Zebralight SC52 Owner's Thread

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

cyclesport said:

Other than removing the clip and attempting to bend it a little to ease the contact point(s), which I would personally would be hesitant to do since that would require more finesse than my skill set allows, I'm not sure. IMO I think the unique shape and several sharp points and acute angles of this light also contribute to accelerated clothing wear...in general, still liking the light a lot though!

Click to expand...

I don't think it is the clip itself that causes the pocket abrasion for me. I think it is the sharp angles. I would suggest, and am thinking about, taking off the clip, then file the raised ring the clip mounts on, then reattach the clip. If you file all around it will look like it is supposed to be there. A fingernail file should work. The shiny ring(s) might even make it look better.

Another idea is to add clear nail polish to those sharp edges right where the clip attaches. Or anything else that can protect the pocket from this sharp edges.

Let me know if you come up with anything.

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

PocketBeam said:

I don't think it is the clip itself that causes the pocket abrasion for me. I think it is the sharp angles. I would suggest, and am thinking about, taking off the clip, then file the raised ring the clip mounts on, then reattach the clip. If you file all around it will look like it is supposed to be there. A fingernail file should work. The shiny ring(s) might even make it look better.

Another idea is to add clear nail polish to those sharp edges right where the clip attaches. Or anything else that can protect the pocket from this sharp edges.

Let me know if you come up with anything.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is where the head flares back into the battery tube right underneath the the clip. That edge where it flares back is relatively sharp and could cause issues with the unclipping the clip. For future revisions, Zebralight should consider revising that. A little extra rounding of that edge right under the clip should fix the problem.

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

Fireclaw18 said:

I think the problem is where the head flares back into the battery tube right underneath the the clip. That edge where it flares back is relatively sharp and could cause issues with the unclipping the clip. For future revisions, Zebralight should consider revising that. A little extra rounding of that edge right under the clip should fix the problem.

Click to expand...

Yes. Everytime I pull it out of the pocket of a pair of old jeans, there's two or three threads still lodged under clip lol.

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

Fireclaw18 said:

I think the problem is where the head flares back into the battery tube right underneath the the clip. That edge where it flares back is relatively sharp and could cause issues with the unclipping the clip. For future revisions, Zebralight should consider revising that. A little extra rounding of that edge right under the clip should fix the problem.

Click to expand...

That is the same spot I am talking about. So far all three of my ZebraLights have had sharp edges like this. This one just happens to have the sharp edge right where the clip attaches.

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

Still trying to find someone who can post a comparison picture showing the SC51 and the SC52 side by side at a distance so I can see which beam I prefer. Can anyone help?

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

Just got my sc52 a couple of days ago. This is my first ZL and I'm liking the UI. I do like momentary on on most of my lights, but not having it on this one is no big deal (yet). I like the clip as I like carrying clipped to my pocket rather than within the pocket. I'm not sophisticated enough to know much about different tints, but this one seems nice to me for path walking at night. Nice light I really like it so far. /MK

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

Just got my order in for one, quick question will a AW14500 run fine in this light?

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

CM2010 said:

Just got my order in for one, quick question will a AW14500 run fine in this light?

Click to expand...

If you check out their specs, 14500 runs fine:

"Battery: One 1.5V AA (NiMH, lithium or alkaline) or 3.7V 14500 Li-ion battery.
Features

• Automatic stepping down when battery (AA and 14500) capacity is low
• Builtin over-discharging protection for 14500 batteries (2.8V cutoff)"

Fireclaw18 said:

I think the problem is where the head flares back into the battery tube right underneath the the clip. That edge where it flares back is relatively sharp and could cause issues with the unclipping the clip. For future revisions, Zebralight should consider revising that. A little extra rounding of that edge right under the clip should fix the problem.

Click to expand...

