Surefire L2 reach

[flownosaj]

I tried searching but got nowhere /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I'm thinking of upgrading from a KL4 to the L2 because I like the two stage option and higher output on high. Before I go ahead and plunk down $160, I'd like to know if the near 100 lumen beam has more reach than most LEDs that we're used to.

Right now, my KL4 is a wide flood, which is good, but there are plenty of times I want to see way back in the corner of the yard or into the trees, and the KL4 just doesn't have that punch.
Does the L2 have reach, or am I just going to have to keep using the incans for that?

Is there anyone who could post a few beamshots?

 

[Hoghead]

The L4 and L2 have similar beams. The L2 puts out more lumens, but I don't think you would notice more throw with the L2 than you have with your L4.

IMHO the strong point of the L2 is the low beam not the high beam.

The incandescent of a A2 has more throw if you want a two stage light.

 

[briteguy]

Save your money for the U2. It will have more throw and more power levels... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

If you have to spend the burning $$ in your pocket, I understand the new KL1 with the new TIR lens and LuxIII has more throw than KL4 and provides longer run time!

 

[sithjedi333]

Have you considered the Mcgizmo Aleph? It should fulfill all the needs you mentioned for about the same price.

 

[flownosaj]

Ah, I see I have more searching to do. I need more info on the upgrades to the KL1. I don't know much about the Aleph either. I guess I know what I'm doing this weekend /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The U2 is a bit out of my price range, but if I start saving....

 

[V8TOYTRUCK]

Send McGizmo $50, and he will send you a two stage tailcap that will work with E-series bodies. You select the 2nd stage brightness. My McE2S in HA-Nat should be here today.

 

[sithjedi333]

For the Aleph, check out the Mcgizmo forum here on CPF. I love mine.

There is a guy named Chop who does KL1 and KL3 mods who seems to have an excellent reputation. Try searching in the Custom BST forum. Hope that helps.

 

[McGizmo]

Hey guys,
I am getting tired of reading how the L2 puts out more lumens than the L4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif

Now IMHO, the L2 and L4 both use the same reflector and likely similar high flux 5W LED's. Further, I doubt that the drive current in the L2 on high is significantly higher than that of the L4 (if different to start with!). I think people are taken posted luminous output that was stated quite some time ago on the L4 and comparing this to relatively new information on the L2! Come on guys, do some lux measurements between the two! I have a KL4 and L2 that are very different in tint but the lux measurements are within 5% of eachother and the beam angles look the same which comes as no surprise! Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

For all intents and purposes, I think the L2 should be considered a more sophisticated L4 with the addition of a second and lower level of constant current output. It doesn't throw further, have a tighter or broader beam, make you more popular with the girls (unless you pocket it and the girls you hang with look at your pocket! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif ) or have greater luminous output! Prove me wrong but don't cite some dang numbers from suspect and dated product sheets!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif

 

[Hoghead]

I think a Luxeon III at 900 ma to 1 amp in a McLux PR or a Aleph 1 driven by 2x123, 3x123 might be what you want.

 

[luxlover]

I am amazed at how noble and humble Don is, because he went on telling us how the L4 and the L2 are almost identical optically, but he didn't mention his wonderful McE2S tailcap switch to make an L4 equivalent in function to an L2. He is too much of a gentleman to do a plug for himself, so I will do the plug for him......
Anybody who owns an L4, and would like to make it into a light that has the same features as the L2, without spending $165 for an L2, should seriously consider Don's McE2S tailcap switch. One can buy only the switch and mate it to to any of four tailcaps you already own. Look here for installation instructions... kj's McE2S page. Or one can buy the switch and the tailcap as a package. One can also have the low level of choice, by choosing either a 15, 22, 30, or 60 ohm resistor board. I use a 60 ohm board with my KL4/L4/McE2S combo, with excellent results.

Nobody with an L4 has to buy an L2, The L4 is 5.1" long and can nicely fit into a pocket. The L2 is 6.06" long, and is not as easy to manage. An L2 is $165. A McE2S without the tailcap is about $40. A McE2S with a tailcap is about $50. The choice is yours. Choose wisely!

 

[sotto]

Luxlover:

Thanks but I'm still confused about the function of the McE2S. Is it a 2-level clickie or is it a twistie? Don responded to this same question from me once that the clickie function would be lost from my L4 switch if I sent it in for him to mod. So is the tailcap he makes a 2 level clickie or is it a two level twisty??

Thanks /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[suppin]

Sotto, the McE2S is a two level twisty, in your words. The clickie function is lost after the mod. For momentary on, you press softly for low level, press harder for high level. Or for constant on, you twist down the tailcap for the low level constant on, and twist it further down to engage the high level constant on.

