Fooboy
Enlightened
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 276
So there are a lot of great new 2xCR123 lights out there, all have 120 lumen output with 2 hours of runtime (to be confirmed)
____high/runtime___low/runtime
A2L 120/2h________10/15h
AZL 120/2h________25/6h
LX2 120/2h________15/30h
E2L 60/6h_________3/100h
At first I was totally psyched and I totally want to get one of these lights ... but then I started thinking ...
The E2L I have is 60 lumens, fully regulated for 6 hours on high, and 3-5 lumens for nearly 100 hours on low.
It just seems like a doubling the lumens to 120 only looks a fraction as bright and costs you approx. 60% of your runtime. Plus the "lows" are nowhere near the runtime of the E2L. We're talking like 15 hours compared to 100.
I have taken my L1 and E2L and shone them into the same spot both indoors and outdoors. This gives me 120 "surefire lumens" and I don't think it looks that much brighter combined then just one shining by itself. I also have gotten to play with a friends E2DL (120 "surefire lumens") in pitch darkness. Naturally I had my L1 and E2L and we did a little comparison. The greater brightness of the E2DL is perceivable but it doesn't blow my 60 lumen lights away. Again, its twice the lumens but only looks maybe a 1/3rd brighter. They all had nearly identical throw as well (all TIR lights).
So while I think these lights are sexy and useful (A2L has flood and spot in the same light, sort of a poor mans optimus), it makes me realize I should keep my E2L regardless.
I guess in summary - I think 60 lumens is enough and I'd rather have the runtime.* I think in addition to brighter lights, they should be offering < 100 lumen lights with better runtimes.
There, I said it!
*=but I will likely get an A2L
____high/runtime___low/runtime
A2L 120/2h________10/15h
AZL 120/2h________25/6h
LX2 120/2h________15/30h
E2L 60/6h_________3/100h
At first I was totally psyched and I totally want to get one of these lights ... but then I started thinking ...
The E2L I have is 60 lumens, fully regulated for 6 hours on high, and 3-5 lumens for nearly 100 hours on low.
It just seems like a doubling the lumens to 120 only looks a fraction as bright and costs you approx. 60% of your runtime. Plus the "lows" are nowhere near the runtime of the E2L. We're talking like 15 hours compared to 100.
I have taken my L1 and E2L and shone them into the same spot both indoors and outdoors. This gives me 120 "surefire lumens" and I don't think it looks that much brighter combined then just one shining by itself. I also have gotten to play with a friends E2DL (120 "surefire lumens") in pitch darkness. Naturally I had my L1 and E2L and we did a little comparison. The greater brightness of the E2DL is perceivable but it doesn't blow my 60 lumen lights away. Again, its twice the lumens but only looks maybe a 1/3rd brighter. They all had nearly identical throw as well (all TIR lights).
So while I think these lights are sexy and useful (A2L has flood and spot in the same light, sort of a poor mans optimus), it makes me realize I should keep my E2L regardless.
I guess in summary - I think 60 lumens is enough and I'd rather have the runtime.* I think in addition to brighter lights, they should be offering < 100 lumen lights with better runtimes.
There, I said it!
*=but I will likely get an A2L
Last edited: