Surefire L4, 120 lumens improved version

[Marlinaholic]

Well I got my MC-E Milky and got to test it tonight against the new L4. Here are my observations:

Throw is nearly identical on both lights, at a distance, one doesn't beat the other on lighting something up. I was worried the Milky would be too floody and useless at say 75 yards, but it isn't at all.

Spill area is larger on the Milky of course, but not by a huge margin, but enough to notice.

The Milky light has MUCH warmer tint and the spill is noticeably brighter. This is what really sets the Milky apart from the stock L4, the light coming out of that MC-E is nice and warm white looking, while the L4 is cold and blueish by comparison.

The hi and low level is great on the Milky, I prefer it to a single mode. The low mode is truly amazing, 60 lumens of floody light, I own a couple dozen lights, but nothing that lights up such a large area softly like this light on low mode. Wow!

Overall, I would say the Milky L2 MC-E is definitely worth the money. The new L4 isn't a bad light at all either, and one of the best floody lights I own. For a stock light, its pretty amazing, but the MC-E would have made it better obviously.

 

[270winchester]

In my opinion, putting an SSC-P4 in the L4 is a cop-out.

The original L4 was much brighter than other similar sized Surefire lights and the beam pattern was the much coveted,
floody "wall of light" which offered something usefully different.

This is because it had a Lux-V (quad-die) led in it compared to the single-die luxeons around at the time.

CPF has been moaning for years now for an L4 with a SSC type emitter. In fact people paid good money to swap SSCs into L4 head I recollect. The campaign against the TIRs focused on the optics not being floody enough and the campaign against the Lux V complained of the donut hole and heat.

Now Surefire finally comes out with one that is bright and floody people are saying it;s a cop-out.

Now we see why Surefire is taking their time with the newer lights...you ain't gonna please the critics anyhow, so might as well get it right.

With the so-called "improved" version, the output and beam pattern are similar to a whole host of other lights
with this generation of led in it, like the E2DL, for example.

interesting. DId you compare the E2DL and the L4 side by side to reach that conclusion?

Now pretend you are a SF engineer:

*ring ring*
"Surefire technical support"
"Hi, I am not satisfied with your L4 beam"
"Sir, what kind of beam would you like?"
"A very bright beam with a large hot spot."
"Sir, we have many complaints that the older L4 was too floody so we designed the TIR for throw with spill, and the L4 was updated with a modern emitter"
"But I want a more modern emitter like a quad die because the SSC emitter was too much of a cop-out."
"Sir, to do that we have to redesign the heatsink, reflector, and electronics." *looks over at the order sheets for the SSC emitters and get quote for MC-E and P7 emitter* "The price of the new light will reflect the additional R&D. it will cost _____"
"Oh, are you selling a flashlight or a car? well then, I'm gonna go ahead and buy a light from _____, they are much cheaper. Thanks for nothing."

I gotta be honest I would not be excited to go on CPF if I worked for SF.

 

[easilyled]

270winchester, I would certainly not want to be a manufacturer.

However you seem to forget that there were a huge number of people that used to love the L4 because it wasn't more intense
in the centre than in the periphery of the beam.

The fact that McGizmo designed, manufactured and sold his Mules successfully is testimony to the fact that there is a requirement for this.

There are plenty of other beam patterns like the new L4 in existence, so this appears to me to be a duplication.

Why take away a niche that was being fulfilled before?

There are many military and policing operations (particularly close-quarter searches) where its useful to have a broad area beam without being dazzled by a bright hot-spot.

 

[dcycleman]

my 120 LM L4 doesnt have a dazzling hotspot, honestly its probably the most useful beam I have seen, only downside being runtime, and even that isnt that bad. Its not the light I would take on an extended hike or hunting because it doesnt have super low survival mode. But all in all its my fav.

 

[270winchester]

However you seem to forget that there were a huge number of people that used to love the L4 because it wasn't more intense
in the centre than in the periphery of the beam.

if I remember correctly the 2 KL4s I have have distinct hotspots apart from the periphrals.

The fact that McGizmo designed, manufactured and sold his Mules successfully is testimony to the fact that there is a requirement for this.

The Mule sold decently on CPF, but it will be a commercial disaster in the general market. There is a reason why no major manufacturer makes a Mule-type light, I think.

There are plenty of other beam patterns like the new L4 in existence, so this appears to me to be a duplication.

So I assume you have a new L4 to draw conclusion from, right?

There are many military and policing operations (particularly close-quarter searches) where its useful to have a broad area beam without being dazzled by a bright hot-spot.

if hte new L4 is too spotty for someone, he can certainly use an FM04 beam shaper.

