First Impressions of my new Surefire U2

Loomy

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
287
So I got my new Surefire U2 in the mail the other day. These are my initial impressions, or review if you like that better. Since I know you guys just love reading this stuff as much as I do :D

I'll disclose that I've been looking into Surefire and other high-end flashlights for years both as a toy and as a one-tool-solution to my lighting needs. I don't like having a bunch of stuff hanging around -- I'd just like one really good solution. After hours of research I decided that the U2 would be the best first choice.

I bought it over ebay. Got a decent deal on it, $205 for a model with the removable plastic tube should I decide to go li-ion one day. I see that unopened U2s go for as little as $190 on ebay however, so if you want a light for cheap, ebay might be the place to check! I say "unopened" instead of new because obviously people selling on ebay don't tend to have the latest stock :)

The U2 is very nice upon first inspection... I'm still amazed by how small it is. I'm used to having junky 4*AA and 4*D flashlights hanging around, so having something the size of a minimag but the power of a... superdupermag is pretty neat. The cost of use isn't bad for $1 a battery as long as you don't use it too much, which I won't. And if you do, I can see that li-ions are a rocking way to power a light.

The paper sheet that came with it says revision A 2004, so I guess either this is a well-aged light, or that is a well-aged piece of paper :D Some specks of dust under the glass but not a problem. Clicky works fine but something does rattle in there when it's on. Twisty brightness dial is a bit stiffer than I expected, but fine. I actually expected some feedback, like clicks when it turns, but it makes sense that it doesn't.

On the doughnut: a pretty significant "x"-shaped dark spot in the beam, with the best way to tell being holding it 1" away from a dark surface, in this case my keyboard wrist rest: http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9475/cimg0102ge6.jpg . I can actually see an "x" (or "+", if you will) on the LED in the form of the square being slightly divided into 4 smaller squares. None of this is significant enough to matter in practice, however! Just knowing that I could return it at any time eases my mind into not caring that it's not perfect. And I'm a bit of a perfectionist, too!

The batteries that came in it were probably around 2.8v each, and every one of the 2*12 Surefire batts I bought separately are 3.0v. Expiration is 6/7-2015, not too old. I'm very happy about getting good quality and non-exploding batteries :)


Engineering comments:

It is well-balanced. This isn't conciously a big deal to many people, but I like tools to be balanced a certain way, and this light has it.

I bet you anything that the power ring would rotate better with one thumb of the indentations were slightly deeper and ribbed like the rest of it.

I would prefer a tailcap that allowed it to stand on its end, but still let you operate the switch with your thumb in the Psycho holding method. (I guess I just christened it the psycho method, you know what I mean... http://www.ixbt.com/dvd/films/psycho/psycho_shower_large.jpg )

I like the usability of the mag light switch compared to the tail switch. This is obviously just because I'm most likely to hold it with the traditional water-hose method (oops there I go again making terms up ;)) Of course a Surefire U2 isn't designed with the same requirements in mind as a Mag, so I'm not suggesting the U2 needs a side switch. But this does make me appreciate the side switch more.

I wish the belt clip was removable because I might never use it. But it looks built in pretty solidly, so I don't really care too much.

What's the deal with getting a lanyard on this thing? I've yet to see a U2 with a lanyard but I figured I could rig something up once I got one. It looks like knotting around the belt clip is the way to go. The heatsink indentation by the LED is an option, but I'd shy away from filling that with thermal insulation.

I'd prefer more rough surfaces on the body of the light, especially up toward the brightness selection ring. I find that smooth aluminum is excessively smooth to have anywhere I'm gripping. The more grippy surfaces the better, I say!

I enjoy the beam. Very bright in the center with a large and useful dimmer outer-area.

For general use however I'd love a way to diffuse the beam. I know there's a Surefire beam shaper for this, but it looks like it would be huge and clunky... I'd prefer something built into the light.

I love rubberized stuff with rubberized edges, so I wish a flashlight in this class had something of the sort. Rubberized stuff protects said stuff, but it also protects other stuff that said rubberized stuff rams into. In the case of the U2 I believe it is as durable as a tank -- but the stuff I accidentally drop it on or smash it into will not be :p

What's with the paper dot on the front of the light, is anyone else feeling superstitious about removing it? (only 95% joking)


So my overall impression is: Holy crap this thing is small and bright, but wait there's a dark X in the middle of the beam. :p

My requirements for the light were high durability and adjustable brightness with long life at low and high brightness at high. Ultimately I think I am satisfied with the U2. Or at least sufficiently satisfied that I'm not going to sell it, buy something else, or return it for a new one...

...or at least not right away. THE CANDLEPOWER ADVENTURE CONTINUES :)
 
Last edited:

Ty_Bower

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,193
Location
Newark, DE
At only one inch away, they're all going to have an "X". As the distance increases towards a foot or two, the "X" will disappear. Continue to increase the distance, and the "X" may reappear, although it won't be sharply defined as it is at the one inch distance.

I peeled off the white dot within minutes of opening the package. I also peeled the red dot off my L1 and the other red dot off my KL1. I thought the dots were silly (still do) until I realize that if I ever get a white L1 or KL1, I might have a difficult time telling which light I'm holding (red or white) unless I turn it on.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a U2 in any color other than white. Go ahead and peel it off.
 

carl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,483
Location
los angeles
Thanks for the review. I am also a bit surprised about the adjustment ring not having detents or clicks between power levels. That would probably give it a more positive and quality feel to it. Did you consider the Gladius?
 

mbirds

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
117
Location
Virginia
My white dot started to come off the first time my U2 got wet...

Enjoy yours! I use mine every day... usually on 1 or 2, but it sure is nice to have 3-6 when you need it!

My adjustment ring became a lot smoother after playing with it a few days.

Interesting comments about the balance... I also really like the feel and balance of mine. For some reason I always find myself using the cigar hold as opposed to the aptly named "garden hose" hold. :)
 
Last edited:

Lips

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,444
Location
Louisiana - USA
Your Pic!
cimg0102ge6.jpg



That looks like a pretty bad X too me



Pop-out the lens on a F04 beamshaper and it will allow tailstand for U2

These filters fit the U2 (both tips per Jars3d !!!)
U2Brinkman2.jpg
 

chevrofreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
2,543
Location
Billings, Montana, USA
Lips said:
Your Pic!
cimg0102ge6.jpg



That looks like a pretty bad X too me


That is completely normal. The large die size of the Luxeon V makes it hard to focus well without a very large reflector. The X shape comes from the corners of the large square die.

Most reflectored luxeon lights will have a squarish hole in the beam at close distances, say 6" or less.
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,263
Location
La Tiquicia
Umm... guys, that X is NOT the donut hole we talk about! The donut hole (if any) will show on a wall, from a few feet away, as a slightly darker area in the middle of the hotspot. That void (X, in this case) is also present if you shine any Lux close to a wall (using a reflector).

Carl, the level changes in the U2 are visually *discrete* - no detents are not necessary for user feedback.
 

Luna

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
874
Lips said:
Your Pic!
cimg0102ge6.jpg

That looks like a pretty bad X too me


The U2 was never meant to be a macro photography light so I don't think this < 4 inch beamshot will be an issue. BTW, even a Lux3 will do the same thing at that distance.
 

joema

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
1,189
Location
Nashville, TN
carl said:
...I am also a bit surprised about the adjustment ring not having detents or clicks between power levels. That would probably give it a more positive and quality feel to it...
Many owners have the same impression. Tactile feedback is commonly used in output controls of electronic devices, e.g, stereo amp volume control. On such an expensive light, why couldn't Surefire have provided that?

It's possible Surefire considered this but rejected it for simplicity and reliability reasons.

Another possible reason concerns the selector ring being a magnetic hall-effect switch -- there are no penetrations into the flashlight body. Therefore you'd have to ensure the mechanical detents (which must be outside the body) always remained in sync with the underlying hall effect switching levels(which is inside the body). It would seem easy due to aging, wear, etc for the output change to start happening in between the mechanical detents. A detented stereo amp volume control has so many fine levels you could encounter this problem and not even know it. By contrast with only six levels any misalignment between a hypothetical U2 tactile detent and the level change would be obvious, esp. to flashaholics who obsess about such things :)
 

kromeke

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
341
The clip is removable. Unscrew the tailcap. Slide the plastic around the clip towards the rear of the light. You can then get the clip off by flexing it away from the body. You can leave the plastic part off, or you can put it back on if you want.