It's strange that there is this issue.
I have an sc30 and when that light came out there where talk about the sharp edges on the grooves under clip shredding pockets.
They fixed that on later models by smoothening the area under the clip.
Now they are making a similar mistake.
I have been waiting for a replacement for my sc30 and I want it to run on AA, have good switch, working clip. The sc51 have a working clip (looks like that to me at least) but not so good switch.
Now when they fix the switch the clip functionality gets worse .

Got mine about two weeks ago. ZL's very slow shipping from China (ordered in mid-November) worked in my favor because I'd originally ordered SC51 before realizing SC52 was available. One week after ordering, it had not shipped yet, so ZL agreed to change to SC52. Very prompt responses to email inquiries. It's my first ZL and I like it a lot. Tiny, seems very high quality, and very useful UI. Very bright for its size, even with primary AAs. I'm no expert, but tint on mine seems pretty white... no green that I've noticed.

Lightman2 said:

Still trying to find someone who can post a comparison picture showing the SC51 and the SC52 side by side at a distance so I can see which beam I prefer. Can anyone help?

Click to expand...

This isn't exactly what you were looking for, but it's something. SC51 to the left, SC52 to the right. Both on M1 (the highest medium)

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

CM2010 said:

Just got my order in for one, quick question will a AW14500 run fine in this light?

Click to expand...

I have used two AW 14500 750mah Batteries without problem. All modes work, even the lowest low. I haven't tried a full run down, but I have seen it drop from high to medium when the battery lost charge.

As to the person asking about the beam on the SC51 compared to the SC52, I can compare the H51 to the SC52. What you see in the beamshots posted by Swede74 is what you get. A slightly bigger hotspots and brighter spill. The SC52 is noticeably brighter on eneloops, but on a 14500 for a minute the SC52 is hugely brighter. As for throw, they are similar on eneloops, but the SC52 still beats it because the hot spot is brighter even though it is bigger. Put the 14500 in and there is no contest between the two. As I said the picture posted tells the tell. High looks the same since the SC52 is still brighter. As for tint, my H51 is slightly blueish and the SC52 is slightly greenish. Both are slight enough you may not notice even when looking for it. Hope that helps as a second opinion.

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

Got mine few days back. Is actually towards warm tint, nowhere close to cool white. Not green, not white, slight warm. Is awesome.

Re: Anodizing failing and clip abrasion

I love this light, and it's probably the best light I've ever purchased for many reasons, but.. The ridges on the body or the single ridge under the head near the clip is going to shred my pockets if I'm not careful. I do like the feel of ridges, and I can't really even offer a suggestion of what to change that would prevent this from happening. I think that's the only thing I dislike about the light.

Runtime test AW 14500 750 mAh

I just did a runtime test on the Zebralight SC52, using a AW 14500 750 mAh. Starting with the cell fully charged, I ran the light for 30 minutes on H2 (108 lumen) Then I ran it for 1x3 minutes on H1 ("Turbo", until automatic stepdown, allowing it to cool off after each stepdown) and repeated the procedure after that. Following the third 30 minutes on H2, it stepped down after 30 seconds on H1, and after that, it stepped down after only 5 seconds. The level it stepped down to, supposedly 280 lumen, still looked significantly brighter than H2 (108 lumen) so no obvious decrease in output, even though the cell is no longer able to provide a high enough sustained current (is that the correct term?) for a full minute at 500 lumen.

If someone would like me to do a runtime test on the remaining capacity of the cell, and has a suggestion on how to best conduct such a test, I would be happy to oblige. I have a spare cell, so I'm in no particular hurry to recharge the one I used for the test.