 

[easilyled]

if I remember correctly the 2 KL4s I have have distinct hotspots apart from the periphrals.

In that case, your memory isn't very good. Its far from distinct. You have to look quite hard to identify a hot spot, which is very gradual,
especially when compared to the new L4. (which you can see in this very review)

The Mule sold decently on CPF, but it will be a commercial disaster in the general market. There is a reason why no major manufacturer makes a Mule-type light, I think.

You mean like the original L4 that probably inspired it. That was far from a disaster commercially. In fact it was one of SF's most popular lights.

So I assume you have a new L4 to draw conclusion from, right?

No, I haven't but I don't need to. I am basing my opinion on the beamshots in this review and others
and its quite obvious to me that they resemble the beam of any light with an SSC-P4 in conjunction with a small reflector.
There is no magic wand that somehow is going to transform this combination into something other than what it is.
The difference between the beams is because one uses a quad die and the other uses an SSC-P4.

if hte new L4 is too spotty for someone, he can certainly use an FM04 beam shaper.

And lose a lot of the output at the same time.
What a waste, compared to having a decent flood-type light for the many situations in which it would come in use.

 

[270winchester]

In that case, your memory isn't very good. Its far from distinct. You have to look quite hard to identify a hot spot, which is very gradual,
especially when compared to the new L4. (which you can see in this very review)

nice attitude.

I have them sitting in front of me.

You mean like the original L4 that probably inspired it. That was far from a disaster commercially. In fact it was one of SF's most popular lights.

You missed the point. The Mule has NO reflector. a light with no optic(lens or reflector) will be a commercial disaster.

And lose a lot of the output at the same time.
What a waste, compared to having a decent flood-type light for the many situations in which it would come in use.

the loss through the plastic lens is minimal from what I remember about the discussions on it. The L4 puts out about the same amount of light as the E2DL which is tested to be about 200 lumens, so the loss of 10-20% is not a big deal compared to the flexibility to have a light with a balanced reach-flood beam and a flood light.

No, I haven't but I don't need to. I am basing my opinion on the beamshots in this review and others

so you are ignoring first hand feedback from owners who report that the beam of the new L4 is pretty floody. Already then. Without seeing it in person, how can make an assertion like this:

With the so-called "improved" version, the output and beam pattern are similar to a whole host of other lights
with this generation of led in it, like the E2DL, for example.

I have seen the new L4 in action and compared to the older L4s I have, they are a bit different but I consider them a worthy upgrade.

Your assessment that the L4s have similar beams to E2DL, however, is hard to ignore.

We should probably stop here, there is no good outcome when anyone argue with someone who makes statements about a light without seeing it first hand, to stop detracting from the thread.

Thank you Chao for the review. I'm gonna get one next week.

 

[easilyled]

270winchester, I didn't miss the point about the Mules. You did. (It was my point after all, remember!)

It was lights with a beam like the original L4 that led to the concept of not using a reflector at all (in the Mules)
because that was the next logical step in making the beam even smoother and more "hotspotless".

Your saying that Mules would be a commercial disaster is completely baseless as you have no means of knowing this unless you're psychic.
For all you know they may be a resounding success and this wouldn't surprise me in the least seeing how well received they were here.
All it would take is the correct marketing to make the user realise what their intended function is.

I am not ignoring those that say that this beam is nice and floody, but frankly I know these type of beams very well since I have a Titan
and I also have an SSC-P4 with McR18 and an SSC-P4 with McR20 in Aleph lights.

These beams are nice and smooth and yes they are "quite" floody. However this is relative, and they still have a more pronounced hotspot than the orignal L4 by a significant amount.

The most telling point is the beamshots at the beginning of this review comparing the original to the new L4 where its abundantly clear to anyone that there is a big difference.

No need for me to waste money on a new L4 to prove this since its documented here right in front of you.

There is no doubt in my mind that the original L4 served a purpose that its replacement cannot and does not.

I agree that this thread shouldn't be derailed further.

If you are happy to buy another ED2L in all but name, then good luck to you.

 

[Marlinaholic]

I gotta say, the beamshots are a little misleading. Close to a wall even the new L4 looks like its all hotspot, but as a guy who owns an E1B, E2DL, E2L, E1L, 6P LED, and the new L4 I gotta say there is a world of difference between the new L4 and the TIR lights, or the 6P led for that matter. Get the E2DL and the new L4 and take them outside in total darkness and just try them from 25 to 150 yards. No comparison. The Defender is like a concentrated narrow blast of light with some good usable spill, but the L4 will light up the whole side of a building or a large tree with almost no distinct hotspot. Now indoors at close range, this difference is not nearly as distinct. I never pass judgement on any light until I take it out for half an hour in total darkness (I live in a rural area) and test it from a few feet to as far as it will shine. Sometimes a light that looks pretty ho hum inside a room with some artificial lights on and only a few feet of space to show its stuff really surprises you once you take it outside at night and give it a few hundred feet to work with.

 

[dcycleman]

Yeah, I have 2 e2l's new/old, 6pled, p2d, pd30, and a new L4. the L4 is waaay more floody than any of my other lights. waaaaay more floody than my 6p led (which is a floody light). I think you are being misled by the beam shots as well. really the new L4 has more throw and coorespondingly more flood as well due to the fact that all SF did was put in a hotter LED, the reflector remains the same. So your peripheral lighting is actually better on the new one.

 

[dcycleman]

oh yeah, dude the L4 and a e2dl could not POSSIBLY be more different. No offense but you make yourself sound ignorant.

 

[easilyled]

oh yeah, dude the L4 and a e2dl could not POSSIBLY be more different. No offense but you make yourself sound ignorant.

Dude, I've learned to be wary of people that address me as "dude", then start a sentence with "no offence" and end it by going for the jugular.

A simple "you're wrong" or "you're mistaken" would have sufficed. :thumbsup:

For the record you are correct. The E2DL was the wrong example for me to use as I had forgotten that it uses a TIR optic. I hold my hands up on that.

However this was not really my main point which was that the new L4 is a different animal to the old one and for me I feel it is a letdown.

As stated before, this is only my opinion and your mileage may vary.

 

[dcycleman]

Ahhh, that may have been a strong choice of words:touche:
like I said no offense, after all we are all cpf'rslovecpf

 

[1996alnl]

I agree that sometimes indoor beamshots are not always an accurate way of presenting a lights potential.
Especialy 1 meter from a wall..outdoors is a true test when comparing lights.
If the new L4 is floodier than a 6P that's impressive,and if it has a bit of throw to it that's even better.

 

[Chao]

Just saw nice outdoor beamshots (120 lums L4 vs. 100 lums L4 vs. E2DL) https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/211633&page=2#45

 

[WDR65]

I just recieved my new L4 today and am quite pleased with both the beam and the output. Though I really like the wall of light from the original L4's this new one is a better general purpose light, at least for me.

The reason I say that is that the L4 has a very similar beam to Lux V U2. I have always thought that the Lux V U2 has one of the best all around beams of any light that I have ever owned. It replaced both L2's and L1's as my EDC light for a good while, until it just became too large for what I normally used it for.

I'll post about it again after I've run it through its paces outdoors and during hunting season but for now I think Surefire actually came up with a winner even if the change is a bit controversial.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

I just recieved my new L4 today and am quite pleased with both the beam and the output. Though I really like the wall of light from the original L4's this new one is a better general purpose light, at least for me.

The reason I say that is that the L4 has a very similar beam to Lux V U2. I have always thought that the Lux V U2 has one of the best all around beams of any light that I have ever owned. It replaced both L2's and L1's as my EDC light for a good while, until it just became too large for what I normally used it for.

I'll post about it again after I've run it through its paces outdoors and during hunting season but for now I think Surefire actually came up with a winner even if the change is a bit controversial.

I also like the Lux V U2 and use it alot, at all of the levels depending on my needs. I know it is larger than the Seoul P4 L4, but don't you miss the flexability of the U2, with its 6 levels, and how can a single level light like the new L4 really compare?

Bill

Bill

 

[WDR65]

Bill,
That's a good question. I'm not really replacing my U2 with it as I will still carry it either in my truck or in my bag when I'm out. The L4 just offers me the same beamshape with a bit more output and longer runtime at that output. When I'm hunting or outdoors I'm normally carrying in my pockets at least an E1B and probably an E2DL also if I'm wearing 5.11 pants. So I'll just add the L4 to the mix.

The reason I don't mind using the single output L4 versus the U2 Lux V for my purposes is that I have bad habit of running the light on high when tracking wounded game as I like to see as much of the area around me as possible. While I may use the low mode on my PT EOS to walk into or out of a dark area I like to have fairly bright lights with decent spill beams to track with.

The new L4 may not be an EDC light for me but it serves its purpose in my small, constantly evolving group of Surefires.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

WDR65, thanks for your well thought out response. :thumbsup:

Bill

 

[lightknot]

1996alnl -The 2009 KL4 120 lumen head will not run on a single CR123. It will, however run very well on a single RCR123. I use a battery station RCR123 with their charger. Battery Station claims that these cells come off the charger at 4.2v. I run a Vital Gear FB1 HA body with the SF KL4 head and the anodizing matches perfectly. Pocket rocket!