Surefire CREE L1 or KX1 head Horrible Beam its almsost a Joke

The design and the flashlight is superb as all surefires, but the thing is that i don't like is the horrible beam, it makes a nice outdoor flashlight but as for indoor performance is very poor. In few words this is not a white wall hunters dream. But anything close the light loses a lot due to the very noticeable black ring. All the beamshots found in the forum are quite deceiving because the cameras are not sensitive enough to capture all the imperfections in the beam it only shows a nice hotspot and a weak floor around the hotspot.
The beam has a bright hotspot, it has no transition or corona instead a huge black halo ring noticeable even outdoor, then the spill is full of artifacts, really all this time for this POS light, i'm very disappointed and giving thumbs down to surefire for having people waiting all this time while the market was flooded with cree lights yet they come up with this light after all the suspense.
I don't know what to do with the light either sell it and get a milky or just keep it. Of course there is no comparison to a flashlight with a good reflector. I just can't understand why surefire did not go with the good old reflector light.
$100 for a light that has a beam worse than a Fenix. I thought it would take the place of my Ti PD as EDC yet it is by far the perfect light everyone thought it would be.
I'm not a surefire hater or supporter, i wish they come up with a reflector version of this light.
If you all thought this would be a old L1 modkiller such as by milky then you are all wrong there is no comparison, the low beam is pretty high and is pointless because the TIR makes the hotspot too much bright

greenstuffs said:

it makes a nice outdoor flashlight but as for indoor performance is very poor.

Click to expand...

Maybe thats why it is called the E1L OUTDOORSMAN! :nana:

Roger

z96Cobra said:

Maybe thats why it is called the E1L OUTDOORSMAN! :nana:

Roger

Click to expand...

The L1 and E1L are different models. The original poster wrote about the new L1, not the E1L.

The beams are the same

greenstuffs said:

I don't know what to do with the light either sell it and get a milky or just keep it.

Click to expand...

I would keep it and contact Milkyspit and have him put a reflector in it

greenstuffs said:

Of course there is no comparison to a flashlight with a good reflector.

Click to expand...

I have a Milky ML1 and Love it.......I'll take a good reflector anyday.

greenstuffs said:

I just can't understand why surefire did not go with the good old reflector light.

Click to expand...

I really think if Sure Fire offered the new L1s and KL1s with reflectors they would outsell the optic models.



Braddah_Bill

I find the beam is a bit narrowish, but that's to be expected from a TIR. much improved from the previous, squarish beam profile of earlier generations, but I would not describe it as "horrible" by any means.

It is a lot less articfacted than some of the other CREE offerings out there.

My L1's are quite the opposite. I give Surefire a huge THANK
YOU for bringing to market such an incredible light. First seeing
these at SHOT 2007, it was well worth the wait.

Inside on a white wall or outside in real world use, my L1's are
nothing short of amazing. Having used and owned nearly every
SF light over the past 15 years, must admit that SF sure nailed
it on these new models.

Don't get me going on the E2L's!!!! WOW what a light. Took a two
hour night hike last night with the L1 and the E2L and came home
grinning ear to ear.

Sorry to hear you got a less than perfect one.

I'll have to wait until I get my E2L before I make up my mind about the beam pattern but the main benefit of a TIR optic is the superior reflectivity. The best reflectors are only about 80% efficient whereas a well designed TIR optic is much closer to 100%.

It looks like this TIR optic was designed to be as "reflector like" as possible.

My eyes can barely tell the difference between 80 lumens to 100 lumens, yet we can all appreciate a good clean beam.

monkeyboy said:

I'll have to wait until I get my E2L before I make up my mind about the beam pattern but the main benefit of a TIR optic is the superior reflectivity. The best reflectors are only about 80% efficient whereas a well designed TIR optic is much closer to 100%.

It looks like this TIR optic was designed to be as "reflector like" as possible.

Click to expand...

The best reflectors are only about 80% efficient whereas a well designed TIR optic is much closer to 100%.

