So my light collection isn't as impressive as many here and leans heavily to the budget side. Recently picked up two new 18650 lights (my first). I like both but they also got me thinking as I compared them to my previous lights.
The new members are:
The older lights I'm using for comparison are:
I understand neither of the new lights is the latest and greatest 18650 pocket light cannon but even in comparison to the 310 lumens of the Mag Tac they draw an interesting comparison. When it comes to a simple ceiling bounce, for the most part, lumens is lumens. There is very little visual difference between the Pelican and the Atactical or the ML50L in terms of area lighting. The slightly greenish tinge of the Atactical being the biggest difference. The Mag Tac clearly trails here.
However, when you use the lights outside and shine them on things that are 50+ feet away the Mag Tac seems to punch above it's weight. In looking at the beam patterns things start to become clear. The Mag Tac's center appears to be every bit as bright as the Atactical and almost as bright as the Pelican. The hot spot is somewhat smaller but not radically so. Instead it falls off to the corona faster. Not like a 120 lumen 2D Maglite but still faster. Inside I don't notice the difference too much. Outside I also don't notice too much. Perhaps the bigger difference is the outer edges of the corona. The Mag Tac simply has a narrower corona and thus less lumens are wasted to the sides. While I might want a wider center spot I have no use for the wider corona of the other lights. Thus even though the two new lights are notably brighter in real use those extra lumens don't buy much.
The ML50L and the spotlight also have wide coronas but with they aren't as bright. At the same time their spots are very focused and thus have great reach.
This somewhat mirrors my experience with the Thrunite Ti3 vs Maglite Solitaire LED. I carry the Thrunite because the firefly mode is nice for checking on kids at night. When used outside the Solitaire, all 37 lumens is actually a better light vs the 120 lumen Thrunite. Again a focused beam allows more reach thus I can see further even if the ground at my feet isn't as widely illuminated.
In the end the experience with the new lights (both of which I like in their own regard) got me thinking that more lumens isn't all it's cracked up to be depending on your use. Outside the Mag Tac provides almost as much utility as lights that are nearly or actually twice as bright. The others use far more power to deliver a beam that really doesn't work much if any better outside (of course they also have far more power thanks to an 18650 cell... too bad Maglite doesn't support one). Many talk about flood vs focus. I would add that with most lights we might consider spot+corona size. If I could, I would rather take light from the corona and add it to the spot.
When I get a bit more time I'll add more opinion about each of the lights.
The new members are:
- Atactical A1 (claims around 500 lumens)
- Pelican 7000 (outgoing 602 lumen model)
The older lights I'm using for comparison are:
- Mag Tac (310 lumen)
- Maglite ML50L 3C (611 lumen)
- Stanley/Black and Decker LEDLIS spotlight (2000... oh wait they meant ~700 lumens)
I understand neither of the new lights is the latest and greatest 18650 pocket light cannon but even in comparison to the 310 lumens of the Mag Tac they draw an interesting comparison. When it comes to a simple ceiling bounce, for the most part, lumens is lumens. There is very little visual difference between the Pelican and the Atactical or the ML50L in terms of area lighting. The slightly greenish tinge of the Atactical being the biggest difference. The Mag Tac clearly trails here.
However, when you use the lights outside and shine them on things that are 50+ feet away the Mag Tac seems to punch above it's weight. In looking at the beam patterns things start to become clear. The Mag Tac's center appears to be every bit as bright as the Atactical and almost as bright as the Pelican. The hot spot is somewhat smaller but not radically so. Instead it falls off to the corona faster. Not like a 120 lumen 2D Maglite but still faster. Inside I don't notice the difference too much. Outside I also don't notice too much. Perhaps the bigger difference is the outer edges of the corona. The Mag Tac simply has a narrower corona and thus less lumens are wasted to the sides. While I might want a wider center spot I have no use for the wider corona of the other lights. Thus even though the two new lights are notably brighter in real use those extra lumens don't buy much.
The ML50L and the spotlight also have wide coronas but with they aren't as bright. At the same time their spots are very focused and thus have great reach.
This somewhat mirrors my experience with the Thrunite Ti3 vs Maglite Solitaire LED. I carry the Thrunite because the firefly mode is nice for checking on kids at night. When used outside the Solitaire, all 37 lumens is actually a better light vs the 120 lumen Thrunite. Again a focused beam allows more reach thus I can see further even if the ground at my feet isn't as widely illuminated.
In the end the experience with the new lights (both of which I like in their own regard) got me thinking that more lumens isn't all it's cracked up to be depending on your use. Outside the Mag Tac provides almost as much utility as lights that are nearly or actually twice as bright. The others use far more power to deliver a beam that really doesn't work much if any better outside (of course they also have far more power thanks to an 18650 cell... too bad Maglite doesn't support one). Many talk about flood vs focus. I would add that with most lights we might consider spot+corona size. If I could, I would rather take light from the corona and add it to the spot.
When I get a bit more time I'll add more opinion about each of the lights.
