Well, the tint is supposedly a bit better on the MT-G2 than the neutral XM-L. But, I'm sure that's more of a preference thing and your mileage may vary there.
The MX25L3 with the MT-G2 and the SX25L3 with the XM-L2 will be fairly equal in terms of throw. I'm thinking off of the top of my head right now so I may be a bit off, but I believe the MX25L3 rocks 45,000? cd vs the 53,000? cd on the SX. In real life the difference will be almost negligible, but the edge will go to the SX there. Where you're going to notice the major differences in the lights are the beam size. The MX-MTG2 will light up everything in front of you at one time. Imagine a giant flood of light extending out in a beam. The SX-XML2 will be a far more defined hotspot, but it won't be anywhere near tunnel vision. Again, personal preference takes the lead there.
The two outliers are the SX-MTG2 and the MX-XML2. Both are more specialized in their beam type.
The SX-MTG2 will be a pure wall of light. It will still light up a solid distance, but it will light up everything in front of you at one time. Some of the beam shots I've seen make it look like it has almost no hotspot at all. This, to me, would make it an awesome hiking or caving light. A lot of times you don't need to see real far away, but it helps to see everything at once.
The MX-XML2 will be a dedicated throw platform. Rocking over 80,000 cd at 1200 lumens it is designed for distance. The kind of thermal handling the large MX platform provides makes a light like this very suitable for SAR or LEO type work. Unfortunately you loose being able to comfortably use it close up.
Now, having mentioned thermal handling, I think that brings me to the point that makes or breaks lights for me. I don't like lights that can't sustain a thermally stable, current controlled light out put. Pumping a couple thousand lumens out of a small host is the same as dropping the C7 Corvette engine in a used, stock 2002 Honda Civic. Yeah, you have lots of power, but he chassis just isn't capable of handling that kind of power to it's full capacity. 2700 lumens is a lot of light and a lot of energy. It takes some solid infrastructure to properly support that output in my opinion. Which is why so many lights that generate those levels of output have timed stepdowns to prevent overheating.
The other down side is how much more power it takes to run those output levels. The MX-MTG2 is rated at about 1.5 hours of runtime on turbo. The MX-XML2 is rated at 2.7 hours. Now, both lights include the same timed step down. Which to me says that Eagletac didn't feel like creating a whole new circuit for each light and just played with the drive levels and whatnot on the same circuit for both lights.
To me, the best trade off out of those lights is the SX-XML2 at 2.7 hours on turbo, compact, high output, and solid reach. But, it depends on what you will be using it for. If you are leaning more towards throw with some good spill, that would be the light I go for. I will always suggest a more stably designed, lower output before maximum power if you are going to be seriously using your light.
But, in all honesty, I would be lying if I said I didn't want to personally see the MX-MTG2 in action. Something about that huge beam throwing that much light is just addicting. :devil: .
