Lumens accuracy among flashlight manufacturers

Do you believe the lumen specifications from various flashlight manufacturers? Do company's like Surefire, UK, and Pelican have more realistic specifications concerning Lumens out the front of their lights? lovecpf

afdk said:

Do you believe the lumen specifications from various flashlight manufacturers? Do company's like Surefire, UK, and Pelican have more realistic specifications concerning Lumens out the front of their lights? lovecpf

Click to expand...

Depends on the company. Some claims are works of fiction rather than actual measurements. Others are theoretical, and a few actually measure lumens. Read around and you'll see.

This exact question has been asked several times in the past. The search tool is your friend. You pretty much just got the best answer. Some try and tell the truth, some exaggerate. Some give you the maximum capability of the LED in a test fixture at max current and not what is coming out the front of their flashlight with less current, reflector, glass, and bezel in the way. Some take measurements but may still under claim the lumens to be on the safe side. Some tell you what the peak turn on value is. Lumens in most flashlights is a moving target. Even with good regulation as the units warm up in most lights the output actually drops. Those without regulation have a continual and gradual decline so what it turned on at will never be hit again until you change the batteries. There is lots of reading on this subject already posted, do some reading.

Or you could go to Youtube and view MrGman Video's!

They saved me alot of time, and money.

Lets just put it this way... One of the guys at a bar I work security had, I think, a Ultrafire from DX that had 900 lumens engraved on the host.... we did a quick comparision on the ground with my LED Lenser M7R... 220 lumens... The M7R was almost 4 times brighter....His reasoning, "yours is more focused"....

Well let me ask this...

When I used to review bows and other archery products, a company would send me a bow, I knew full well what the "proclaimed" specs were advertised as, but I never had a bow that hit the IBO speeds that they advertised. What they did is took 100 bows (or whatever number they choose) and pick the fastest one out of all of them and that was the benchmark or spec bow by which their advertising was proclaimed.

I have no idea about anything regarding electronics, but is it possible that electronics have variation in output, and if so, do companies take the "best case" and use that as their benchmark?

Wiseguyzz_Inc_ said:

Lets just put it this way... One of the guys at a bar I work security had, I think, a Ultrafire from DX that had 900 lumens engraved on the host.... we did a quick comparision on the ground with my LED Lenser M7R... 220 lumens... The M7R was almost 4 times brighter....His reasoning, "yours is more focused"....

Click to expand...

He was correct. You two were comparing lux (the concentration of light) not lumens (the total amount of light).

John_Galt said:

He was correct. You two were comparing lux (the concentration of light) not lumens (the total amount of light).

Click to expand...

Never said he wasn't correct.... Just surprised because I never really compared a whole lot of lights like you guys....Im pretty sure he had Ultrafire WF-501B SSC P7... I know we're talking aspheric vs non aspheric...But I was just surprised that an aspheric 220 lumen light was alot brighter compared to a non-aspheric 900 lumen light... His didn't even look any brighter than my LED Stinger 160 lumens which is non-aspheric, but then again that spot is pretty tight as well

Surefire is the only mfr I know that tests the output of their lights with an IS and rates them at the minimum guaranteed output at steady state conditions (i.e. thermal situations have steadied out). All other mfrs rate based on either calculated LED lumens by the LED mfr at the drive level predicted in the light mfr's circuit design or the max capable LED lumens (usually the lower end brands). Some state the OTF lumens gathered from independent tests (mostly by CPFers), but only state the transient initial output which is always higher than steady state.
There also seems to be some discrepancy these days about how much light is lost from LED to "out-the-front" between current ideas (20-25%) and ideas from a few years back (30-35%). The designs of the optics haven't changed that much in that time, and we had UCLs back then too and did testing with those as well and lumens lost were always about 35%. Now, the figures seem to be different. I think it may be due more to some mfrs driving the LEDs harder than they advertise or predict, resulting in people thinking there is less loss.
Regardless, take the output ratings of any mfr (aside from SF) with a grain of salt. Do enough research and you'll have a pretty good idea of what claimed outputs sound reasonable and which ones are rediculous.

jsr said:

Surefire is the only mfr I know that tests the output of their lights with an IS and rates them at the minimum guaranteed output at steady state conditions (i.e. thermal situations have steadied out). All other mfrs rate based on either calculated LED lumens by the LED mfr at the drive level predicted in the light mfr's circuit design or the max capable LED lumens (usually the lower end brands). Some state the OTF lumens gathered from independent tests (mostly by CPFers), but only state the transient initial output which is always higher than steady state.
There also seems to be some discrepancy these days about how much light is lost from LED to "out-the-front" between current ideas (20-25%) and ideas from a few years back (30-35%). The designs of the optics haven't changed that much in that time, and we had UCLs back then too and did testing with those as well and lumens lost were always about 35%. Now, the figures seem to be different. I think it may be due more to some mfrs driving the LEDs harder than they advertise or predict, resulting in people thinking there is less loss.
Regardless, take the output ratings of any mfr (aside from SF) with a grain of salt. Do enough research and you'll have a pretty good idea of what claimed outputs sound reasonable and which ones are rediculous.

