Quark 123 vs Liteflux LF3XT

Hi. I am a longtime member and lurker, but have not posted much.

I will be buying a 1x123 light for edc (non-tactical) before the end of the year. I currently have a Nitecore D20, Fenix P3D-CE & L2T V2 R80. I use the D20 (with eneloops) around the house and for night walks, but I do not use it for edc. I rarely use the Fenix's, and will probably sell both of them.

I have narrowed my choices down to a Quark 123 (regular) or Liteflux LF3XT. I will run both primaries and RCR123A (probably AW's, with a nano charger). I may eventually get the 2xAA bodies/tubes for either one, running on eneloops, for emergency/backup purposes. I will probably not get the clipped version for either one, and it will generally be in a small bag rather than in my pocket.

I have read virtually all of the reviews and posts regarding both lights. From all that info, and having used both the D20 & P3D-CE, I have a good feel for the UI for both lights (including the FUI on the Liteflux

I would appreciate comments from anyone who has both of these lights. I am particularly interested in the following:

1. Is the Quark noticeably brighter than the Liteflux?

2. Does the Quark have a noticeably longer throw than the Liteflux?

3. Does either have an advantage in beam quality?

4. Do you have a preference between the switch mechanisms? (Note: I like the PD switching mechanism on my Nitecore more than the clickies on my Fenix's.)

5. For edc (non-tactical), do you have a preference in the UI and why?

Thanks for any input you can provide.

Peter

The Quark has more spill (wider overall beam), but a smaller and more intense hot spot. So the Quark will out throw the LF3XT. So for long range tasks that's a plus. The LF3XT has a floodier hot spot which is nice for closer range tasks.

The Quark has a lower low, and probably a higher high.

I do like the IU of the LF3XT. I have programmed it so it will always come on at the min low. Then I can double click to select a brighter setting, or just press and hold for full output. A tap and hold will give me the random strobe.

My Quark has a better tint, but there is no guarantee with either of them when it comes to the tint.

So to answer these questions:

1. Doing a quick bounce test my Quark 123 appears to have a bit more output.

2. I'd say the Quark has noticeably longer throw.

3. They have different beams, each with advantages depending on what you want to do. Quark has more throw, wider spill (great for the outdoors). Liteflux has a broader and less defined hot spot, better for close up tasks.

4. I like Liteflux's switch over the Quark clicky.

5. I like the UI of the Liteflux as I can program the light the way I like it and I can access different modes without cycling through other mods. Example, jump to max, jump to strobe, etc.

I've got a Quark 123 no clip natural white, so the comparison is possible, but limited.

I agree with everything WadeF has said, but the Low of my neutral white Quark seems to be brighter to the eye than the one from the LF3XT, so that one remains my nightstand-lamp.

If you get the LF3XT without the clip, you'll get the one with the horns (sharp edges), they won't do any harm in a bag though.

The beam of the LF3XT is about the smoothest I've ever seen from a Cree Q5, which says that it is very floody, the Quark surely has more throw. If you want a light for indoor use or backyard, the Liteflux may be better, in a forest the Quark will have advantages.

If you don't mind programming the LF3XT, the UI is the most versatile ever seen (comparable only to a Ra Clicky) and you can adjust it to your needs just as you want. A Quark with the regular UI always starts either on moon-mode or on turbo (and with preflash...).

The switch of the LF3XT is special. It is a clicky, but you think it is an electronic switch. It probably doesn't like dirt, the aluminium cover of the switch has an o-ring, which could work heavier when dirty. I was able to open the tailcap without major problems though, so I could clean and lube that special part. The feel of that switch is great however, the normal clicky of the Quark is a very tough one.

Let us know which one you choose! :thinking:

I have had both and now only have the LF3XT.
For me, and YMMV, the User Interface, switching method, and beam characteristics sold me on the LiteFlux. I grow weary of clicking through a sequential group of outputs that don't meet my needs and the LiteFlux is a dream for programming it just the way you want it. The Beacon mode and strobe on the Quark pale when compared to the LiteFlux's as you can control duration, type, intensity, etc with the LF3XT. Now that I mention it, you can control so many aspects of the LF3XT that you're comparing apples to oranges.

The only downside to the LF3XT is that it doesn't have the detent in the tube to allow a better hold when using the "Cigar Grip" method.

Oh yeah, it has a built-in voltage meter, programmable ODP for regular and rechargeables, 2xAA battery tube option (ODP for that also!), Tactical mode toggle, 2, yes TWO UIs (full and compact), crazy random strobe mode.

