Which to buy neutral white aa2 x-pg or xml version

I have been bouncing back and forth on these two particular lights is the xml worth the extra $ or not? I am most interested in beam shots comparing the two id like to see how thier beam profiles compare. I am also interested to see how thier tints compare as i have heard the xml version is cooler than the x-pg version? I have googled for countless hours trying to find some good pictures but the lights are either to close to the wall and you cant tell any diffrence or they are shining the light into the woods or another surface that wont let you get a good picture of the beam. Any and all help will be much apriciated.

the quality of the threads is questionable. without the o-rings the parts are very wobbly.

Very.

Huh? :shrug::shrug::shrug:

Ummm...am i the inly one that doesnt see an actual light named here?

ffemt6263 said:

Ummm...am i the inly one that doesnt see an actual light named here?

Click to expand...

No, you're not. I thought maybe there was an HTML link in the text somewhere, but there wasn't. A little help, WreckinBall ...?

swm m20a exists in xpg (sold out) and in xml (5$ plus)

I have the quarks 2xAA Neutral in both versions.

According to the specs the XM-L is less efficient, especially on the lower levels.

The XM-L puts out more lumens but since its floodier it doesn't throw as far.

The tint is better on the several neutral XPG's (more neutral) I own than the two XM-L's that I own.

Overall I think for the Quarks the XP-G is the better choice, except that my older 1st run neutral XP-G has preflash and my newer XM-L doesn't.

Thanks cave dave heh i must have been too tired when i started the thread becuase my mind was thinking quark aa2 but i guess my fingers forgot to type it hehe
So any way you say the tint is better on xpg then eh? How would you describe the tent of the xml version (warmer, cooler, yellow, ect)?

NO !!!
as long as there is NO INFO at all what tint has been used, there is ABSOLUTELY NO GENERAL SAYING if the XM-L or XP-G has the "nicer" :thinking: tint.

The XM-L offers the advantage of being able to be run with a much higher current - and then also offers more output.
When the current to the led is about equal, the smaller beam of the XP-G makes for a brighter seeming light.
So when the main use will not be full power (to an XM-L), an XP-G will offer the same benefits, with less power consumed and thus longer runtime.

When a wider beam (mtnbiking f.e.) is a plus, then the XM-L is the better choice again.


... as there have finally been mentionned the lights: "Quarks"
I have a perfect AA "warm",
an 2*CR123 "X" "neutral white" (XM-L) with a boring green output which I only use as a "lent around" light,
and have just given
a 1*CR123 R5 to a friend and this had a nice beam color (slightly cooler, but no boring tint at all)


PS: - but thats a personal view - the Quarks are built as a compromise with regard to size.
If this size is not so much an issue for the user, any host light for 18650 and P60 insert will provide more fun and satisfaction with the purchase and while using the light

XM-L left, XP-G right. I do not have control over the white balance of my cheap camera so the tint may be off.

that picture perfectly shows a comparison for my "X" "neutral white" model vs. the "warm" AA (Xp-G)

also very good showing the wider beam with an XM-L
Now I would go for a "cool" model instead of the "neutral", simply because they seem to give the whiter output