brightnorm
Flashaholic
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Messages
- 7,160
First, a physical comparison. Physical specs are measured with digital calipers and digital scale.
EAGLETAC T20C2-II
Length (excluding protruding switch): 141mm (5.6")
Head diameter (at front): 33mm (1.3")
Body diameter: 25.6mm (1")
Weight (including 2x123): 138g (4.8oz)
LOP reflector
QUARK TURBO
Length: 122mm (4.8")
Head diameter (at front): 30mm (1.17")
Body diameter (measured at tail to avoid body "flats"): 22mm (.86")
Weight (including 2xcr123): 102g (3.6oz)
Smooth reflector
Both lights use an XP-G R5
Ceiling bounce reveals virtually identical total output
BEAMS: Testing used the "notorious" white wall test which actually proved ideal for this comparison. Distance was 31 feet.
EAGLETAC
Total beam diameter 28 feet
Hotspot diameter 2 feet 3 inches
QUARK TURBO
Total beam diameter 34 feet
Hotspot diameter 2 feet
These specs are suggestive but they do not reveal the critical points of this comparison.
The Eagletac T20C2-II hotspot is hard to measure because it blends seamlessly into a bright surround which in turn blends smoothly into a relatively dim peripheral beam approximately 28 feet in diameter. Although the beam center (hotspot) is not as clearly defined as the Quark's it is still very intense and lacks the quark's "donut hole".
The Quark Turbo has a clearly defined hotspot, containing a subtle but not significant (IMO) "donut hole". Immediately surrounding the hotspot is a much dimmer area approximately 4 feet in diameter, which then transitions to a very wide but dim peripheral beam approximately 34 feet in diameter.
The important distinction between the Eagletac and the Quark is the way the same total amount of light (lumens) is distributed within the two beams.
The Eagletac beam appears more as a "flood", but a quite unusual flood because of its very bright, though not sharply defined, non-donut hole center. Because its total beam diameter is six feet smaller than the Quark, plus the more even proportioning of light energy throughout the beam I consider it a somewhat better general use light than the Quark.
Because the Quark beam concentrates so much light in the hotspot and has a dim peripheral surround with a total beam diameter six feet wider than the Eagletac's, it may be less useful as a general "walking" light than the Eagletac. However, its more focused beam can function well as a "spotter", and will likely throw further than the Eagletac, despite its subtle "donut hole".
Both lights are intensely bright, excellent for general use as well as projecting powerful beams a respectable distance. However, I don't consider these lights to be real throwers. XP-Gs require larger reflectors to throw long distances.
As a very brief, non-calibrated comparison of throw, I pointed each light across a broad street to the top portion of a leafy tree, roughly 75+ feet away and perhaps 40 feet high. Despite heavy light pollution both lights projected quite strongly but as expected, the Quark turbo was brighter and more sharply focused than the Eagletac.
These are both very impressive lights. They are strongly built, well designed and easy to use after programming. (Though I would have preferred a switch press rather than a bezel turn to access the second setting.)
Neither of these lights is "better" than the other. The superior light is the one that best fulfills your personal needs. For frequent carry I like the Turbo's remarkably small size and lighter weight. For more serious use I would feel more comfortable with the Eagletac.
Brightnorm
EAGLETAC T20C2-II
Length (excluding protruding switch): 141mm (5.6")
Head diameter (at front): 33mm (1.3")
Body diameter: 25.6mm (1")
Weight (including 2x123): 138g (4.8oz)
LOP reflector
QUARK TURBO
Length: 122mm (4.8")
Head diameter (at front): 30mm (1.17")
Body diameter (measured at tail to avoid body "flats"): 22mm (.86")
Weight (including 2xcr123): 102g (3.6oz)
Smooth reflector
Both lights use an XP-G R5
Ceiling bounce reveals virtually identical total output
BEAMS: Testing used the "notorious" white wall test which actually proved ideal for this comparison. Distance was 31 feet.
EAGLETAC
Total beam diameter 28 feet
Hotspot diameter 2 feet 3 inches
QUARK TURBO
Total beam diameter 34 feet
Hotspot diameter 2 feet
These specs are suggestive but they do not reveal the critical points of this comparison.
The Eagletac T20C2-II hotspot is hard to measure because it blends seamlessly into a bright surround which in turn blends smoothly into a relatively dim peripheral beam approximately 28 feet in diameter. Although the beam center (hotspot) is not as clearly defined as the Quark's it is still very intense and lacks the quark's "donut hole".
The Quark Turbo has a clearly defined hotspot, containing a subtle but not significant (IMO) "donut hole". Immediately surrounding the hotspot is a much dimmer area approximately 4 feet in diameter, which then transitions to a very wide but dim peripheral beam approximately 34 feet in diameter.
The important distinction between the Eagletac and the Quark is the way the same total amount of light (lumens) is distributed within the two beams.
The Eagletac beam appears more as a "flood", but a quite unusual flood because of its very bright, though not sharply defined, non-donut hole center. Because its total beam diameter is six feet smaller than the Quark, plus the more even proportioning of light energy throughout the beam I consider it a somewhat better general use light than the Quark.
Because the Quark beam concentrates so much light in the hotspot and has a dim peripheral surround with a total beam diameter six feet wider than the Eagletac's, it may be less useful as a general "walking" light than the Eagletac. However, its more focused beam can function well as a "spotter", and will likely throw further than the Eagletac, despite its subtle "donut hole".
Both lights are intensely bright, excellent for general use as well as projecting powerful beams a respectable distance. However, I don't consider these lights to be real throwers. XP-Gs require larger reflectors to throw long distances.
As a very brief, non-calibrated comparison of throw, I pointed each light across a broad street to the top portion of a leafy tree, roughly 75+ feet away and perhaps 40 feet high. Despite heavy light pollution both lights projected quite strongly but as expected, the Quark turbo was brighter and more sharply focused than the Eagletac.
These are both very impressive lights. They are strongly built, well designed and easy to use after programming. (Though I would have preferred a switch press rather than a bezel turn to access the second setting.)
Neither of these lights is "better" than the other. The superior light is the one that best fulfills your personal needs. For frequent carry I like the Turbo's remarkably small size and lighter weight. For more serious use I would feel more comfortable with the Eagletac.
Brightnorm
Last edited: