Surefire E2DL vs Fenix PD30 - almost same brightness?

Tested my Surefire E2DL agasint my new Fenix PD30 today and It seems to me that they both have about the same brightness with the SF at 120 lumens versus the Fenix at 220 lumens max.

I was expecting at least a noticable change with the Fenix over the SF with almost double the lumen rating so I was quite dissapointed.

I don't have any mnowledge or instruments to accurately measure their output so I rely only on what I see and my application of use.

The SF had a longer throw and larger spot beam.
The Fenix had more spill but suffered with the throw.

The change from 117 lumens to 220 lumens with the Fenix was not as big as I expected either..
The Fenix at 117 lumens was also noticably less bright against the SF's 120 lumens (even with only a 3 lumen difference - unless thats big?)

I can only think that Fenix and SF either measure their lumen output using different methods resulting in inconsistent ratings. Or maybe the Fenix is somewhat faulty?

Is there a good explanation for this?:thinking:

Welcome to CPF!
SureFire and Fenix measure their outputs differently. I know in the past, Fenix gave output measured at the emitter before optical and electrical losses. I've heard that they've changed, but I do not know for sure. SF on the other hand measures output "out the front" by plugging their lights into an integrating sphere.

That being said, it is very difficult to compare outputs accurately with the naked eye, especially when the two lights have very different beam patterns. The SureFire probably looks as bright because most of it's output is focused into a very intense spot. And even though SF lists the E2DL as 120 lumens, your light may be above or below that to a certain extent, and the same goes for the Fenix.

Moral of the story: Don't get too hung up on output claims. Go with the light that has the best beam shape and UI for your use and preference.

An simple but primitive test to compare the output of two lights is the ceiling-bounce-test. You just shine the two lights one after the other at the ceiling and then compare how they both illuminate the room.

rayman

rayman said:

An simple but primitive test to compare the output of two lights is the ceiling-bounce-test. You just shine the two lights one after the other at the ceiling and then compare how they both illuminate the room.

rayman

Click to expand...

You can take rayman's idea a step further and photograph the beams from each one (either ceiling shots or outside shots), then create a screenshow out of the images using a free software like Irfanview. You can even save the screenshow as an executable file like I have done here and then share it with others: (Download the show, and double click on it. Press ESC to exit the show)

http://home.comcast.net/~rasanford1/Flashlights/Surefire Backup E1B vs. Daylite 160.exe


(Really shows the differences by overlaying the images, and then cycling between them rapidly, like a movie).

Hitec-

They do probably rate their lumens differently. Surefire is historically known not to exaggerate their lumens ratings. Lightbox tests reveal that Fenix has recently stopped.

Lumens is a measure of total output. The E2DL focuses all of its light into the center, producing impressive results for its overall output. The Fenix however puts most of its light into the spill beam, which the E2DL completely lacks. Probably the easiest way to get around this to compare output is rayman's method. Shine one light on the ceiling. Then look in a corner or something - not at the beam. Switch is off and then compare how bright that same spot is with the other light switched on in the same position. It should be considerably brighter with the Fenix.

As for the scale of lumens - no, 3 lumens is entirely unnoticeable at this scale, and the ratings aren't accurate to that small a number. But do keep in mind that the human eye senses light on a logarithmic scale - so while the Fenix should appear considerably brighter, it won't appear fully twice as bright.

I came to the light... said:

Shine one light on the ceiling. Then look in a corner or something - not at the beam. Switch is off and then compare how bright that same spot is with the other light switched on in the same position. It should be considerably brighter with the Fenix.

Click to expand...

How do you conclude that the Fenix PD30 should be considerably brighter than the Surefire E2DL? Have you done this test? Have you confirmed output ratings from an integrating sphere?

I came to the light... said:

The Fenix however puts most of its light into the spill beam, which the E2DL completely lacks.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. "Completely lacks" is a pretty strong statement - the e2dl definitely isn't a "floody" light but the spill is very usable in almost all circumstances I've encountered so far.

The fact that the spot and throw matched the PD30 is no surprise to me - my e2dl easily beats my malkoff M60 (rated at 235 lumens) with its spot and throw.

The e2dl is magnificent - add an f04 diffuser and its perfection :candle:

bullfrog said:

my e2dl easily beats my malkoff M60 (rated at 235 lumens) with its spot and throw.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And my KX2C (same head as on E2DL) and Malkoff M60 are indistinguishable in a crude ceiling-bounce test.

The point is that the E2DL puts out about the same amount of light as other Cree Q5 lights that have equivalent runtimes. Forget the 120 lumen rating and use your eyes.

I have both these lights,love them both.
In hand the Surefire feels like a high performance illumination tool. The Fenix PD30 feels like a high performance flashlight. Don't believe for a second the E2DL is rated at 120 lumens,i think Surefire put a 1 instead of a 2 in front of that number.This light has embaressed alot of higher rated torches.
Having said that. The PD30 is one of my brightest lights for its size,mine has a true beutiful white beam.No artifacts at all,amazing and the fact that it's just a touch longer than my Surefire L1 Cree is outstanding for a two cell light.
If this light had an optic it would throw very far.I wish it had a pocket clip like my E1B.

