Aluminum Reflector + AR Lense vs TIR

Ok, so we see that most premium lights use aluminum reflector coupled with glass lens with anti-reflective coating on it while some more budget friendly model uses total internal reflection to output light. So the question is, is aluminum reflector plus AR coated lens better than TIR optics? Does the alulens able to let more light pass through than TIR? Reason I asked is, because the alulens combination might accumulate white foggy "mist" inside over time especially places with high humidity. Most premium light makers make it PITA to disassemble their lights, so chances are slim for average joe to open up and clean up the foggy lens. My fenix ld10 r4 is one such example. The lens is foggy and there is no way to clean it unlike the EagleTac D25A where its lens can be taken off. So, alulens better? TIR better?

And let's not forget about the AR coating. Is it the same one being used on camera? If so, then I can only say more problem in the long run. I noticed some parts of the AR coating vanished on Fenix MC11 lens, so I think might be the fungus eating away the AR coating on the lens. So into the dry cabinet they go. AR coating, while letting more light pass through, adds purple to the tint as well. Any experts mind to shed some light on this?

I can't comment on the longevity of ar coatings or fogging over time on reflector lights, because I've never personally had that happen to mine, but I can say that I've never seen a TIR light throw nearly as well a a reflector light. If throw is desired, then TIR is out of the question.

The AR coating adding a purple or green tinge to the tint of the light is doesn't matter much. There are many reflector lights with AR coating that have the potential to be very, very close to the black body curve. What matters more is the tint lottery you'll get with the led emitters.

TIR doesn't throw as well as reflector? Hmmm. Interesting. Never heard that before. I have Fenix E11 and I see it as a very throwy light since it doesn't have much spill while E05, also using TIR, does not throw very well. So maybe this has more to do with design than material, like deeper and bigger reflector can give more throw?

About AR affecting tint, I have Astrolux A01 and Lumintop Tool both using nichia neutral, but Tool, with AR coating, output a more purple-ish light while such purple is absent in the A01. So the A01 wins in outputing a clean beam tint. But yeah I agree, the led tint lottery matters more as I have one E11 with pure white tint while the other E11 puts out purple white tint, urggh.

Any more comments and opinions are welcomed.

Well as far as I know, I haven't seen any TIR lights that are monstrous throwers. All the high output throwers use reflectors.

Take for example, the TN42vn. It has 1760 meters of throw.

twistedraven said:

Well as far as I know, I haven't seen any TIR lights that are monstrous throwers. All the high output throwers use reflectors.

Take for example, the TN42vn. It has 1760 meters of throw.

Click to expand...

That's because for that throw You need very large tir\reflector and while a large aluminium reflector like in th tn42 isn't to heavy if it where glass tir in the same size it would just be to haevy so reflectors can be larger so they can have much more throw

But i dont know if reflector throws better than tir in the same size

Both can do very different things. It all depends on the end-use requirements. What size of paintbrush should an artist use?

personaly i find that reflectors do better for me as the work i tend to do has me at medium to long range. Even with the smaller formfactors (AA) i can get useful amounts of light at range. As for the optics i find them more of a novelty they also throw the light less.

My understanding is that TIR is actually more efficient than a reflector/lens combo. The TIR absorbs less of the light emitted from the emitter.

There's no real reason why a TIR can't be just as throwy as a conventional reflector. LED Lensers use TIR optics and have a reasonable amount of throw in their spot modes. However, in large head lights, a solid TIR is a pretty huge chunk of material and would probably be too heavy. Reflectors tend to work better in those lights since most of the head can be hollow.

One other charactertistic of a TIR is that a TIR can also bend the light coming out of the front of the light that doesn't hit the reflector. If this light is aligned to hit the same area as the light reflecting from the sides, you'll get a beam pattern with almost no spill.

Those who don't think TIR lenses don't throw as well have never seen lights light the Gerber Firecracker, the old Inovas with their TIROS optics and similar lights that focus all of the light in a hotspot with virtually zero spill. Optics are very versatile beamwise, but design and production is often more expensive and complex that reflectors, especially for glass optics.

All that is hypothetical. On the current market, all the large throwers sport reflectors, while optics are reserved for mostly multi-emitters in smaller lights. It would be interesting to see a very large optics thrower though.

I think it would be interesting to see a multi-emitter or a high powered emitter with a Fresnel lens. They are supposed to be able to really focus a beam tightly.

The old malkoff m30 and m60 got tir, throws really well for their size. More throw than the newer version with the same size relector and similar lumen output. The new hound dog super got tir. So there are larger throwers with tir out there

Regarding the fog on the inside of the lense. Those lights are prob not waterproof.

So TIR are better with manipulating light, interesting. Fenix tends to include TIR in their more budget friendly model but use reflector in their more premium light, making me into thinking the reflector based is superior. How about TIR with AR coating? Does it increases the light pass through efficiency?

Speaking of which, what about the fungus eating away at the AR coating? Nobody notice this on their lights especially those of shelf-queen?

defloyd77 said:

Those who don't think TIR lenses don't throw as well have never seen lights light the Gerber Firecracker, the old Inovas with their TIROS optics and similar lights that focus all of the light in a hotspot with virtually zero spill. Optics are very versatile beamwise, but design and production is often more expensive and complex that reflectors, especially for glass optics.

Click to expand...

This.

The beam shapes are going to be different for a reflector and a lens. The internal reflecting lens will give you a pencil shaped beam. This can be very useful in specific situations, especially when you only need a dim light but you want it to shine far or show a clear beam.

Another difference is that you're going to be blinding people with the spill light from your reflector based flashlight, but you are not going to be blinding people with your total internal reflection based flashlight unless you shine it right in their eyes.

I personally prefer a light with some kind of lens and not just the bare emitter/reflector.

Got a link to something explaining the design principles of a TIR?

But surely the reflectance is not 100% efficient. What types of glass or plastic are better? Limits to the shape of the beam? For instance, how close to parallel with no corona?

defloyd77 said:

Those who don't think TIR lenses don't throw as well have never seen lights light the Gerber Firecracker....

Click to expand...

From the pictures linked, it looks to me as though the Firecracker used an aspheric lens. That's not the same as a TIR setup, as I understand the terms. When I hear TIRs, I think more like a Carcio triple set-up.

Granted, aspherics are really good at throwing. The current throw king, the Deft-X, uses an aspheric. But many people (like me) don't find them a very useful beam except for special purposes.

(I.e., maybe sometimes I only want to light up a single window in the house down the street. Then the aspheric is great! But if I want to see the whole house, or get the entire context around the hotspot, they are not as good.)

lampeDépêche said:

From the pictures linked, it looks to me as though the Firecracker used an aspheric lens. That's not the same as a TIR setup, as I understand the terms. When I hear TIRs, I think more like a Carcio triple set-up.

Granted, aspherics are really good at throwing. The current throw king, the Deft-X, uses an aspheric. But many people (like me) don't find them a very useful beam except for special purposes.

(I.e., maybe sometimes I only want to light up a single window in the house down the street. Then the aspheric is great! But if I want to see the whole house, or get the entire context around the hotspot, they are not as good.)

Click to expand...

Nope, it is indeed a TIR lens. They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Inova's TIROS if I'm not mistaken was similarly shaped and that's what gave these lights those intense, pure hotspot beams. Carclo's TIR optics, as well as others such as the ones Olight uses in the Baton series are shaped the way they are to give a better general purpose beam.

Deft-x is a unicorn. What currently available OEM light has the tightest beam?