L2D Q5 v. L2T Q2: is 28 lumens a big difference?

If we are comparing 1 light that puts out 1 lumen and another that puts out 29 lumens, then I'm sure 28 lumens is a LOT! However, with the max outputs of 180 lumens and 152 lumens from the L2D Q5 and L2T Q2, respectively, is the 28 lumen difference "big", "noticable", or what?

Ok, now which has the nicer (warmer) tint?

yes because the Q5 hotspot intensity is more intense.

aren't the Q2 and the Q5 the same LED, just with another binning? How can the spot be different?

close example - the P2D Q5 on the left vs the P2D P4 on the right

You wouldn't notice a difference in real-world applications. I actually find the output of the L1T v2.0 Q2 to be nearly visually identical to the output of my P2D Q5 on max. The P2D is slightly more intense, but considering the differences in voltage, it's more than acceptable.

As for tint, the Q2 I have is very, very neutral and the Q5 is nearly the same, just with a touch of purple. However, the Q5's in my P3D and my T1 are both on the cooler side of neutral. It's a crap-shoot, basically.

Thanks all!

I suppose the bigger concern of mine is on the other end of the spectrum. I like the L2T for it's simple high-low UI, but I really like the lower lumens from the L2D AND the longer battery life that results. 50 hours vs. 30 hours is pretty significant! ...and these 2 lights are just too similar to "buy both"

Any other thoughts are quite welcome.

Honestly, these lights are best opperated with NiMH rechargable AA batteries, and therefore, those runtime differences don't really matter that much. Odds are, you aren't going to be running any light that long anyway before being able to recharge. If you need a bit more versatility, go with the L2D (but note that the "low" still probably won't be low enough to be considered a true low). The low on the L2T is a nice, general purpose level. I really like the forward clicky on the L2T and the idiot-proof simplicity of it, but that's just my opinion. I'm not sure what you will be using this light for, but the L2T should be able to cover most of your general flashlight needs. If you need an upclose reading/emergency light, I strongly suggest you take a look at Zebralight's H50 line as it is really specialized for such a purpose and is much better than using any light with a hotspot (even on low) for reading.

smg said:

I suppose the bigger concern of mine is on the other end of the spectrum. I like the L2T for it's simple high-low UI, but I really like the lower lumens from the L2D AND the longer battery life that results. 50 hours vs. 30 hours is pretty significant! ...and these 2 lights are just too similar to "buy both"

Click to expand...

The L2D can basically be run with the same interface as the L2T - just press once for on, and toggled bettwen max and min by a twist of the head. You don't need to see the other modes (i.e. just don't soft-press). Personally, I like the lower low of the L2D.

BTW, you can compare the output and runtime of the previous L2Tv2 model with Q2 and Q5 L2D in my review here:
Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS!

Another factor to consider is if you tailstand your light.

The L2D will tailstand. The L2T, with it's forward clicky, will not tailstand (without help.)

If brightness is an issue for you I'd buy the L2D Q5 now and pick up the L2T whenever they get around to putting a high lumens LED in it.

If you buy both though, you can always rubber band them together for a lot of light.

With everything else being the same (i.e. beam pattern), 180 vs 152 lm gives you 8.5% perceived gain under the commonly accepted perceieved vs real luminosity by the square law model.

If it switches back and forth between 180 vs 152 you'll notice it, but its hard to tell even in side to side in my opinion.

Not a great difference between mine

I had a L2D, and sold it to get a L2T because I didn't like the SOS and stobe...and nobody needs a High and a Turbo...the L1/2T with the P2D body and a reverse clicky is perfect for edc in my opinion.