WIRED: Surefire E2DL in a Magazine! "120 lumens of blinding fury"

Just noticed WIRED mentioned the E2DL in the latest edition (October) of their magazine.

The E2DL seems to be in the spotlight at the moment, with all the recent interest in it and now it appears in a national magazine that has no association with flashlights.

Here's a couple pics:

Great catch... now when i bring my 14 month old out trick or treating i wont catch flack from the wife for insisting we bring along my E2DL... among others. Great magazine too.

Dano

Did they really call 120L "blinding fury"? That's a ballpark minimum for popular EDCs these days (Novatac, Fenix, NiteCore, LF, etc.).

TigerhawkT3 said:

Did they really call 120L "blinding fury"? That's a ballpark minimum for popular EDCs these days (Novatac, Fenix, NiteCore, LF, etc.).

Click to expand...

The 120 lumens of the E2DL are vastly underrated. It's brighter compared to most 230+ Q5/R2 P60 drop-ins.

To any non-flashaholic the E2DL is going to be a "blinding fury" of light output.

Oh by the way they also quoted the old price, they are $149 now.

As far as I could tell, my SureFire E2DL produce more light than my Fenix T20, which is rated at 150 lumens. It's also much brighter than my MalkOff M60L, which is rated at 140 bulb lumensl.

It produces about the same amount of torch light as my Fenix T1 and Surefire C2 with Malkoff M60. Actually, it even throws better than M60 does. However, M60 has more useful side spills, IMO.

120 lumen is definitely under-rated.

Thanks

I don't understand why they under rate it.

Why don't they go by the same lumen counts everyone else uses?

It can be confusing to a newer flashlight person.

nathan310 said:

I don't understand why they under rate it.

Why don't they go by the same lumen counts everyone else uses?

It can be confusing to a newer flashlight person.

Click to expand...

Because they are THE flashlight manufacturer, why would they lower their standards because other companies are doing it.

They state out the front lumens and are conservative and I appreciate their honesty.

So if fenix says their p3d is 215 lumens, it's at the emmitter right?

Would you happen to know what the out the front lumens might be?

I'm just wondering.

I'm going by actual lumens, not SF lumens, not emitter lumens, not eBay lumens, etc. All I'm saying is that an accurate 120L doesn't strike me as "blinding fury." Of course, if the E2DL is 200L or 300L (or whatever), that might explain why Wired thinks that a so-called "120" lumens is "blinding fury."

If you know what X lumens looks like, you buy a light that advertises X lumens, and then you find that it's actually 1.2X lumens, it can be a nice surprise... but the advertisement of X lumens is still wrong.

Here we go again with the magical power of more lumens from a little SF light simply because more of the light is focused into the hot spot of the beam. Those lights are not brighter than claimed they just put more of the light they have into the hot spot and have less in the spill. So the hot spot has a good lux number, that does not mean total light output (Lumens) is higher. SF is not grossly underexaggerating their output, they are being truthful. Its a good light, if you like it fine, if you were standing 1 foot away from my M60 or R2, or Fenix T1 versus your SF E2DL, any of these would be more blinding in your eyes, not that it would really matter.

My maglight with some terralux unit in it that is rated at only 140 lumens puts it all into the hot spot with the big reflector. The bright but small diameter hot spot outshines my M60 and my Fenix T1. But only that hotspot. I have measured the Fenix T1 and the M60 at 225 and 220 lumens respectively in a real integration sphere at work multiple times. I measured that terralux unit in the sphere directly without the reflector (wouldn't fit) but the sphere integrates all light and should not need the reflector and it measured a grand total of about 130 lumens. Some lights have lots of energy focused into the hot spot and very dim spill if any spill at all. And some put a good amount into a smooth spill.

Two different types of light sources, nothing wrong with either, but understand the difference and stop thinking that a 120 lumen light is brigher (more total output in lumens) than a 220 lumen light.

I measured several Solarforce R2 pills at work as well, the single mode units are in the 220 lumen range as well for total light.

This has been gone over so many times it is ridiculous.


Matter of fact independent test reviews (Light-reviews.com) have shown the Deree light DBS Q5 2SD with the smooth reflector to be a better thrower and have higher lux in the hot spot than several lights with a P7 source even though the Deree light is less than 250 lumens total output out the front and the P7s are all at least 500 lumens plus.