Click to expand...

I would argue that Streamlight is pretty accurate with the graphs they provide for many of their products as well.

jsr said:

Surefire is the only mfr I know that tests the output of their lights with an IS and rates them at the minimum guaranteed output at steady state conditions (i.e. thermal situations have steadied out). All other mfrs rate based on either calculated LED lumens by the LED mfr at the drive level predicted in the light mfr's circuit design or the max capable LED lumens (usually the lower end brands). Some state the OTF lumens gathered from independent tests (mostly by CPFers), but only state the transient initial output which is always higher than steady state.
There also seems to be some discrepancy these days about how much light is lost from LED to "out-the-front" between current ideas (20-25%) and ideas from a few years back (30-35%). The designs of the optics haven't changed that much in that time, and we had UCLs back then too and did testing with those as well and lumens lost were always about 35%. Now, the figures seem to be different. I think it may be due more to some mfrs driving the LEDs harder than they advertise or predict, resulting in people thinking there is less loss.
Regardless, take the output ratings of any mfr (aside from SF) with a grain of salt. Do enough research and you'll have a pretty good idea of what claimed outputs sound reasonable and which ones are rediculous.

Click to expand...

I would argue that HDS (Henry) also rates accurately.

IMO:

Surefire, HDS = OTF, minimum output
Olight, Jetbeam, Eagletac, Fenix = Emitter lumens based on actual current (theoretical)
DX Lights = Generally emitter lumens at max current
Barbolight = ?
Streamlight = ?

Much more fun to just go out and buy them and compare. My Surefire E2DL at 120 Lumens (claimed) easily outthrows some other lights that claim higher lumens.

Its been my experience that the balance between throw and flood can make all the difference in how I perceive the output of a light. My greatest disappointment was several years ago (pre discovering CPF) when I bought a Led Lenser Giga (3 Watt - 5 x C batteries) which claimed to be the most powerful LED light. Well, it wasn't much good even though its a beautiful light.

lovecpf

afdk said:

Lumens accuracy among flashlight manufacturers

Click to expand...

nonexistent. :nana: (for the most part)

This sounds very similar to the claims made by some Home Entertainment manufacturers over the decades stating outrageous wattages put out by Hi Fi Systems.

These figures are up to 10 x what the real figure is.

I have been an Electrician and Electronics Hobbyist for decades and the real measure of output wattage of amplifiers in Hi Fi equipment is measured in RMS (root mean square) watts.

I think the lumens charade is really pushed over the top by some shonky (untrustworthy) manufacturers and retail outlets especially via the Internet.

A claim of 200W output of a small stereo system can include all four or five channels at PEAK measurements easily resulting in only 20W RMS.

It is like saying an old car that can only really do 60 MPH in reality can do 300 MPH.

What they don't tell you is when they measured the 300 MPH it was falling off a very big cliff!!

I know the last sentence is a bit extreme, but you get my drift. :devil:

BossMaverick said:

I would argue that Streamlight is pretty accurate with the graphs they provide for many of their products as well.

Click to expand...

+1 :thumbsup:

John_Galt was correct . You are measuring lux. A cheap 2AA plastic flashlight with a 15 lumen SMJLED can put a brighter spot on the floor than a 100W 1400 lumen household light bulb.
To measure lumens go into a dark room, point the light at the ceiling and see how objects in the room is lighted. Then the 1400 lumen light bulb will light up the whole room much more brightly than the 15 lumen flashlight.
My worst case calculation on my MTE 900 lumen flashlight was 350 lumens. The few '900 lumen' that made it to an IS measured just over 400 lumens. So try the ceiling bounce test. The '900 lumen' should hold its own against the LL. Not overpower it as a true 900 lumens would.

Wiseguyzz_Inc_ said:

Lets just put it this way... One of the guys at a bar I work security had, I think, a Ultrafire from DX that had 900 lumens engraved on the host.... we did a quick comparision on the ground with my LED Lenser M7R... 220 lumens... The M7R was almost 4 times brighter....His reasoning, "yours is more focused"....

