip lip is a pita when slipping in pocket. A fellow owner gave the suggestion of lightly bending the lip upwards and now it slips in easy.

 

[Labrador72]

I don't know if the smaller body and possibly less heat dissipation result for less efficiency. For one thing, there might be typos in the runtimes tables - if you compare the new XT11 to the old one, you'll see the older one has much better runtimes on low.

In any case, assuming the runtimes provided by Klarus are accurate, there are other possible explanations on the efficiency - i.e.:
Klarus XT11 is an XM-L2, I think I T6 but I might be wrong. The one on the Klarus XT2C is an XM-L U2 (first generation) so the XT11 is currently one LED generation and at least 1 bin up, maybe more, on the latest XT2C with 580 lumens.
Klarus might have updated the XT2C to XML U2 and just driven it harder on high without changing much. For the XT11 they might have gone furhter and replaced driver and or twicked the electronics not only to drive it harder on high but also to keep efficiency on par or even improve it.

I think the only ones who could confirm it with certainty are Klarus: you could try to write to them but they might not reply, reply to a different question, tell you they only sell to distributors, or even to check your batteries...
In other words, they are not the best at communicating with customers. Luckily their XT lights seem to be well designed and work fine!

In any case, I think you made a very nice buy there. I have the XT2C XM-L T6 too and is a nice light and I find saving 20 bucks to be smart move when 400+ lumen will do more than fine for most uses and give you a longer runtime! For the uses where they might not be enough, 500+ probably wouldn't either anyway! Klarus might come out with an XT2C with XM-L2 at some point so you can always upgrade then if you really need too.

 

[kj2]

The XT11 XM-L2 uses a T6. I've email contact with Klarus now for the last 2 weeks. After 4-5 emails I still don't have a answer on why the runtimes, between the old/new XT11, are so far apart.

 

[Labrador72]

At least you did get at least one reply!

I sent a couple of mails asking if the XT1A would be upgraded to XMG-2 any time soon hoping they'd get back to me with a "Yes"/"No"/"We don't know"/"Mind your own flashlight business" but no luck - complete silence!

 

[Labrador72]

I just got an XT2C XM-L U2 (580 lumens version): on RCR it's a monster, it even appears to be brighter than the Klarus XT11 XM-L U2 (600 lumens version) on a 18650!

I did some visuals comparison by ceiling bouncing the beams and here is what I got:

XT2C U2 (16340) vs XT11 U2 (18650): the XT2C appears somewhat brighter.
XT2C U2 (18650) vs XT11 U2 (16340): the XT11 appears somewhat brighter.
XT2C U2 (16340) vs XT11 U2 (16340): the XT11 appears marginally brighter - hardly noticeable.
XT2C U2 (18650) vs XT11 U2 (18650): the XT11 appears marginally brighter.

I also tried the same thing with the XT2C XM-L T6 (470 lumens version): it's visibly brighter on RCRs but the XT2C U2 and XT11 U2 still appears to be somewhat brighter even if on 18650.

Basically using RCRs boosts brightness for all 3 lights!

 

[BillSWPA]

Keep in mind that the specs are based on an 18650, so CR123 runtime will be lower, and RCR123 will have even less runtime. I am currently running mine on CR123, but this light may be what persuades me to start using 18650.

Regarding EDC, The pocket clip is almost useless. I have carried mine in a leather light pouch made for a Surefire L4. A friend carries his in a Comp-Tac Kydex pouch made to carry a Surefire 6P bezel up. Neither solution is perfect, but both work. I may consider some custom Kydex for mine.

 

[Labrador72]

Runtime on high with RCRs for the Klarus XT2C U2 must be dismal: maybe 25>30 minutes at best? According to Klarus specs, the XT2C U2 runtime on a 18650 isn't great compared to the XT2C T6. The price of getting more lumens on high!

I totally agree on the clips, they are useless! I ended removing the clip from all my Klarus XT lights: I use them mostly as back-ups and keep them in packs so I hardly ever carry them in my pants pockets.

 

[Labrador72]

Klarus just announced the XT2C XM-L2 U2 version with 725 lumens. Pictures are not up on their website yet.

 

[BillSWPA]

Klarus just announced the XT2C XM-L2 U2 version with 725 lumens. Pictures are not up on their website yet.

Interesting. I hope this output does not come at a cost of a cut in runtime, a big step down, and/or overdriving the LED.

 

[Labrador72]

The description reads 1.8 hours on high but it must be the old runtime of the XM-L U2 that they forgot to update: I don't see XM-L2 giving 145 more lumens - roughly a 20% increase - without reducing runtime. I could be wrong though.

 

[Labrador72]

The pictures are up on the Klarus website now. It reads runtime on high is... sorry I was laughing! I just read a flashlight joke: runtime at 725 lumens is... 4 hours!
They either time travelled 3 hours into the past when they measured runtime or they introduced a stepdown to less 200 lumens after 3 minutes and used 3400 mAh battery for the tests!

Seriosuly, if they really figured out how to design a light that runs at 725 lumens for 4 hours on a single 18650 I'll buy 10 tomorrow!

 

[BillSWPA]

Just read the description, and it definitely indicates that constant brightness is maintained. Either we are missing some details, or this is one awesome light.

 

[kj2]

That sounds really good Hope they soon arrive on eBay.
And as far I know, Klarus always used pwm on their lights.

 

[Labrador72]

I checked the specifications and on their website the runtime tests have been performed using a Li-ion 3100 mAh.
For the XT2C XM-L U2 they had used a 2900 mAh battery while for the XT2C XM-L T6 a 2600 mAh one.

Even with the increase in mAh for the battery, doubling their runtimes while increasing the brightness by 20% is simply science fiction!

See the medium brightness level for examples:
XT2C XM-L U2: 165 lumens for 7.3 hours
XT2C XM-L2 U2: 180 lumens for 13.3 hours.
It's nearly double the runtime and you can't achieve that by replacing the emitter with a newer one a couple of bins up! The only logical explanation is that they put a 40%/50% stepdown in the medium level too or else they are true magicians and can pull a rabbit out of the reflector! Those runtime figures must be typos!