The TIR of the E2DL and some other SF lights is the key to victory, it is a revelation.

Not only does it offer great throw but also a great field of vision due to the relatively large spot ... AND ... the spill is better than almost any reflectored spill, because it is decreasing in brightness with the distance from the spot ... thus enhancing the field of vision further and not wasting photons in a huge pale spill while at the same time being easy on the eyes.

I think that opitc plays a huge role in the perception of flux of the current SF generation. Those are very efficient optics in beam distribution.

My L1 beats or is at least equal to the U2 because of that optic.

bernie

Agreed... it's the TIR lens that makes the E2DL so great. Sure it also creates more spot than spill (but there is some spill) but it's the most "useable" spot I've seen on a flashlight. I use my E2DL more than any other light, including my LED mags.

The spill surrounding the hotspot is brighter than the typical reflectored spill and throws somewhat, thus enlargung the field of vision. It is smaller in diameter than the typical reflectored spill, but way more useful.
SF hit the sweetspot with this one. I am an optic-convert now thanx to this TIR.

Only the best reflectors can stand next to this optic. Maybe.

bernie

The decreasingly bright spill from the center of the optic is what I thought made the Malkoff so great. I'm not so sure anymore, though. No matter what, less light will make it tougher to see something, and the spill on a TIR always seems to put out less light.

Now, it has been very obviously shown on here that the tint of the light really affects your depth perception, I don't think anyone can argue against that one.

One big advantage of the TIR vs Reflector and lens is that they get much more light out the front. The reflector usually causes the most loss of light. :shrug:

It seems like in a year or two, 100-200 lumens different between lights isn't going to be a visible difference, but the shape of the beam, tint and CRI will be winning customers.

I agree with the comments above regarding the sidespill of the E2DL.
I think the hotspot is so superior compared to other lights that the sidespill is under rated.
If i aim my E2DL and the PD30 onto the ceiling the E2DL has more sideplill,no cutoff just blended in.
The PD30 has a smaller brighter sidespill with a border.

No matter what, less light will make it tougher to see something, and the spill on a TIR always seems to put out less light.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. The spill of the TIR is brighter than the reflectored spill around the spot and quickly fades. The reflectored spill is much wider and is present where the TIR hasn't any spill in the outer rims of the beam.

The important part is that bright spill close to the spot as this spill has sufficient force to throw, thus enlarging the field of vision not only in the near field like the reflectored spill does, but also in medium distance.
The broad and pale spill us useless after a few meters, the TIR spill is not. That is the strength of it. And with this, you get more light on target with the same flux of the LED. Which is great.

This is the same reason why McGizmo reflectors work so well with the Crees ... right and bright spill and generous spot. The best reflectored beam I know.

bernie

Kiessling said:

The important part is that bright spill close to the spot as this spill has sufficient force to throw, thus enlarging the field of vision not only in the near field like the reflectored spill does, but also in medium distance.
The broad and pale spill us useless after a few meters, the TIR spill is not. That is the strength of it. And with this, you get more light on target with the same flux of the LED.

bernie

Click to expand...

+1:thumbsup:
You hit the nail right on the head.
Surefire definatly did their homework coming up with this optic.
I'm surprised other manufacturers haven't copied it.
Could you imagine if Surefire came out with a 200 lumen ( Thats SF lumens) E2DL? That would be sweet.

INOVA had the TIROS first, it was really good but they had gutless Luxeon emitters behind them. when they went to more powerful emitters they changed to reflectors. As far as real efficiency. Their older Inova T5 which I had stated 100 lumens from the emitter. I measured 48 at turn on out the front. That's less than half. Don't know what the emitter was actually set to drive in the flashlight. It was "capable" of 100 lumens at the emitter. So can't say it was only 50% efficient. I was definitely not happy with the power of the light.

The Malkoffs use the Khatod optic which is an excellent beam pattern and very good efficiency. Its not as tight as a beam pattern as the one in the E2DL but a lot of us love it because of its overall useable spot and spill pattern.

I would love to see a Malkoff with a tighter beam pattern optic option as a thrower but I have not seen any available optics for the Cree XR-E that are narrower than what is already being used.

I am impressed by SF's optic in the E1B. It is incredible for what it is. In fact, it is good enough that I kept it.

However, versus my P3D in a ceiling bounce, the E1B gets squashed. The vastly different beam pattern changes the light distribution. In fact, I only use the E1B in specific circumstances, where it's lack of bright spill does not matter.

In fact, the TIR optics pre-date Inova lights. It started with the NX01 and then the NX05 that were used, among others, in the Arc LS1 and the SF KL1. Luxeon I emitters. Back then.

The efficiency of SureFire's TIR optics is far greater than Inova's TIROS and SureFire always had Inova beat in terms of optic size. I seem to recall the TIROS being like the size of a CR123A battery whereas SureFire have been able to keep their TIR optics short.

SureFire have never had a problem making fabulously efficient optics - they've had to evolve them to improve the beam shape and light distribution though. Each generation advances. This is most obvious when comparing the X200A and the X300 (even taking into account the LED changes).