True Lumens Advertising

Which brand of light advertises their Lumen output and can back it up?
If a company says 225, I want the light to be 225, not 180! Thanks

SureFire actually "under-advertises" the lumen output of their lights.

That is the only company I know of which does such a thing.

BOBBYBOB said:

If a company says 225, I want the light to be 225, not 180! Thanks

Click to expand...

There is also the issue of emitter lumens vs lumens out the front. This is the reason for some of the largest discrepancies. I would wager that very few manufacturers actually test their lights with an integrating sphere and instead give a number based on the voltage that their particular LED is being driven at. Most of the time emitter lumens are quoted while some like Surefire stat the lumens out the front of the light. They're the only manufacturer who's lights consistently perform much better that I'd expect them to based on the specs. For example the L1 is only rated at 60 lumens but honestly matches or beats ever single "120 lumen" light that I own in a ceiling bounce test.

I know Pelican uses an integrating sphere. And Streamlight recently started using one. (It's what is needed to measure true lumen output. Or out-the-front output).

Very few companies use a sphere, since they're not cheap to come by.

With most flashlight companies, a good rule of thumb is to subtract 1/3 or sometines 1/2 from the claimed (emitter) lumens. And that number, give or take, is what you'll be getting out the front.

But that only works with reputable companies. Some will just flat out lie, about output. The ones who make quality lights, generally tend to be honest about their emitter lumens.

e2x2e said:

SureFire actually "under-advertises" the lumen output of their lights.

That is the only company I know of which does such a thing.

Click to expand...

Except with the P60L.
:scowl:

e2x2e said:

SureFire actually "under-advertises" the lumen output of their lights.

That is the only company I know of which does such a thing.

Click to expand...

A mentioned by Monocrom, Pelican does this as well. The 7060 is rated at 130, but puts out more like 180 otf.

If you had a 225 lumen and 180 lumen light in front of you, you would be HARD PRESSED to see any meaningful difference between the 2. If you were handed the 2 lights, and one was 180 and on was 225, and there was no indication of which was 180 and which was 225, it would probably take you at least a full minute of comparative testing to determine which was which, IF you even could.

If they had the same exact beam pattern AND tint, then you could probably decide which was which within 15-20 seconds. But any variation in beam pattern or tinting would make it more difficult.

I understand the desire to have accurate lumen and runtime figures listed for flashlights. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect and it's simply not going to happen. A company that underrates on some of their products areas, and overrates in others, and rounds to nice sounding "round" numbers does just as much dis-service to those who are trying to get a real true comparison on paper as the companies who list exaggerated emitter lumens. Does SureFire own an integrating sphere? Yes. Do they test their flashlights? Probably. Do they actually tell you the exact results of testing on the IS? Nope. You think the P60L is exactly 80 lumens? If you actually ran the tests yourself, you would have results probably something like 84.8378245 lumens on one module, and like 87.781925 lumens on the next module, and then 91.00003433 lumens on the next module, and 82.2347895 on the next one. Unfortunately, that looks weird, like a serial number of something, and doesn't make for very good sounding spec sheets. A ~10% margin of error or more from one to the next is very possible, but you wouldn't be able to see it. They do what a responsible company would do, and list it at 80 lumens. Which is more like a guaranteed minimum.

-------------------------------------------------

Anyways, the point is, if you are buying a LED light that uses any of the modern emitters on the market. Then it's going to be a pretty bright light. The most important differences from one to the next are not the 20-50% difference in actual or claimed output, as that is not enough difference in lumens to have any effect on what the flashlight is going to be good at doing. Instead, pick out a flashlight that has the proper beam profile and interface and size and runtime to meet the demands of the application at hand. Search an rescue? 2x18650 powered thrower. room clearing? M60F in a reliable SureFire host. Caving? something with multiple modes and long runtimes with a medium beam profile.

You have to get the CPF award for the most consistantly substantive posts man!
:thumbsup:

Sgt. LED said:

You have to get the CPF award for the most consistantly substantive posts man!
:thumbsup:

Click to expand...

I'll get the cookies.. :huh:

While not super sharp about flashlights I do have a lot of experience with manufacturing. I think any light which has military contracts should be pretty accurate with thier advertising. The military has a rep of holding a vendors feet to the fire with regard to what a product is advertised to do. But while a manufacturer may have a contract for a specific light that does not mean that manufacture is using the same criteria on all of there lights.

hangn

Rolling into 2009, you will see a new ANSI spec coming out on handheld lighting. My guess is every reputable manufacturer ill be using them, and all will be using an integrating sphere.

Surefire is generally dead on or under rates.
Current production Inova's are pretty dead on. (Older gen were at the emitter)
Current Streamlights seem to be pretty dead on.
HDS is usually dead on.
Novatac is usually dead on.


These are the one's that I am familiar with.

Surefire
Streamlight
Pelican
NiteCore
Peak
Inova (recently)
Arc
HDS/Novatac/Ra

Sgt. LED said:

Except with the P60L.
:scowl:

Click to expand...

Yeah, no poop. :shakehead

Can't wait to get a M60 for it now that I realized how unimpressive the 6PL is.

I wish that was tru about the ANSI.

Does Princeton Tec? I also think SF and others kind of don't do themselves good by being honest, I mean with people who know nothing about OTF versus emitter, like 100 (let's say Fenix as it's the first light that popped up, no disrespect) is brighter than 60 (Surefire) right? I think they should list both for comparative reasons and make it clear of that as we all know the majority will stick to emitter lumens.

defloyd77 said:

I also think SF and others kind of don't do themselves good by being honest,

Click to expand...

The good will always fall short in 100 meter dash, but will always win the marathon. Yes, they will lose sales to people who don't know quality, believe everything they read, and are cheap. But time will teach those people and they will buy a SureFire later. Usually multiples. Of course they are people who will never learn, but no one company will win. Because they will just buy the cheapest thing they see at the time.

Numbers matter about 1/5 as much as beam profile. Maybe not even that much. Compare a fresh 3D maglight to a 130 lumen Nitecore. 4 or 5 times the light output, but many would say the mag is brighter. That being the case, the question is not if a light has 180 or 200 lumens, but if they are distributed in a way that is the most effective for your own usage.

Marduke said:

Surefire
Streamlight
Pelican
NiteCore
Peak
Inova (recently)
Arc
HDS/Novatac/Ra

Click to expand...

Bullseye Marduke!

Some of the Fenix lights, particularly the T series.