 

[sovereign]

If the L2 is not being driven harder on high than a L4 why is its runtime significantly lower?

 

[jollytoker420]

Hello

I have found a website that you all should have probaly seen before. KL4 on a E2e 2cell body puts out 700,000mcd at 1.0A draw.
The L2 puts out 745,000mcd at 1,507mA (1.5A)

I have looked briefly for what the heck mcd is, but no luck yet.
I know for the longest time surefire's homepage told a story of 65lumens for the L2 and the same for the L4.... But recently they updated the L2 at 100 lumens and the L4 is the same. The KL4 head states lumen outpu to also be 65. I know this cuz I might be forced to buy a new head for my L2. And it's not looking good as the KL4 is the only replacement/upgrade option I have. It also seems to have the short end of the stick and the hefty price on top of it. I may just have to buy another L2 if the dealer doesn't help me out......Oh yeah, tests were done about 4 months ago. I hope no one thinks that my info came from suspect and dated product sheets. Sorry if they did.

Does this help?

 

[McGizmo]

Sovereign,
I got confirmation that the L2 is being driven harder than the L4. The L4 is being driven in the low 600's and the L2 on high is somewhere around 700 mA; possibly a little over. From my experience with 5W LED's, the lumnious gain from such an increase in drive current will definitely be measureable but not of enough amplitude to insure that a L2 will always score higher than a L4 if the L4 has a "brighter" LED than the L2.

The more I consider the L2, the more convinced I am that a wise use or strategy for it is to plan on using the Low level which is very sufficient and relatively bright, as the typical or common mode. I think the high level should be considered as an over drive and used sparingly and for shorter durations. Thermal considerations as well as runtimes support my strategy of use. If someone plans on using the L2 in high most of the time, they would be better served by using a L5, IMHO.

I jumped too hard on the data being quoted and I apologize. I suggest that a difference of perhaps 100 mA in drive current will not correspond, given today's Luxeons, with an increase in flux from 65 to 100 lumens (man it would be great if it did!!!). I maintain that the 65 lumen data is dated! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Ceterus Paribus, there should be a porportional relationship, I believe, with the two values of MCD stated above and the corresponding flux values of the two lights measured. For an additional %50 percent increase in input current, we see an approximate what, 7.5% increase in intensity? Well we don't have ceterius paribus but it is way too much of a stretch to assume a jump from 65 lumens to 100 lumens!!

 

[HistoryChannel]

Deleted....I re-read this thread and it answered my stupid question... sorry

 

[Hoghead]

Peter Gransee reported that one L4 made 81 lumens in a 2 foot integrating sphere in this thread

 

[luxlover]

Yes, Hoghead. To be exact, in this post.... Sphere tests by Gransee This is where I got the 81 lumens figure for the L4, which I mentioned in my previous post in this thread. Please scroll to the bottom of the above page, since the results are in a "Reply to a post" page, and the original post will be on the bottom.

 

[Hoghead]

[ QUOTE ]
luxlover said:
I am amazed at how noble and humble Don is, because he went on telling us how the L4 and the L2 are almost identical optically, but he didn't mention his wonderful McE2S tailcap switch to make an L4 equivalent in function to an L2. He is too much of a gentleman to do a plug for himself, so I will do the plug for him......
Anybody who owns an L4, and would like to make it into a light that has the same features as the L2, without spending $165 for an L2, should seriously consider Don's McE2S tailcap switch. One can buy only the switch and mate it to to any of four tailcaps you already own. Look here for installation instructions... kj's McE2S page. Or one can buy the switch and the tailcap as a package. One can also have the low level of choice, by choosing either a 15, 22, 30, or 60 ohm resistor board. I use a 60 ohm board with my KL4/L4/McE2S combo, with excellent results.

Nobody with an L4 has to buy an L2, The L4 is 5.1" long and can nicely fit into a pocket. The L2 is 6.06" long, and is not as easy to manage. An L2 is $165. A McE2S without the tailcap is about $40. A McE2S with a tailcap is about $50. The choice is yours. Choose wisely!

[/ QUOTE ]


Now I'm confused /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Are you talking about this post? I didn't mean to step on any toes. I just don't understand what you're refering to.

 

[luxlover]

I will be happy to "regurgitate my thoughts" and explain......
I was commenting on Don's post about his perception of thr L2 compared to the L4. You didn't step on any toes, good buddy. I am happy that you reminded those of us of the Peter Gransee test, and let those who didn't know of it that some of the lights that they own are much brighter than advertised. As for my dissertation on Don's switch, I love it's concept so much that I sometimes lose myself in thought, and my hands get a life of their own on my keyboard. All is well!