Click to expand...

-----

Back on topic.

Most of the DX/ebay lights are rated using the highest number the manufacturers can find on the LED suppliers website.
An old SSC spec rates the C-bin up to 900 lumens so everybody put 900 lumens on the side of their lights. SSC has re-spec the C-bin to 700-800 lumens but 900 lumens stayed on the side of the torches.
Cree did not say 700-800 lumens for the MC-E. Just spec'd 700 lumens.
So with 2 torches of similar brightness (both LEDs use 4*EZ1000 dies), if MCE 700 lumens, if P7 900 lumens. Actual for the 1*18650 versions ~400-450 lumens.

Many of the Chinese/Hong Kong manufacturer's use calculated LED lumens based on the current they feed into the LED.
I have seen a couple of tests on Fenix torches and they are around 81% of claimed. But Fenix in the past had upgraded the LEDs unannounced so their lights may actually be at or above spec. Fenix had used Q4 bins in the L0D-CE before they changed the name to L0D-Q4 so if you got one of the last production L0D-CE, you are probably brighter than the spec which was based on the P3 bin.

4sevens claimed 180 OTF lumens for the new AA2. Ti-force's tests show:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/292571
Energizer L91 (E2)
187.9 1 sec
147.9 30 sec
145.5 1 min
144.2 2 min
143.0 3 min
Duracell AA alkaline
162.4 1 sec
151.5 30 sec
147.9 1 min
145.5 2 min
140.6 3 min
Yes the Mini AA2 met the lumen spec at 1 sec with a very expensive battery. But can I expect 180 OTF lumens for 1.7 hours? Nope.
Luckily Ti-force also did full runtime tests.
With the L91 output is effectively 140 lumens for the first half of the run then slowly dropping to 120 lumens.
With the alkaline the output drops to 80 lumens.
-
A single lumen number will put you in the ballpark of how bright the light is but not always indicative of exactly what you can expect in day to day use.
-
I just look at the 3 minute number in MrGman, BigC, and Ti-force's tests now. And 4,5,6 minute number if available.

Wiseguyzz_Inc_ said:

Never said he wasn't correct.... Just surprised because I never really compared a whole lot of lights like you guys....Im pretty sure he had Ultrafire WF-501B SSC P7... I know we're talking aspheric vs non aspheric...But I was just surprised that an aspheric 220 lumen light was alot brighter compared to a non-aspheric 900 lumen light... His didn't even look any brighter than my LED Stinger 160 lumens which is non-aspheric, but then again that spot is pretty tight as well

Click to expand...

His P7 based light maybe only putting out 400-500 lumens. It probably has a pretty floody beam too. When you flood out 400 lumens, it can look fairly dim when compared to a lower lumen light that is focused. Even a 60 lumen flashlight may look brighter (higher lux) if it's focused a lot.

One of the most focused types of flashlights are the aspherics, so you are comparing a highly focused beam, with a very low focus beam. For his light to look brighter with the same beam profile it may need to be 2,000 lux or more. I'm just kind of throwing numbers around here, just trying to make a point.

Thanks for clearing that up guys!

Surefire used to severely underrate their lights. Nowadays, it seems they are putting more realistic outputs on their lights.


HDS systems/Ra lights individually calibrates each light to emit a 100% steady output for the guaranteed hour. Meaning that it is putting out 70(high CRI) 100(140 models) or 120(170 models) from the second it steps down from burst (100, 140, 170 respectively) till the second it drops out of regulation, and drops several levels of output.

Oztorchfreak said:

This sounds very similar to the claims made by some Home Entertainment manufacturers over the decades stating outrageous wattages put out by Hi Fi Systems.

These figures are up to 10 x what the real figure is.

I have been an Electrician and Electronics Hobbyist for decades and the real measure of output wattage of amplifiers in Hi Fi equipment is measured in RMS (root mean square) watts.

I think the lumens charade is really pushed over the top by some shonky (untrustworthy) manufacturers and retail outlets especially via the Internet.

A claim of 200W output of a small stereo system can include all four or five channels at PEAK measurements easily resulting in only 20W RMS.

It is like saying an old car that can only really do 60 MPH in reality can do 300 MPH.

What they don't tell you is when they measured the 300 MPH it was falling off a very big cliff!!

I know the last sentence is a bit extreme, but you get my drift. :devil:

Click to expand...

I too have been around the block when it comes to audio, We used to test gear with a volt meter and a dummy load with a sine wave and some amps would show 8 watts a side but say 500!

better stuff was marked proper most of the time ..

same goes for lights I see as well.