Eagletac T20C2-II XP-G R5 vs Quark Turbo

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
 
Last edited:

shipwreck

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
494
Location
Flashlight City
Thanks for that review. I looked at the P20C2 II and the QUark Turbo, and ended up ordering the P20C2 II instead of the quark - as I read some complaints about all the twisting for the various functions, and parts loosening up because of it. But otherwise, I almost bought the QUark Turbo.

I should have the Eagletac in a couple more days.
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
Personal preference is what matters; you really can't go wrong with either one.

Brightnorm
 

Saint_Dogbert

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
405
Location
USA
I own a Turbo. It is intended as a medium-range potter, ie somewhat throwy. If you need floody, general use type of beam in this output territory, go with the Quark 123^2.
 

MeRcEdFLaShEr2o9

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8
:duh2:well is the t20c2 mk2 really that good cuz i just ordered 1 and dont know if i nade tha rite choice last time i ordered a light was wen the fenix l2d q5 was popenlovecpf
 
Top