Edit: You may be able to get some stainless wire and bend it such that it fits were the clip was, but so as to act as a lanyard ring with the plastic piece in place. I like the clip, so I left mine on, however, I did rotate the clip 180 degrees so that it covers the patent and CE markings.

Mine also has a little X pattern at close range. It has a slight donut hole, but nothing I'm disappointed about. Excellent light. I run an AW protected Li-Ion in mine, and it works great.
 
Last edited:

Loomy

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
287
chevrofreak said:
That is completely normal. The large die size of the Luxeon V makes it hard to focus well without a very large reflector. The X shape comes from the corners of the large square die.

Most reflectored luxeon lights will have a squarish hole in the beam at close distances, say 6" or less.

I thought I read a post around here that said with some authority that the best way to compare doughnuts was up close. Since you have a dark spot up close and far away, I presume the doughnut far away is related to the doughnut up close. And since not everyone has the same doughnut, it's worth comparing. Do all U2s have the same doughnut up close? Is doughnut comparison only worthwhile at a distance?

Hmmm, with 100 U2 owners here I figure we could start a thread or page on the wiki of U2 beam shots for color and doughnut comparison. That might be fun. Actually, given all the interesting details surrounding the U2, it could use its own big section in the wiki :p
 

Ty_Bower

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,193
Location
Newark, DE
Loomy said:
Do all U2s have the same doughnut up close?
I believe all U2 lights will have some kind of dark spot when viewed up close. I'm not sure I could say the extent of the dark spot will be the same for all U2 lights.

Loomy said:
Is doughnut comparison only worthwhile at a distance?
Yes.
 

joema

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
1,189
Location
Nashville, TN
Loomy said:
I thought I read a post around here that said with some authority that the best way to compare doughnuts was up close...
If that was posted, I'm not sure it's correct. The doughnut problem is related to fore/aft emitter positioning with respect to the reflector focal point, combined with the Luxeon V "square of light" emitter surface.

At extremely close distances (e.g, 1 inch) you can clearly see the cruciform-shaped dark pattern. I believe this is because the Luxeon V emitter is effectively four emitters fabricated in a square. The perimeter emits light but the center is dark.

If the emitter is mounted at exactly the reflector focal point, the beam angle will be narrowest (which gives best throw), yet this also causes a magnified version of the emitter surface to be projected, appearing as a ring of light.

If the emitter is mounted fore or aft of the reflector focal point, the beam angle will be wider (which lessens throw), but the "ring of light" will be defocused thus appearing more solid and less doughnut like.

At very close distances, the emitter mounting precision doesn't matter. It's like a Mag-Lit adjusted out of focus, but viewed from 1 inch. You can't tell it's out of focus at that distance.

Experts, please correct me if wrong; part of this is just speculation.
 

Loomy

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
287
joema said:
At very close distances, the emitter mounting precision doesn't matter.

I see... here's something else to chew on: compared to my U2, one image I saw here had a less dark cross going through the middle of the LED when it was off. Is it possible that some Luxeon VIs actually produce a darker spot in the middle than others?

So put another way: are you 100% sure that the doughnut variance is only caused by the LED position in the reflector, rather than in part because of differences in the LEDs themselves?
 

joema

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
1,189
Location
Nashville, TN
Loomy said:
So put another way: are you 100% sure that the doughnut variance is only caused by the LED position in the reflector, rather than in part because of differences in the LEDs themselves?
I don't know for sure. However a few U2 owners have inserted a shim between the emitter base and reflector, which made the doughnut pattern go away. This implies emitter positioning is at least one factor.
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,263
Location
La Tiquicia
Loomy said:
I thought I read a post around here that said with some authority that the best way to compare doughnuts was up close.
There are a lot of us "armchair flashaholics" floating around - not all that is said around here is accurate. I try to always confirm my sources.

The "X" is NOT the same as the donut hole, and YES, it is associated with reflector positioning and the nature of a LuxV.
 

chevrofreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
2,543
Location
Billings, Montana, USA
greenLED said:
There are a lot of us "armchair flashaholics" floating around - not all that is said around here is accurate. I try to always confirm my sources.

The "X" is NOT the same as the donut hole, and YES, it is associated with reflector positioning and the nature of a LuxV.

You said that a little too nicely. Let me rephrase it for you.

There are a lot of people here that simply don't know what they're talking about, yet they never STFU! :grin2:

(no I wasn't talking about you)
 
Top