So many ugly beams!

gcbryan · Jun 22, 2011

Instead of focusing on more output or tint or a complex UI you would think more attention would be paid to beam quality.

There are OP reflectors if one doesn't want a SMO but there are just too many lights with ugly beams. I would think that would be the first priority for a light manufacturer.

Someone posted a thread about the ugly beam of the Surefire Saint. I have a Surefire 6P incan with artifacts in the beam. I have a Photon Proton Pro with a ringy beam pattern.

Then there are just the things that we all accept but shouldn't probably. XR-E lights with well defined tiny hotspots, no transition to the spill and then sudden cutoff at the outer edge of the spill going to dark.

The XP-G beam generally is an improvement as the hotspot is larger and the spill is dimmer but there is still the outer edge sudden dropoff. XM-L is yet a bit better but at the expense in many cases of throw.

Many headlamps have less than perfect optics. So much so that many people just automatically put a piece of tape or other diffuser material on them.

Plastic optics are fairly cheap. Many times cheaper than a reflector. It's not that expensive or hard with optics (TIR) to have a smother transition from hotspot to spill and a diffused edge trailing off into darkness.

Yet, smooth pleasing beams are the exception rather than the rule. Many people just get used to them and think it's a good looking beam if there are no outright artifacts.

It seems the standard is pretty low for beam quality which is odd considering that the product is one where the beam is the product ultimately.

Maybe you don't agree with what I'm saying but if you do why do you think so little emphasis is placed on beam quality by light manufacturers?

yliu · Jun 22, 2011

I find that all my SMO reflector flashlight has a nice quality beam. On the other hand, my LedLenser m7 with lens has a bonch ugly artifacts in the spot mode.

mrlysle · Jun 22, 2011

Yes, I agree, I have a few with nasty beams, but in all honesty, I notice them most when "white wall hunting". In real world use, etc, outdoors and stuff, they don't bother me near as much. I bought an EagleTac T20C2 MKII because of the wide variety of drop-ins available for it, then started adding drop-ins. I bought it with the then new XM-L, which had a beautiful beam to it. When I got the XR-E "thrower" module and put it in, and shined it against the wall, inside the house, my initial reaction was

. I actually even thought about returning it because of my initial impression on "the wall". But after taking it outside and playing with it, I became much more satisfied. I've since tried to buy most of my lights equipped with OP or at least LOP reflectors in them just because of our tendency to shine them at a wall somewhere which really makes ugly, ringy beams, stick out like a sore thumb. I recently bought a Peak Logan QTC which has an optic, and while the beam is fantastic from it, I'm concerned about the durability of the "plastic" getting scratched up in time. I love my Fenix PD31, but it got a dose of DC fix diffusion film almost immediately because of the nasty beam! LOL I understand your sentiment here. But like I said, when I use my lights for anything other than wall hunting, most don't bother me much.

Chrisdm · Jun 22, 2011

I too have become somewhat of a beam snob after spending far too much time on CPF. But I originally came here researching field lights for my search & rescue team, and as one that really uses lights to their fullest capacity outdoors I have also discovered that, for the most part, the subtleties of a beautiful beam are lost outdoors in real world use. This is why the field lights I build and test are being built with smooth reflectors, for that little extra bit of reach outdoors. However, for my indoor lights, where I do have the occasion to stare at walls, the snob in me still prefers the smoothest beam possible, and I'm more critical of the character of the beam.

That being said, another beam snob characteristic that has carried over into field use is tint. Especially out in the field searching, a neutral tint is so much appreciated. Cool tints outdoors at night for extended periods really do bother me now, and furthermore I perceive colors better with neutral tints, so a neutral beam is pretty much mandatory for me, for indoor or outdoor lights.

UpChUcK · Jun 22, 2011

Probably the smoothest and nicest beams I have is the Inova X03 (non-TIR). It has an OP reflector and the beam is buttery smooth from spot to spill with zero artifacts.

But to be perfectly honest, in actual usage, especially outdoors, the smoothness of the beam quality plays no significant role in the usefulness or effectiveness of the light. I do prefer the smoother beams over ringy beams, which is why most of my lights have OP reflectors, but it isn't required. Efficiency, output and UI are more important in that order than beam quality for me.

tam17 · Jun 22, 2011

Both of my Petzl headlamps (first gen. Tikka and Tikka XP) have irregular beam pattern. No serious flaws though (like dazzling or halo).

Those beam artifacts never bothered me in an outdoors use or during a close-up work.

Considering their price tag, you'd normally expect such details to be sorted, but...

Cheers,

Tam

gcbryan · Jun 22, 2011

I agree that an ugly beam looks worse against a white wall in your house and for the most part doesn't affect its actual usefulness outdoors. However some lights are used in the house or outside against buildings, patios, etc.

Odd shaped beam patterns and artifacts do show up outside although simply ringy patterns aren't as bad such as XR-E's in a SMO reflector.

That being said you can see them and there is no reason for them in the first place. Headlamps are the worse in this regard but it's not just headlamps of course.

Beam quality affects me much more than tint. Actually cool white (at the right brightness) is what I prefer indoor and out. If it's on too bright a setting cool white is a little unnatural looking.

Plastic optics can have a glass flat lens over them if a manufacturer is worried about scratching. I have a dive light with a TIR in it but it still has a flat glass outer lens (necessary for sealing in a dive light of course). Anyway if one isn't concerned about an ugly beam then one probably shouldn't be concerned about a scratch

Even those not too concerned about an ugly beam in general sometimes get annoyed by the XR-E "bouncing ball" effect...tiny hotspot and large halo or spill bouncing around in the peripheral vision. I think anyone could appreciate a diffusing of that edge between outer spill and total darkness so that your attention is drawn where it should be (hotspot).

I think if most light makers really produced "perfect" beams then it would have to be a standard that everyone would have to follow for competitive reasons. It may not bother you but if you have the choice between a good or bad beam almost everyone would eventually choose the good beam I think.

Clothes still function if there is some defect (seconds) but most people wouldn't buy them without a big discount. The only reason we do this with lights is that they are all defective to some extent and we've just gotten used to it

parnass · Jun 22, 2011

gcbryan said:
I agree that an ugly beam looks worse against a white wall in your house and for the most part doesn't affect its actual usefulness outdoors. However some lights are used in the house or outside against buildings, patios, etc. ...

+1

Besides the more common outdoor and "navigate through dark halls" indoor uses, I need a flashlight to inspect interior walls. Paint irregularities, small cracks, stains, dirt, cobwebs, small dents, and chips are easier to see when using a flashlight which emits a uniform beam.

A light which produces dark spots, rings, and emits different colors hides actual wall defects and produces false blemishes.

My Peak Eiger produces a neutral, uniform light pattern and has proven to be a good light for interior inspection. Lights at the other extreme are my early Streamlight Microstream and older generation 2AAA Inova Bolt. Both produce a sickly yellow center hot spot, surrounded by various shades of blue and white rings. They make clean walls look filthy and are not useful for inspections.

ringzero · Jun 22, 2011

Some people strike me as being rather anal retentive about having lights with perfect, smooth beams. ;>

But hey, whatever floats your boat. If someone spends hundreds for a light from a custom maker, then he deserves an ultra-smooth beam for his money.

It's similar to guys who'll spend multi-hundreds for a custom knife. All the little tiny details - fancy handle material, blade swedges, inlaid pins, flawless fit and finish, perfect grinds, etc. - are of major importance to these guys.

Me, I tend to be happy with a light if it'll reliably squirt some photons out of the end when I hit the switch. ;>

Unless a beam is grossly abnormal - like a big dark spot right in the middle - I rarely notice beam smoothness during actual use.

Oddly enough, the best beam I've had lately for smoothness was a 7 buck NiteIze kit that I dropped into an old MiniMag. Kit came with its own replacement reflector.

Got the NiteIze kit to replace a burned out bulb in my Mom's old MiniMag, and after using it for a while I really hated to give it back to her. So nice for use around the house.

Once dialed in, that NiteIze kit was very, very smooth. Had a brighter area in the center that transitioned gradually to bright spill, but no real hot spot. That beam put my other household lights to shame for smoothness and lack of artifacts.

.

vali · Jun 22, 2011

I don't think acual beams are bad at all. I have some old incan lights that would be returned by everyone here if there were bought nowadays, but at the time the only thing I cared was "a light to see around when in dark".

Multi 5mm cheap flashlights had no rings nor artifactifacts and were a HUGE improvement in runtime, but they did'nt have throw at all either. Then I got my first XR-E leds. Yes, they have rings in the beam, but compared with whe old incans they were almost perfect and with great runtime too. Then we got the XP-E and a bit later the XP-E. Rings are gone and we can even get neutral tints in a bunch of models... It's nice to be a flashaholic now.

BTW, I had a XR-E light with a flawless beam: A cheap Saik/Romisen RC-A3 from DX. Now my dad uses it (last time I was in my parent's house he told me about how we put a "dead" alkie on it and was blown away with the brightness. Yes, he really uses it!!)

ringzero · Jun 22, 2011

vali said:
I don't think acual beams are bad at all. I have some old incan lights that would be returned by everyone here if there were bought nowadays, but at the time the only thing I cared was "a light to see around when in dark".)

Exactly!

If you are old enough to have used incans for most of you life, then non-smooth, highly artifacted beams seem typical.

If you grew up with them and then used incan flashlights for most illumination tasks over a period of years, then it's hard to get excited about a few rings or little splotches of uneven color in the beam of a LED light.

.

UpChUcK · Jun 23, 2011

gcbryan said:
I agree that an ugly beam looks worse against a white wall in your house and for the most part doesn't affect its actual usefulness outdoors. However some lights are used in the house or outside against buildings, patios, etc.

Odd shaped beam patterns and artifacts do show up outside although simply ringy patterns aren't as bad such as XR-E's in a SMO reflector.

That being said you can see them and there is no reason for them in the first place. Headlamps are the worse in this regard but it's not just headlamps of course.

Beam quality affects me much more than tint. Actually cool white (at the right brightness) is what I prefer indoor and out. If it's on too bright a setting cool white is a little unnatural looking.

Plastic optics can have a glass flat lens over them if a manufacturer is worried about scratching. I have a dive light with a TIR in it but it still has a flat glass outer lens (necessary for sealing in a dive light of course). Anyway if one isn't concerned about an ugly beam then one probably shouldn't be concerned about a scratch

Even those not too concerned about an ugly beam in general sometimes get annoyed by the XR-E "bouncing ball" effect...tiny hotspot and large halo or spill bouncing around in the peripheral vision. I think anyone could appreciate a diffusing of that edge between outer spill and total darkness so that your attention is drawn where it should be (hotspot).

I think if most light makers really produced "perfect" beams then it would have to be a standard that everyone would have to follow for competitive reasons. It may not bother you but if you have the choice between a good or bad beam almost everyone would eventually choose the good beam I think.

Clothes still function if there is some defect (seconds) but most people wouldn't buy them without a big discount. The only reason we do this with lights is that they are all defective to some extent and we've just gotten used to it

I see your point. My Nitecore D20 (w/ OP) has a well defined hotspot and then the spill with little transition between the 2 but no artifacts or significant rings. Many of my lights are like that. But this is preferred for "spotting" type tasks. The reason I have so many lights is to have the right light for the right situations (at least I try to tell myself that). I prefer the floody lights that have large(ish) hotspots with a long and smooth transition into spill for most tasks around the house. But I prefer the spotlight-like beams for outdoors in a hand-held light so I can "reach out". Reason being is that I always have a floody headlamp also.

