Why aren't there more TIR lenses?

Why dont more manufacturers use them? What is it that the manufacturers don't like about them?

PROS:
-optical efficiency
-small/compact size
-plethora of beam patterns
-readily available manufacturing distributors

CONS:
:thinking:

**EDIT**
By definition TIR lenses are not de-focused moon-beam aspherics like the Dorcy 1AAA, earlier Inova X1 or DX flood to throw lights. These single lens Aspherics waste lot of side emitted lumens lighting up the inside walls of the light bezel, and its understandable why these are not very popular.

TIR lenses refract almost all the emitted light out the front of the lens. Examples are the Malkoff M60/M30, Surefire E2DL/E1B/E2L. There are cheaply priced lights that also use TIR lenses, like DX:17650, DX:26929, DX:36355 and the Lowes task force. So they do not have to be any more expensive than any other optic design.

Probably the cost of development for different applications and beam patterns. I would hazard a guess that it's much cheaper to pick a reflector that is readily available, or has been used in a past product, and use it, than designing a new optic for each new type of LED that becomes available.

John_Galt said:

Probably the cost of development for different applications and beam patterns. I would hazard a guess that it's much cheaper to pick a reflector that is readily available, or has been used in a past product, and use it, than designing a new optic for each new type of LED that becomes available.

Click to expand...

But thats part of the point. Theres no need to design anything. Khatod, Fraen (2 off the top of my head) optics are readily available off the shelf.

Given the success of the Malkoff designs (which just use off the shelf Khatod TIRs) you'd think more manufacturers would key in on this.

:thinking:

They used to be a lot more common, but reflectors make nicer beams, at least compared to older Luxeon optics (NX05, Fraen, etc). I haven't tried the latest optics.

CONS:
TIR optics need a fancy mould, which can cost up to tens of thousands of dollars. Reflector moulds are much simpler.
Most flashlight manufacturers are metal machine shops. In many cases they can machine a reflector themselves. They don't have the ability to make a precision molded optic. (You just have to buy a kiddy binoculars at the dollar store to find out how bad cheap optics is.)

Reflectors provide a main beam for distance, spill for close up. TIR optics provide a main beam only. No use seeing over 300 feet away and twisting your ankle because you can not see the pothole/gopher hole right in front of you.
In the olden days CPF members stick satin scotch tape on the front of their Inova X1 lens to diffuse and widen the beam. And they bought the reflector Nuwai QIII instead of the optic Nuwai Aurora.

The Malkoff M60 is an excellent example of how optics can actually provide superior throw & spill! The spill beam of the M60 extends right down to the feet of the operator if the light is held in a horizontal, forward facing position. No light I have seen can match this ability.

I say, bring on more optics!!!

James...

I agree. I think they should/could replace all reflectors with the exception of the dedicated "throwers". In that case aspherics are better so even then most reflectors would not be needed.

I think a few of the negative comments in this thread are from those who are confusing TIR optics with aspherics (regarding the no spill type comments).

kramer5150 said:

Why dont more manufacturers use them? What is it that the manufacturers don't like about them?

PROS:
-optical efficiency
-small/compact size
-plethora of beam patterns
-readily available manufacturing distributors

CONS:
:thinking:

Click to expand...

Well, optics have to be specifically made for each individual LED, whereas with reflectors all you really have to worry about is the size of the opening where the LED fits in.

Looking at my DeCree XP-G, focusing the optic seems to be a pain, and the cheap glue tends to get unstuck easily.

Nailbender says that using an XRE with an optic doesn't necessarily mean more throw. And considering the hotspot of my SST-50 is much more noticeable on the high ceiling of a large supermarket(50+ ft) than my Malkoff M60, I'd be inclined to agree.

Then we also have to start the 20 page debate on whether an optic or reflector causes more lumen loss.

However, nowadays I believe that a beam profile like the M61 with tons of spill is more preferable to the tight beam of the M60.

I still think the optics option should be available for the enthusiast, but long story short, it probably isn't practical or cost effective.

gcbryan said:

I think a few of the negative comments in this thread are from those who are confusing TIR optics with aspherics (regarding the no spill type comments).

Click to expand...

Actually there's a lot of confusion between the type of optics that get called TIR optics, like Inova's old TIROS, Surefire's Outdoorsman/Defender/backup and Gerber Firecracker and lights that used what are commonly called collimators, like the Malkoffs, Princeton Tec EOS, Peak's new lights, the Task Force 2C, Rayovac 3C and so on.

The former lights, the TIROS, Surefires and Firecracker all have more of a narrower beam pattern while the rest do not.

The thing is, from what I've read on here, total internal reflection optics (TIR) and collimators are really the same thing. All I know is I love the beams of the Princeton Tec EOS, Gerber Firecracker and the Peak Eiger, I want more optics!

I have the Malkoff, and love it...but, has anyone picked up the Surefire LX2, TIR?

Amazing beam! A throw and spill mix that are very, very good!

TIRs do cost more money to R & D, and make, while reflectors are cheaper to manufacture, and have been with us since the begining. However, new coatings on the reflector surfaces could be something we do not want to ignore.

I want companies to R & D the TIR system as is will offer more for the future designs of lights to come.

All of this is moving so fast it is almost unbelievable.

Plus, for me, I love any kind of optical devices.

gcbryan said:

I think a few of the negative comments in this thread are from those who are confusing TIR optics with aspherics (regarding the no spill type comments).

Click to expand...

x2... Aspherics are completely different from TIRs, and should not be confused when replying to this thread. The fore-mentioned inova X1 is an example of an aspheric design, its just de-focused a little more than an aspheric thrower.

Many TIR lenses come as a kit with a molded plastic lens holder. No need for anything custom in that regard either.

kramer5150 said:

x2... Aspherics are COMPLETELY different from TIRs, and should not be confused when replying to this thread. The fore-mentioned inova X1 is an example of an aspheric design, its just de-focused a little more than an aspheric thrower.

Many TIR lenses come as a kit with a molded plastic lens holder. No need for anything custom in that regard either.

Click to expand...

Suppose I wanted to add a TIR lens to a 6P...would I black out the reflector or what???

What is a TIR lens?

recDNA said:

Suppose I wanted to add a TIR lens to a 6P...would I black out the reflector or what???

Click to expand...

No... You dont even need a reflector. The easiest way to achieve this is to just drop in a Malkoff M30/M60.

Example of a TIR, Malkoff M60 taken apart


Beam pattern of a TIR lens. No rings, No artifacts, no abrupt bezel cut off on the far side spill. Just a wall of light with a spot in the middle.

recDNA said:

Suppose I wanted to add a TIR lens to a 6P...would I black out the reflector or what???

Click to expand...

You would unscrew the reflector and replace it with a TIR.

Malkoff too expensive and I prefer more throw and less spill from a TIR. Something more like an LX2 than a M60

recDNA said:

Malkoff too expensive and I prefer more throw and less spill from a TIR. Something more like an LX2 than a M60

Click to expand...

For a XR-E you can get a bag of 5 for about $4 on DX that will just snap-on the emitter.

Just remove the reflector. They they have a small collimating optic over the led and then the rest of the TIR and the effect is similar to a reflector except the spill is less because the collimating optic re-directed some of the light that would be spill into the hotspot.

So the hotspot is a bit brighter and the spill is a bit less bright in intensity which also makes the hard outer edge going from spill to darkness a smoother transition (which is what I like).

That smoother transition means that when you are shining your light at something at night you don't have that distracting hard edged halo moving around in your periphery.

I like this type of reflector setup also.
I bought the Mx power off of DX sku 31730 on a impulse buy and it worked out great. Seems to be back ordered now though.

gcbryan said:

For a XR-E you can get a bag of 5 for about $4 on DX that will just snap-on the emitter.

Just remove the reflector. They they have a small collimating optic over the led and then the rest of the TIR and the effect is similar to a reflector except the spill is less because the collimating optic re-directed some of the light that would be spill into the hotspot.

So the hotspot is a bit brighter and the spill is a bit less bright in intensity which also makes the hard outer edge going from spill to darkness a smoother transition (which is what I like).

That smoother transition means that when you are shining your light at something at night you don't have that distracting hard edged halo moving around in your periphery.

Click to expand...

The pill is screwed into the reflector. The reflector is the ground isn't it? If I remove the reflector the pill flops like a fish out of water. I don't get it.