Click to expand...

which is not correct.
ANY media transition and one looses light.
Best % here are coated lenses which might only loose about 5 % (2 times 2.5).
"normal" (with good equipment) is something about 10 %, + the loses inside the clear optic material itself.
So any optic is totally the same when losses are compared reflectors <-> optics.

Back on topic: maybe bad luck + ask for an exchange

who do i get an exchange from?

yellow said:

which is not correct.
ANY media transition and one looses light.
Best % here are coated lenses which might only loose about 5 % (2 times 2.5).
"normal" (with good equipment) is something about 10 %, + the loses inside the clear optic material itself.
So any optic is totally the same when losses are compared reflectors <-> optics.

Back on topic: maybe bad luck + ask for an exchange

Click to expand...

yellow said:

which is not correct.
ANY media transition and one looses light.
Best % here are coated lenses which might only loose about 5 % (2 times 2.5).
"normal" (with good equipment) is something about 10 %, + the loses inside the clear optic material itself.
So any optic is totally the same when losses are compared reflectors <-> optics.

Back on topic: maybe bad luck + ask for an exchange

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was 100%, I said it was closer to 100%. I'm not comparing a coated lens with an optic. I'm comparing a reflector with an optic. There is no argument that the optic is more efficient.

if its a TIR,
(and if I take Your 4% media transition loss, which I doubt),
thats my calculation:

4 % loss at entering,
a few % reflection loss at 1st inside reflector, bouncing the beam back to the outside (lets take 4 % again)
another 4 % at 2nd reflection surface (the one at the outside of the optic, where a normal reflector changes the beam,
the 1 % for the clear media, plus the final
4 % media transition at end
= 17 %
--> the same as a good reflector
(I like to argue, when its this easy - remember I think of way more than those 4 %)
and it is more imho. I have once mounted 2 Crees of the same batch, wired in series, fired with some 800 mA, one with the Cree optic, the other one with a Shoppe 19mm and the reflector outshines the optic (while the focusing seems identical to me). If we humans can see this by eye, there is much of a difference

or, the other example:
that "good" TIROS optic out of an Inova T1:
if these optics dont loose light, why is everything around and "under" the optic illuminated?
Should the wall, pliers and cables not be in the dark?
One can see, that there is not 100 % of the light that entered the optic reflectored. A bit of it just gets wasted by moving out of the optic to illuminate the area around the emitter

Just because the name says TIR total internal reflection it does not do 100% i have yet to see a optics light with a beam as good as a reflectors one, the marginal gain of at most 10% over reflector is totally unworthy

monkeyboy said:

I didn't say it was 100%, I said sit was cloaser to 100%. I'm not comparing a coated lens with an optic. I'm comparing a reflector with an optic. There is no argument that the optic is more efficient.

Click to expand...

I picked up a new E1L a couple of days ago, and outdoors and indoors the beam looks great to me. Maybe you just got a bad one. :shrug:

Just my opinion, others will disagree but don't like optics and never did. The only one I liked and I dont know if it is an optic was the old style Inova X1. If I get a new L1 it will go to MilkyLabs for a Seoulgrade.

I do agree that the beam is better with a reflector but thats not what I'm arguing about here.

OK lets ignore the lens for a minute since SF would put a lens over the optic and the reflector.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting 3 media transitions from. I only count 2, that would make 13% loss. In fact less since the optic is in contact with the LED. A perfectly plated optical mirror is only 80% reflective, Your average reflector is more like 70%.

(I'm not counting the light leaving the LED since this would occur with the reflector too and this is already accounted for in the LED's specifications)

Thats a significant difference IMO.


EDIT: I think were talking about different types of optic here. The SF optic only has one reflection surface like a reflector. Also are you sure TIR reflecton gives 4% loss? I'm sure it's less.

That was a nice reference pic of the tiros optic lit up outside of the flashlight. Are you sure it's positioned exactly?

Hahaha, so much for a Surefire being the supreme flashlight maker!! So, do u still think that Fenix flashlights are "toys" anymore?:nana:

skyline_man said:

Hahaha, so much for a Surefire being the supreme flashlight maker!! So, do u still think that Fenix flashlights are "toys" anymore?:nana:

Click to expand...

Quite obvious you can't afford Surefire lights!