I bought a Neutral Tint Quark for my little brother, of course I had to see if it was defective and I must say it has a beautiful color(or lack of) to it, but not "better" than the LF3XT. Neither of these are your father's LED lights, they are state-of-the-art beautiful technological marvels that will startle non-flashoholics when they see their size and runtimes.

Side note: Peter, I admire your ability to limit yourself to just one. Lately I've been like the Moses of flashlights, but I'm working on it.

i can't add much to what has already been said.

in my opinion, you should get the LF3XT.

liteflux's beams are some of the best i've seen and the UI is the bees' knees.

good luck!

Thanks everyone for your responses. Based on you input, I think I will go with the Liteflux.

I only have to decide if I want to wait for the 2x123 version, although that sounds like it will not happen until sometime next year, if then.

Peter

Hello PTT,

AFAIK, there is no 2xCR123 or 18650 version in the works. yet.
a lots of folks requested for this format and LiteFlux noted the requests but ... who knows :shrug: , may be next year.

good choice on the LF3XT and thank you for your support of LiteFlux products.

khoo

PTT said:

Thanks everyone for your responses. Based on you input, I think I will go with the Liteflux.

I only have to decide if I want to wait for the 2x123 version, although that sounds like it will not happen until sometime next year, if then.

Peter

Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

I have q123t and lf3xt. They are very different lights. Both are nice but it really depends on your needs. If throw is king, go with Quark. If smooth floody beam is desired, go with lf3xt.

IMHO lf3xt ui is awesome. Very flexible and customizable.

Since I have q123t, there is only 2 modes. Regular q123 has 3 or 4 modes I believe. Both are quality lights.

Tough decision, Glad I have both depending on my needs.

Bud

FWIW, I noticed that the flood circle from the LF3XT has a roughly 1:1 relationship with the distance from target.
8' away = ~8' flood.

Excellent topic.

Are there any concerns that the LF3XT might accidentally turn on? ...I'm a bit concerned about the button.

Is there a noticeable difference in weight and size between the two?

So far my main reason against the Quark (and similar lights) is that I don't like cycling through all the useless modes; I have never used SOS or strobe, and don't like twisting heads to get to the actual high mode. I also find momentary on to be useful. And having a more flood light is better since the majority of what I want to see is near me, rather than far away.

But nothing would be worse than a switch that can too easily be activated.

Jake

snakyjake said:

Excellent topic.

Are there any concerns that the LF3XT might accidentally turn on? ...I'm a bit concerned about the button.

Is there a noticeable difference in weight and size between the two?

So far my main reason against the Quark (and similar lights) is that I don't like cycling through all the useless modes; I have never used SOS or strobe, and don't like twisting heads to get to the actual high mode. I also find momentary on to be useful. And having a more flood light is better since the majority of what I want to see is near me, rather than far away.

But nothing would be worse than a switch that can too easily be activated.

Jake

Click to expand...

I carry the lf3xt in a deep pocket carry with clip. Never had accidental activation. Furthermore I always put it in low mode so if it does activate, no worried on major battery drain. I do this with all my lights not just liteflux.

You will love the ui flexibility ! It really is unmatched.

Budman231 said:

I carry the lf3xt in a deep pocket carry with clip. Never had accidental activation. Furthermore I always put it in low mode so if it does activate, no worried on major battery drain. I do this with all my lights not just liteflux.

You will love the ui flexibility ! It really is unmatched.

Click to expand...

I am not going to add to whatever is already above my post because they have been stated perfectly. My bone to pick with Quark is the clip totally sucks. I hate how it stick out of your pocket. Just rub up against a corner, and you have a good chance of it falling out of your pocket. The clips on the LiteFlux lights are excellent. Deep pocket carry fits snugly in your pockets, where it is safe, and secure.

Here is a video demonstrating the CUI and FUI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyusVfAa9yE

snakyjake said:

Excellent topic.

Are there any concerns that the LF3XT might accidentally turn on? ...I'm a bit concerned about the button.

Is there a noticeable difference in weight and size between the two?

So far my main reason against the Quark (and similar lights) is that I don't like cycling through all the useless modes; I have never used SOS or strobe, and don't like twisting heads to get to the actual high mode. I also find momentary on to be useful. And having a more flood light is better since the majority of what I want to see is near me, rather than far away.

But nothing would be worse than a switch that can too easily be activated.

Jake

Click to expand...

just loosen the head and body with a slight twist and the button is lock out. simple.

khoo