A well focused hot spot makes for a nice light and its a way to make a small light seem brighter than it is. For those who like a wider swath of light to see more around them the price will always be less throw. This is not news. If you really want the bragging rights on the best thrower get the Deree light or something similar.

thanks

MrGman said:

A well focused hot spot makes for a nice light and its a way to make a small light seem brighter than it is. For those who like a wider swath of light to see more around them the price will always be less throw. This is not news. If you really want the bragging rights on the best thrower get the Deree light or something similar.

Click to expand...

MrGman, this is really well-put. I feel like we need to bookmark this entry or footnote it or something since it so nicely crystallizes this information.

As a nice example of this, may I direct any interested parties here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/207998

The Pelican with its deeper reflector out-throws the Fenix, although it is clear that the Fenix produces significantly more lumens overall. The question then, is always: What do you want from a light? And that will guide you as to what type of beam characteristics you'd like. Of course, the nearly mythological upcoming SureFire lights may offer the best of both worlds with selectable beams and brightness!!

Actually, based on CPF member seattlite's review, https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/196472

E2DL (178 measured lumen) produces more light than Fenix P3D Rebel (172 measured lumen).

I think Fenix T1 and Malkoff M60's torch lumen are probably under 200 lumen too.

herolet said:

Actually, based on CPF member seattlite's review, https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/196472

E2DL (178 measured lumen) produces more light than Fenix P3D Rebel (172 measured lumen).

I think Fenix T1 and Malkoff M60's torch lumen are probably under 200 lumen too.

Click to expand...

Better read that more carefully, He did those readings in a home made "light box". It takes a lot more than that to get accurate readings from various beam pattern type lights. Without a good integration sphere with baffles to homogonize the light and take away the false high readings of tight hot spot lights, you will get these numbers. He doesn't have an integration sphere and those numbers are not real "lumens".

MrGman said:

Better read that more carefully, He did those readings in a home made "light box". It takes a lot more than that to get accurate readings from various beam pattern type lights. Without a good integration sphere with baffles to homogonize the light and take away the false high readings of tight hot spot lights, you will get these numbers. He doesn't have an integration sphere and those numbers are not real "lumens".

Click to expand...

SureFire is well known for grossly underrating lumens. Users with access to a real integrating sphere already measured lots os SF models and proved that. I trust McGizmo a heck a lot more than I'd trust some user registered in 2007. Sorry..

I am the user with access to a real integration sphere, been using one here at work. I am the one who has measured numerous flashlights in a real integration sphere and published the results, calibrated on a yearly basis, has NIST certs. I have given away a Solarforce R2 pill that I "calibrated" by taking multiple readings in a SureFire host in that IS, to precisionworks who built a home made integration sphere, to help calibrate his unit. It took a lot of work to make that right. He then was able to publish data on various lights, but his source came from my lab. You use my date of membership as a criteria as to whether or not I have facts on not fiction? I have calibration stickers, what do you have?

I have published various data. If you have other data on actual IS measurements from other sources lets see the link. But home made "light boxes" just don't cut it.

Outdoors Fanatic said:

SureFire is well known for grossly underrating lumens.

Click to expand...

Surefire is known for modestly underrating lumens. This gives the user a margin of safety so that even with a less than ideal emitter bin, and less than fresh batteries, the light will still deliver the advertised performance.

Differences such as 120 lumens versus 100 lumens (the typical performance vs. rating, respectively, for the Surefire U2) are only weakly noticeable to the human eye.

MrGman said:

Better read that more carefully, He did those readings in a home made "light box". It takes a lot more than that to get accurate readings from various beam pattern type lights. Without a good integration sphere with baffles to homogonize the light and take away the false high readings of tight hot spot lights, you will get these numbers. He doesn't have an integration sphere and those numbers are not real "lumens".

Click to expand...

MrGman, I don't doubt your expertise and experience and I understand that a homemade light-box is not as accurate as the IS you have access to. I also understand that you've tested many lights and helped many other member. I could be wrong, but that there's no mentioning that you actually tested/ measured E2DL, yet. Until then, that homemade box testing data is as accurate as we can get.

Regards.

MrGman said:

But home made "light boxes" just don't cut it.

Click to expand...

You really don't need a IS when you can see it with your eyes, unless your into figures.
I put my KL4 up against a headlamp rated at 140 lumens, versus 100 lumens for the KL4. The KL4 is roughly a third brighter than the hl, and that's without using instruments.
A private lab tested several lights in an integrating sphere for Arc Flashlights, LLC, one of them being the E2e. They rated the E2e at 83 lumens on fresh batteries.
SureFire grossly underrating lumens is not something new. It's alive and still kicking.

Going back to the OP, it's a little depressing that once again, flashlights are seen by most people as toys not tools.