[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Time (min)[/TD]
[TD]Aggregated time[/TD]
[TD]Mode (lumen)[/TD]
[TD]Voltage (V)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]4.24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]H2/108[/TD]
[TD]4.05[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1+1+1[/TD]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]H1/500[/TD]
[TD]3.96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]H2/108[/TD]
[TD]3.87[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1+1+1[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]H1/500[/TD]
[TD]3.82[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]96[/TD]
[TD]H2/108[/TD]
[TD]3.67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]≈30s↓280 lm[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]H1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]≈5s↓280 lm[/TD]
[TD]≈97m35s[/TD]
[TD]H1[/TD]
[TD]3.57[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




[TABLE="width: 500, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Re: Runtime test AW 14500 750 mAh

Just picked up a SC52 this morning from my local dealer. My previous and only ZL experieince prior to the SC52 has been a positive one with an SC80. I was first struck by how small the 52 seemed compared to my 80. So far it checks out perfect, I got all my modes set up and now just waiting for the dark! I will say the Low, Low of 0.06 lumens is SO low, you cant even tell its on during the daytime. Should be interesting! I will be running this on a primary L91.

-Drew

Swede74 said:

I just did a runtime test on the Zebralight SC52, using a AW 14500 750 mAh.

Click to expand...

I might as well throw in a couple of side-by-side runtime tests I ran on some Eneloop 2000mah. I used a DSLR as an ambient lumen meter, calibrated to a ThruSevenTac lumen scale which I find ~ 30% lower than the ZebraBuilt lumen scale (see note at bottom).

On Max/Turbo, SC52:
Specs: 280 lms/ 54 mins
Tested: 200>160>40 / 45 mins

Quark AA-XML:
Specs: 140 lms / 48 mins (assumed output 1/2 QP2A-X)
Tested: 160>125>40 / 53 mins

Both lights exhibit the similar drop down performance, ie, starting at 200/160 and then dropping down to 160/125 at around 7-8 minutes mark, and holding that level to the very end where both started dropping off quickly. ZL ~ 30% brighter throughout, 47s ~ 20% more runtime... net net, ZL ~ 10% more efficient.

On High, SC52:
Specs: 108 lms/ 3:00 hrs
Tested: 80>40lms/ 2:28

ET, D25A-XML, NW:
Specs: 75 lms/ 2:30 hrs
Tested: 80>40lms/ 2:20

Note: both lights exhibited similar drop down performance. Solid regulation throughout test, before dropping off quickly at the end. Efficiency equal.


Lumen scale note: Within the Efficient/AA/14500/XML/Sub-Lumen manufacturers, Foursevens, Eagletac and ThruNite appear to operate on a different lumen scale than does Zebralight and Selfbuilt. You can observe this lumen scale difference from Selfbuilt's reviews of the SC51, Quark AA2-X, D25 clicky series, and Thrunite Neutron 1A. Except for the SC51, which SB has measured at spec, all other lights have been measured to be ~ 100 lumens "under-rated". Selfbuilt specifically disclaims his lumen values are "accurate" or official ANSI in any way. He merely states that they are consistent on a relative basis, and with which I fully agree.

reppans said:

I might as well throw in a couple of side-by-side runtime tests I ran on some Eneloop 2000mah. I used a DSLR as an ambient lumen meter, calibrated to a ThruSevenTac lumen scale which I find ~ 30% lower than the ZebraBuilt lumen scale (see note at bottom).

On Max/Turbo, SC52:
Specs: 280 lms/ 54 mins
Tested: 200>160>40 / 45 mins

Quark AA-XML:
Specs: 140 lms / 48 mins (assumed output 1/2 QP2A-X)
Tested: 160>125>40 / 53 mins

Both lights exhibit the similar drop down performance, ie, starting at 200/160 and then dropping down to 160/125 at around 7-8 minutes mark, and holding that level to the very end where both started dropping off quickly. ZL ~ 30% brighter throughout, 47s ~ 20% more runtime... net net, ZL ~ 10% more efficient.

On High, SC52:
Specs: 108 lms/ 3:00 hrs
Tested: 80>40lms/ 2:28

ET, D25A-XML, NW:
Specs: 75 lms/ 2:30 hrs
Tested: 80>40lms/ 2:20

Note: both lights exhibited similar drop down performance. Solid regulation throughout test, before dropping off quickly at the end. Efficiency equal.


