Ra Clicky: Which lens should I get?

sigsour · Dec 31, 2009

I have gone over all the past posts trying to make a decision and now all I have left are the details. Should I get the 140 with a sapphire lens or should I get the 170 with a regular glass lens?

I know this may seem trivial but these are the choices that I have narrowed it down to.

thanks for the input.

fisk-king · Dec 31, 2009

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

w/ the 140 are you referring to the CGT, Narrow, or Wide?

sigsour · Dec 31, 2009

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

Narrow.

camaro09 · Dec 31, 2009

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

I would say go with the 170. Then set high to around 140 and get more runtime. If you need more light you have access to 170 lumens.

m16a · Jan 1, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

With how the light is designed, I don't believe its going to break under normal usage, I think instead of putting extra money towards extra light and extra runtime. My vote is for the 170 with normal lens.

Dead_Nuts · Jan 1, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

Unless you're thinking about the 140-Cgt vs. 170, I would go with the 170. OTOH, the GT has an absolutely beautiful tint that quite accurately renders colors -- especially compared to the rather cool-lavender tint I've seen (and read about) with most 170's.

Having said all that, my EDC is an all black 170 tactical (or my 200).

mwaldron · Jan 1, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

I don't ever see the Ra lens breaking, it's nearly 1/4" thick (ok, maybe it's 3/16").

My personal preference, would be to go with the warm version, but if you have to have more lumens it's hard to go wrong with the 170. As previously pointed out you can always run it at 140 for more runtime.

New Years Resolution 2010: I will neither purchase nor recommend any LED light that is not at least neutral, preferably warm.

carrot · Jan 1, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

If this is just a question of windows, sapphire glass or regular glass, I would go for sapphire. Sapphire is extremely tough and scratch resistant -- not that the regular doesn't suffice but I personally do not mind the small (barely noticeable) loss in light output for the peace of mind that I will pretty much never be able to scratch the glass.

sigsour · Jan 1, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

Not really a question of lens material. I am on a budget and I wondered if the 170 was truly worth it or not. If I didnt choose the 170, then I could afford the 140 with the sapphire window.

I was really worried about the beam tint on the 170 more than anything but have decided to go with the 170 after hearing from a number of people that think I will be happy with it.

Ordered it today; hope it doesn't take too long.

texbaz · Jan 1, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

carrot said:
If this is just a question of windows, sapphire glass or regular glass, I would go for sapphire. Sapphire is extremely tough and scratch resistant -- not that the regular doesn't suffice but I personally do not mind the small (barely noticeable) loss in light output for the peace of mind that I will pretty much never be able to scratch the glass.

True, true, but if the sapphire has the AR coating like the standard glass then it is not as bullet proof as we would like. My 140 has the coating coming off already and it's only a few months old. I think the best investment is in the output, even then you really don't get a lot more bang for your buck. If I was to buy one today it would be the 170. Good choice only wish it would let me program it to sustain 170 for longer then 10 sec.

Jeff S. · Jan 1, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

sigsour said:
Not really a question of lens material. I am on a budget and I wondered if the 170 was truly worth it or not. If I didnt choose the 170, then I could afford the 140 with the sapphire window.

I was really worried about the beam tint on the 170 more than anything but have decided to go with the 170 after hearing from a number of people that think I will be happy with it.

Ordered it today; hope it doesn't take too long.

Dear Sigsour,

The biggest difference between 170 and 140 is emitter efficiency. At any given equal output, the 170 will be more efficient.

As for the difference between lens material, I did a search for HDS Systems replies to the topic:

HDS_Systems said:
Our newer designs offer nearly unbreakable lenses without titanium or sapphire. Of course, we offer both titanium and sapphire as options, just in case someone wants them. Here is a light that was repeatedly dropped 30 feet (9 meters) onto concrete, rocks and asphalt. After over 20 drops, we started throwing the light at concrete and rocks. After 45 minutes of abuse, we decided we had had enough. The light still works fine. Here is a photo:

We have not seen a single broken lens since we introduced our new design over two years ago. And our customers have dropped the lights over 100 feet (30 meters) onto concrete and rocks without incident. One was dropped off a 13th floor balcony. One was dropped off a wind turbine. One was dropped off a radio tower. And I am sure there are other cases out there.

Henry.

HDS_Systems said:
I think this may be an apples and oranges comparison. Allow me to explain.

One assumption in the statement is that the glass lens is fairly delicate and prone to catastrophic failure. Our lens and lens housing design do an excellent job of protecting the lens and keeping it from breaking. The pummeled light was exposed to severe abuse and the lens never broke.

The design being referred to is very similar to the design we used for the EDC Ultimate and EDC Basic flashlights. That design was prone to catastrophic failure and that design did benefit from using a sapphire lens.

The new design is totally different and there is almost no practical benefit from going to sapphire.

Another assumption in the statement is that glass is somehow prone to scratching and sapphire is not. Granted, sapphire is more scratch resistant than glass is. However, in a well recessed design such as our new design, there are very few opportunities for the lens to be scratched. Even with scratching, most of the scratches will end up in the center of the lens. However, the center of the lens has the least affect on light output and beam pattern. The exterior parts of the lens - the parts that are the least likely to scratch - are the parts that have the most affect on the beam pattern and the total light output.

