Quark AA R5 VS LD10 Fenix

[Egsise]

Some pro's for the Quark are reversible clip..

Well technically yes, mine just doesn't work that way because the threads are poorly machined. Build quality.

Points...
Fenix 9/10
Quark 9/10

and in that order...

Buy them both, two is one and one is none.

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

That's something like 1 meter from the wall...

Beyond that range the "hotspot" expands so rapidly it's all flood, even at indoor room/hallway distances.

I wouldn't want people to be fooled by a 1-meter distance beamshot.

I'm with you totally.

Neither of my AA-R5 quarks look anything like the beamshots in "unknownVT's" thread. The real life picture loaded by "Stress_test" is much more indicative of mine and I must say that find that style of picture to be a lot more useful when making a judgement than the pseudo-CPF-standard short distance wall shots too.

As also mentioned by "Stress-test" some posts back, there are indeed reports of varying focus on them. From me particularly.

I have two AA-R5's with quite different focus thanks to slightly different machining of the factory reflectors. To get my "spottiest" AA-R5 to look similar to the beamsot in "unknownVT's" comparo thread I have to place it 400mm away from a wall. To get my second more "floody" AA-R5 to have a hotspot like that I have to place it 150mm (ie six inches) from the wall and that torch has no discernable hotpost at all when shined at a wall from even half the range seen in Stress_Test's picture (it's as Stress_test said, almost all flood).

I have one Quark AA-R5 that's pretty much all flood and another that's better but still pretty floody. Now in my pants pocket I carry a Quark Turbo with AA tube and 14500 battery instead. Better spot and better spill so it's win/win.

 

[scott2907]

I was about to buy the R5 Quark Tactical. But I like a throwy light. Can I presume that the R2 is longer then? Does anyone have any beamshots for a Quark R2/R5 AA Tac comparison? with throw distances included please?
Can you even still get the R2?
Thanks

 

[batmanacw]

I really like my LD10, but I now want a Quark AA regular. The moonlight modes is what really sealed the deal for me. The massive run time and the same UI as the Fenix.

I bought the AA-2 regular for my computer back pack when I travel. If bad things happen while I am traveling, I know that I have literally hundreds of hours of light available with the 8 spare batteries I carry.

The beam of this light is definitely not as tight as my LD10, but it us much, much better because of it. The hot spot is quite a bit bigger, hotter, and the transition is very clean. Both my quarks have wonderful beam quality.

The build quality of the 3 different quarks I have owned has been very good. No quality issues. I gave my buddy the 123 tactical and he uses it daily with no issues.

Fenix lights got me started into wholesale light collecting, but I believe the quark is a better line of lights.

 

[atxlight]

Ok, so my Quark AA regular (R5) is my first non-Fenix light and I love it. Great light all around. I also love my LD10 R5 but I got the Quark to replace the LD10 as my around the house light due to the moonlight mode. Anyway, my Quark is listed at 109 Lumens OTF and the LD10 at 100 (ANSI). All the reviews I've read suggest that the Quark should be a brighter light on Max, but my experience is very much to the contrary.

First observation on Quark AA is the tint is MUCH warmer than the LD10. It's a nice change from the Fenix cooler tints. Next is that the Quark is much floodier than LD10...this is nothing new. The thing that gets me is that comparing both lights on Max/turbo, the LD10 seems much much brighter. The reflector on the LD10 is smooth and seems more suited for throw, vs orange peel on Quark. It definitely puts more light down range. The beam is much tighter. After lots of side by side testing of my Quark with the LD10 and many other Fenix lights, my (very unscientific) conclusion is that the Quark seems to be maxing out somewhere in the 80 lumen range (on Fenix/ANSI levels).

Is this an illusion caused by the warmer tint of the Quark, combined with the floodier beam? Or is the Quark actually a less-bright light than the LD10? I'd be very curious to get others' feedback/experience on this. It kind of bugs me that the Quark falls short of the Fenix on brightness. Again, I love the light, just wish it that extra oomph that my LD10 spits out.

Thoughts?

 

[shelm]

the best unscientific way to compare brightnesses of the two is by applying the identical white Fenix diffuser tip on the bezel (21.5mm, 22.0mm). then it's sorta easy to determine which light has the greater output. Or by a white ceiling bounce.
The Quark has better runtimes and regulation, btw.