Lumen scale note: Within the Efficient/AA/14500/XML/Sub-Lumen manufacturers, Foursevens, Eagletac and ThruNite appear to operate on a different lumen scale than does Zebralight and Selfbuilt. You can observe this lumen scale difference from Selfbuilt's reviews of the SC51, Quark AA2-X, D25 clicky series, and Thrunite Neutron 1A. Except for the SC51, which SB has measured at spec, all other lights have been measured to be ~ 100 lumens "under-rated". Selfbuilt specifically disclaims his lumen values are "accurate" or official ANSI in any way. He merely states that they are consistent on a relative basis, and with which I fully agree.

Click to expand...

Help out the dumb guy here...

so are you saying your testing showed that the SC52 was not as bright as ZL claims? I thought all these lights were judged by an ANSI scale so we could get a apples to apples comparison. I'm confused, is the SC52 not giving the lumen output and runtime advertised by ZL? I am confused....
Edited to add the following question:

would testing on a primary L91 battery yield increased performance over the eneloop?

drew78 said:

Help out the dumb guy here...

so are you saying your testing showed that the SC52 was not as bright as ZL claims? I thought all these lights were judged by an ANSI scale so we could get a apples to apples comparison. I'm confused, is the SC52 not giving the lumen output and runtime advertised by ZL? I am confused....
Edited to add the following question:

would testing on a primary L91 battery yield increased performance over the eneloop?

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell every manufacturer seems to have their own interpretation of what the ANSI scale is. I guess, by Zebralight's liberal interpretation, they are reporting correct numbers (well, except for the HUGE ?error? on all the L modes). There are other manufacturers that use liberal numbers, like Klarus and Nitecore, but if you ask ZL's competition in the AA/sub-lumen market - 47s, ET, TN - I'm quite certain they would say ZLs numbers are overstated.

Selfbuilt, and your own testing, seem to be the only common ground from which to compare apples to apples. Selfbuilt has adopted a liberal lumen scale, I believe by using a "best fit" line with a group of manufacturers, but as I mentioned above, he disclaims his scale to be ANSI accurate or official. I am also using a "best fit" line, but since most of my lights are from 47s, ET, TN, you might say I'm using the conservative scale that those three competitors have adopted. For one more angle on the conservative vs liberal ANSI scales... here's GoingGear's website with a 2xAA filter: http://goinggear.com/flashlights?compatible_batteries=270, only the highest performancing manufacturers tread ~280+ lms with TWO CELLS.

The important point is that, if want to compare lights on an apples to apples basis, you need to adjust for the conservative/liberal scales used by different manufactures. Without your own light meter, you might as well use Selfbuilt's numbers. So for example, using Selfbuilt's tested numbers (please look up his reviews to verify):

SC51 - spec 200 tested 200 ratio 1.00
Neutron 1A - spec 145 tested 240 ratio 1.66
Quark AA2X - spec 280 tested 400 ratio 1.43
D252A - spec 219 tested 330 ratio 1.51
(note: I use the 2xAA versions for 47s and ET since SB doesn't test the single cell versions, which I consider to be the closest competitors to the SC52)

So lets say there's an average "conservative factor" of around 50%. You can either multiply TN/47/ET numbers by 1.5 to get to the ZebraBuilt scale, or you can divide ZLs numbers by 1.5 to get to a ThruSevensTac scale:

SC51 - 200spec /1.5 ~ 135
H51w - 172spec /1.5 ~ 115 (my H51w meters = to my TN T10, a 115 light)
SC52 - 280spec /1.5 ~ 190 (my DSLR 200 lms measurement is accurate +- 10%)

This is a bit of an oversimplification, and numbers are ballpark.... but I hope it illustrates the issues clearly.

(BTW, ZL states on their website the specs are based on an Eneloop 2000 mah)

Just got one myself. My first thoughts are that it is incredibly small. My second are that fit and finish are excellent. It's a neat little package.

I love moonlight modes and this one's lowest moonlight mode is really low. Like the LED barely glows. Is it at all useful? Does anyone use it on the lowest? I haven't had a chance to use it with dark-adjusted eyes.