SC62d - Is it superfluous?

After getting my SC62w, I was thinking about possibly picking up an SC62d to use as a backup and use in those situations where I might not need as much light and/or want a higher CRI. But after hearing people talking about how they want to sell their SC62d after getting an SC62w. I've even heard people say the SC62w has a better tint. All this has me wondering whether I should just pass on the SC62d. What do you think?

Honestly, if I compare my SC62w with a Nichia 219b, there is really not a big difference. Brown and green might be a little bit better with the 219b but you really have to pay attention. The extra lumens worth the small difference in CRI. Maybe I've been lucky with the tint of my ZL but in my opinion, the XM-L2 wins hand down. I don't have a Luxeon to really compare however...

The c would be much closer to the SC62w tint than the d version. I have all 3 and plan on keeping them all. The much longer runtimes and higher cri come in real handy for my work.

G27

If you like your light, seems like you're good to go. I have the SC62d and really like it, and do not have a real need for the SC62w, because in the field I always have a thrower as well.


Sent from my iPad using Candlepowerforums

StorminMatt said:

After getting my SC62w, I was thinking about possibly picking up an SC62d to use as a backup and use in those situations where I might not need as much light and/or want a higher CRI. But after hearing people talking about how they want to sell their SC62d after getting an SC62w. I've even heard people say the SC62w has a better tint. All this has me wondering whether I should just pass on the SC62d. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I have both, and I may have been one of those people to claim I would sell my SC62d. I haven't. I can't. I've come to really enjoy it, despite its lower lumen count. (I have the SC52d as well, and I am getting rid of that one.)

This is just an opinion, but I like the tint of the 'd' much more than the 'w' and I'd say my 'w' is great.

Regardless if you already have the SC62w, if you want a respectable CRI light, this is a great option. I say go for it.

KITROBASKIN said:

If you like your light, seems like you're good to go. I have the SC62d and really like it, and do not have a real need for the SC62w, because in the field I always have a thrower as well.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the SC62d is a pretty decent thrower compared to the SC62w?

I rarely use the highest mode on my 120lm HDS. I can't see myself ever needing more than 300lm out of an EDC light (provided it had reasonable throw).

I would pass on, wait a couple of months, and choose among the new arrivals of another brand.

Tapis said:

I would pass on, wait a couple of months, and choose among the new arrivals of another brand.

Click to expand...

Tapis, do you know something I don´t know... Please fill me (us) in . I assume you don´t just say so without knowing that a different brand has a light coming out soon that has a great UI with high CRI emitters and not just a new light from Nitecore with a coold blue XM-L2 coming out... . Please understand me correct. Zebralight has, for many of us, a respectable UI pared with a great form factor and now and then a good tint :thumbsup:

StorminMatt said:

Are you saying that the SC62d is a pretty decent thrower compared to the SC62w?

Click to expand...

The SC62d meets my need for a light to illuminate my surroundings, up to, maybe 100 feet away. For longer distances, I use a flashlight made to reach longer distances. So no, the 62d (or any ZL I've had) does not fill that role. Does it throw far enough for, say, 85% of what a light is needed for? Probably. But having more light on hand is nice, and it sounds like the 62w is handy. And if the tint is not distracting, that is fantastic. If you like to enjoy caves with all the different shades of brown, or live in an area where the brown color of dirt is very evident, the 'd' is a good choice, my opinion. I also prefer the way the 'd' renders the white walls of house interiors, but other members like a warmer tint. We are so fortunate to have so many good choices for illumination.

Martin L said:

Tapis, do you know something I don´t know... Please fill me (us) in .

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't. I'm just very patient and hopeful that the holy graal of EDC flashlights will come out soon. Indeed, the SC62w seems to be close to what we were all waiting for, and I have mine in the mail coming soon. But even if this one seems almost perfect, why would someone buy the same light as a backup, instead of experiencing new ones and allow the exploration to continue? The show must go on, I would say...

I sold mine. The SC62d has a nice tint, but not nice enough for me to keep it with a SC62w. Now if it was a Nichia 219A, I would have kept it. But this is closer to the cooler 219B which I don't like as much. Nice, but just not as much.

If you can walk around with a bag with 3 lights or hanging all over you to suit your needs, that's great. I guess this means a true thrower, a small EDC, and a floody torch/headlamp. But if you want to have something in your pocket without looking like a prepper waiting for doomsday 24/7, the SC62w gets darn close to a do-it-all in a small package. Having .01lm - 930lm in a tiny torch like this is amazing, even if you rarely use the high modes, such as myself. The point is it CAN supply the high output if you need and almost makes up for it's lack of throw for it's size.

I'm getting a sc62d to go with my sc62w. I just love the size and flexible ui. I think the spare will be useful in a blackout, if anything as a room light since it'll be useful for the family. If it was just me, not so much a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Candlepowerforums

In response to markr6:

I don't carry the 62 around all day. (An MBI HF fills that role) But when I'm out in the field, it is not a big deal to have a navigation light and an effective thrower.
The SC62w would be sorely lacking by itself, in the terrain where we venture. We want to be able to clearly see the coyote or bear at a longer distance.

In response to Tapis:

Your perspective is valid, and I have two SC62d's for my purposes. For me, the 62w does not offer enough additional benefit to purchase.

KITROBASKIN said:

In response to markr6:

I don't carry the 62 around all day. (An MBI HF fills that role) But when I'm out in the field, it is not a big deal to have a navigation light and an effective thrower.
The SC62w would be sorely lacking by itself, in the terrain where we venture. We want to be able to clearly see the coyote or bear at a longer distance.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I bought an S200C2 for a thrower. But my point is the SC62w fills a huge gap and it's a light almost anyone can EDC without being an annoyance. OK maybe not the skinny-jean-wearers who are bending the new iPhones! In terms of "d" vs "w", the w simply does more, better, even for a tint snob like me.

markr6 said:

In terms of "d" vs "w", the w simply does more, better, even for a tint snob like me.

Click to expand...

You resumed my exact thoughts in one simple sentence...

Glock27 said:

The much longer runtimes and higher cri come in real handy for my work.

G27

Click to expand...

Actually, the SC62w has significantly longer runtimes than the SC62d.

StorminMatt said:

Actually, the SC62w has significantly longer runtimes than the SC62d.

Click to expand...

Yes. If you set the lights to simliar lumen outputs, the SC62w has a significantly longer runtime than the SC62d.

It's only at max power that the runtime on the SC62d is higher. And this is only because the SC62w is driven harder and is pulling more amps.

Fireclaw18 said:

Yes. If you set the lights to simliar lumen outputs, the SC62w has a significantly longer runtime than the SC62d.

Click to expand...

Yes, but bottom line, many users like utilizing the highest setting, and so end up with shorter runtime, don't you think?

Isn't the fact that the XML2 LED is more efficient (more lumens per watt) than the Luxeon T, which results in the longer runtime? I understand that Hi CRI LED's have a thicker(darker?) phosphor coating to achieve better color rendering, therefore more electrons are needed to achieve a similar lumen output. My question is; Are those TWO reasons for the longer runtime, or are they basically one and the same thing? In other words; Would an equally Hi CRI Cree XML2 still be more efficient than the Luxeon?

I think an equally high-CRI XML2 would be more efficient than the Luxeon. It's just a significantly more efficient emitter.

Only downside is the only currently available XML2s in high-CRI are around 3000k warm-white.

However, CREE's datasheet as of a few days ago indicates they are adding high-CRI (85+ CRI) XML2s in cool white T4. Probably around 5500k.