Most of the "enthusiast level" lights and all the lights I have have beams that are not so bad that they are noticeably distracting. Even my cheap Dorcy 220 Lumen Rechargeable with it's very ringy beam is still usable and effective outdoors. I don't find it distracting in use at all. I guess I'm just not bothered by what many would consider an ugly beam. I mean hell, I used incan MagLites and their horrid beams for years without complaint and every LED light I have now is many times better beam quality than those.

But when it comes down to it, I prefer a nicer beam quality but it is seldom a deal breaker when buying a light.

Darvis · Jun 23, 2011

It's why, by and large, most all of my heavily use lights are diffused. I even crack the heads open on my Surefire TIR based lights and slip diffiuser material between the lens and the optic (works especially good on the E1L). I love the Malkoff F series lights, the best IMHO for a truly usable no-hotspot no-artifact light. Agree that the Peak Eiger is also aces for a nice small light.

ryguy24000 · Jun 23, 2011

vali said:
I don't think acual beams are bad at all. I have some old incan lights that would be returned by everyone here if there were bought nowadays, but at the time the only thing I cared was "a light to see around when in dark".

Nice! I used to think the same until I saw my first good beam. I hated the artifacts of incans. Now that I consider myself a flashaholic I want a good beam. If for only the reason of quality and attention to detail in a light manufacturers. If I'm going to pay $75 for a light and brand "A" has one with a mediocre beam and Brand "B" has a similar light with a great beam then I go for B. If the beam is better maybe the light has another detail that is better too?

Sparky's Magic · Jun 23, 2011

I agree that a lot of beams are not satisfactory: There are some manufactures who go to greater lengths to insure beam integrity; and who realize that beam profile, quality and acceptable tint are part of a quality Flashlight package.

I have seven Malkoff drop-ins, all are perfect! Two HDS. both perfect and a few Z/L with astonishingly good beams, in the SC series; smooth transitions, great tints, generous spill, a joy to own.

For me, voting with my wallet is about all the muscle I have. When I need (want) a new 'light, I'll choose one from a manufacturer who understands that the first priority in a modern Flashlight is the quality of the light; surely that what it's all about and, it can be done, so easily!

Fireclaw18 · Jun 23, 2011

Beam quality is nice. Especially when you get a decent flashlight collection and want something to stand out. But beam quality alone isn't everything.

My light with the best looking beam is probably my Shiningbeam S-mini. Beautiful warm neutral tint, good amount of throw with smooth transition to spill. But is it my favorite light? Not really. Despite having a great looking beam and great runtime, the S-mini's output is pretty low for its size.

My current EDC is a homebuilt modified Sipik SK58 1x14500 zoomable with a pure white tint. The beam is virtually perfect in flood mode with no rings, but gets rapidly uglier as it transitions to spot mode, with many halos, rings and artifacts. Still, I don't mind so much, because of the sheer quantity of light coming out. Its 2-3x as bright as the S-mini, has much better flood for seeing close up AND throws much further in spot mode. And it's smaller.

I do miss the S-mini's beautiful tint. But not so much that I'd settle for a much dimmer light just to get it.

So many ugly beams!

gcbryan

Flashlight Enthusiast

yliu

Enlightened

mrlysle

Enlightened

Chrisdm

Enlightened

UpChUcK

Enlightened

tam17

Enlightened

gcbryan

Flashlight Enthusiast

parnass

Flashlight Enthusiast

ringzero

Flashlight Enthusiast

vali

Enlightened

ringzero

Flashlight Enthusiast

UpChUcK

Enlightened

Darvis

Enlightened

ryguy24000

Enlightened

Sparky's Magic

Enlightened

Fireclaw18

Flashlight Enthusiast

Similar threads

Latest posts