It would take a lot of scratching - a very noticeable amount - before the light output from an ultra-clear lens would fall below that of a sapphire lens with no scratches. However, in real use, a sapphire lens would also be accumulating scratches but at a slower rate. In practical terms, even heavy users may never see the day when their ultra-clear lens accumulated enough scratches that they got less light out compared to using a sapphire lens under the same conditions.

Increasing the cost of the flashlight by $40 while decreasing the performance by 10 to 15% does not seem like a customer pleaser to me. Does sapphire give you bragging rights? You bet. Does it bring any practical benefits in this particular application? No.

Henry.

Links to these posts:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3135176&postcount=11
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2570619&postcount=31

If you're on a budget and you are choosing between the more efficient emitter (170) or the harder, more scratch resistant lens (sapphire), I'd vote for the more efficient emitter. Though the sapphire sure would be nice, I think the design itself is going to protect the glass lens very well*, and therefore the 170 emitter is going to be a more noticeable value. With the more efficient emitter, you aren't going to lose anything, but with the sapphire you will lose a slight amount of transferrable light.

HDS_Systems' Website said:
*Stainless steel bezel. Stainless steel is much stronger than the aluminum body and will prevent significant damage to the front of the flashlight if the flashlight is dropped bezel down. Stainless steel does not deform like aluminum and provides a protected cavity for the glass lens. The lens is made of ultra-clear glass with an anti-reflective coating on both sides. This allows the glass to transmit roughly 98% of the light from the emitter and reflector. The glass lens is made extra thick for additional strength. Finally, the glass is protected on all sides by rubber cushions making the lens nearly unbreakable.

Krotchitty · Jan 2, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

The 170 cannot be set at 140 lumens. The next lowest level (10 secs afer the burst) is 120 for the 170, and 100 for the 140, according to the manual. Each can be set as well at these levels.

To me, the differences are negligible and proportionate (although the 140 drops 10 lumens less). In other words, there is a difference in the 170 and 140, but output (observed brightness) is not the most noticeable difference, since the burst feature leaves each running at a 20 lumen difference on max after 10 secs.

I am describing the 140Gt which is a wide beam, and 170 (which is only in narrow). These two Ra lights are the same price. Less difference would be noticed I'm sure (no experience with this) if both beams were the same narrow beam, GDP emitter.

Tint and brightness are independent, and not necessarily objective values...Perhaps one is more important, but the 170 is also more efficient at a given power level; that is, it produces either more light at the same power level or it produces the same amount of light longer, depends on how "efficiency" is being defined I suppose.

I really liked my 140gt, and think that it is Ra's best product, but found that the throw of the 170 (because it was both narrower and slightly brighter) won out for my needs. I could not keep both... If I was considering either the 140 or 170 narrow, the price difference would make the 170 a hard sell. If I did not need throw, (narrow option) the 140Gt is far and away a better light to see things with in the dark to my eyes, but I won't be able to see things as long with either 140 as with the 170. I have a Novatac 85 that has a beam tint that I prefer over the Ra 170, and is very very close to the 140Gt, but the run time for the 85 at max is lower than the run time on the 170 when set at 85.

edit... I seem to have gone off on a tangent here, the OP was asking about window material... I'd skip the sapphire, the glass is fine, depending on your use of the light, I'd focus on the 140Gt or 170 question...spend the rest on batteries

Jeff S. · Jan 6, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

Sigsour,

Out of curiosity, did you come to a decision?

Thanks

sigsour · Jan 6, 2010

Re: Which RA CLicky should I choose?

I ordered the 170 last Saturday with the standard glass lens. I am anxiously waiting for its arrival.

Flick75 · Feb 18, 2010

Sapphire vs. ultra clear glass lens

A similar topic was made over 6 years ago. I was wondering what people's thoughts on it were today. I just ordered a HDS Ra clicky with a sapphire lens. I was wondering if it even mattered these days as far as toughness is concerned. I know scratch resistance is optimal with sapphire, but will it break easier from a more distant fall than say for instance a mineral crystal from the same distance fall? We'll use the HDS Ra design for this example, one with ultra clear glass and one with sapphire (corundum).

Any opinion is much appreciated.

Jeff S. · Feb 18, 2010

Re: Sapphire vs. ultra clear glass lens

Here is a similar thread...

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/255454

DM51 · Feb 18, 2010

Re: Sapphire vs. ultra clear glass lens

Thanks for the link, Jeff S.

I'm merging the 2 threads.

Zivman · May 23, 2010

Re: Sapphire vs. ultra clear glass lens

Flick75 said:
A similar topic was made over 6 years ago. I was wondering what people's thoughts on it were today. I just ordered a HDS Ra clicky with a sapphire lens. I was wondering if it even mattered these days as far as toughness is concerned. I know scratch resistance is optimal with sapphire, but will it break easier from a more distant fall than say for instance a mineral crystal from the same distance fall? We'll use the HDS Ra design for this example, one with ultra clear glass and one with sapphire (corundum).

Any opinion is much appreciated.

any update with your purchase? was the sapphire worth the extra money?

Ra Clicky: Which lens should I get?

Which Clicky to get?

140 with sapphire glass lens

170 with regular glass lens

Newly Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Newly Enlightened

Enlightened

Enlightened

Enlightened

Enlightened

Flashaholic

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Flashaholic

Newly Enlightened

Similar threads