UST 100 lumen vs Streamlight Siege 340 vs UST 30-day 300

[OldOak]

I have a Coleman 200008554 for camping that I find far too harsh. I put a white plastic bag over it to tone it down. Specs:

HIGH 190 lumens 25 hours
LOW 100 lumens 60 hours

Those run times are much inferior to other available products. So I'm comparing these lanterns:

UST 1000 lumen LED Classic
Home Depot $30
3D
High: 1000 lumens, 10 days
Medium: 500 lumens
Low: 300 lumens, 30 days

It's hard to believe that 3 D batteries could produce anywhere near 1000 lumens for 10 days. I'm assuming that much of that time period would be far below 1000 lumens, making the time specification not very helpful, even if it does conform to the ANSI 10% specification (50% would be a more useful specification).

I also wonder if 1000 lumens is overkill, and if it would be useful to have far less than 300 lumens as the low setting, such as inside a tent.


Streamlight Siege 44931
$35 Amazon and Walmart
3D
High: 340 lumens 30 hours
Medium: 175 lumens 70 hours
Low 33 lumens 295 hours


UST 300-lumen 30-day:
$40 Campmore
3D
High: 300 lumens, 32 hours
Medium: 150 lumens
Low: 29 lumens, 30 days

Price is not the deciding factor since these all cost about the same. My priorities are long-lasting light that isn't hard on the eyes, lighting up a small campsite, and reading outdoors at night. It's hard to resist the power and incredible long life of the UST 1000, but I'm leaning toward the Siege.

Your thoughts?

 

[petrochemicals]

Given that the 1000 lumen is brighter than a 60w or 11w cfl or 9w led is it a little overkill?

Small surface mount lanterns are usually really harsh in my opinion. Probably because they are so bright to be sitting right next too. If you sat 12 inches from an unshaded 60w lamp in your home you may feel that it was obviously going to be a bit harsh.

Modifying this has taken my fancy.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00BEWDJQK/



I would not worry that 300 lumen in the low mode it probably doesnt even touch that. I think a low mode of 100lmn and 50lmn would be more conveniant.

Edit.

Found this too with a handle!

http://www.outdoorworlddirect.co.uk/cpx-6-portable-led-table-lamp.html

 

[Poppy]

OldOak,
I agree... 3Ds WON'T give you 1000 lumens not even for a couple of hours. I think that martinae got a few hours with his NiMH Tenergy D cells, and they are MUCH better under load than the Alkalines are.

IMO, it seems that 300 lumens is the max I would want to go with a lantern because beyond that they produce too much glare. If I were to get another lantern, I would pick up one of these.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-Warm-Neutral-Tint-Available-In-United-States!
Its been suggested that favourlight is the behind the scenes manufacturer for the Seige, and UST lanterns. I don't know.
It appears the diffusion method of the lantern linked to above is somewhat similar to the engergizer folding lantern with light fusion technology. I like them so much, that I have two of them, and one of their pop up lanterns.

 

[OldOak]

I looked into that Favourlight PLM0C3D001 and could not find any source for it in the U.S. The Amazon link doesn't work

 

[OldOak]

Glare seems to be a factor of the type of LED bulb, lumens, and the globe or shade, correct? The Coleman lantern referenced above has a clear shade. Putting a white plastic bag over it improves it a lot. The Siege looks to have a frosted globe.

I also experimented with making a simple flat shade to put on top of another lantern with a clear globe. I cut a piece of translucent plastic about 6" x 8", folded it in half to create a tent shape, and fastened it to the top of the lantern. No more glare when reading at the picnic table.

 

[petrochemicals]

Glare I would say is the difference in brightness between the dark stuff and non illuminating pieces like the lamp base/clear plastic, and the rays of light from the led or illuminated diffuser. Putting a plastic bag over it gives your eye something to have its iris contract on as a reference. But even with a diffuser like the frosted globes the light is still from one point source, and the globe is still bright and glare still happens. The better diffusers give multiple light points by splitting the light with prisms so even thought the light is theoretically as bright, it comes from multiple points along the diffuser to where you are, thus the eye percieves multiple light sources over a wider area, and if ive got this right, the candellas are split over a wider area (the diffuser) giving luminous flux that is lower.

But the brightness between the base of the lantern and the globe still give glare what ever you do, the only thing to really cut glare is to light a 360• angle base table ceiling evenly from a diffuse point, thats why lightbulbs work so well downlighting, so there is no contrast, exept by looking directly at the bulb. Or a lampshade giving an even larger difuse area.

That said its awful dark at night and 300 lumens is more than enough for your eyes to not strain on looking, any brighter and the iris just compensates for the ever increasing brightness. And a lantern sat on the table 2 foot from you with you looking dire ctly into the darkness is always terrible!

Edit.

This looks like a better design for lanterns, you may as well have the whole thing be diffuse if your having a battery compartment too!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00A214T8Q/

 

[OldOak]

Petrochemicals, thanks for that explanation of glare. From what you write it sounds like my best choice is the Siege. But a camping lantern should light up a campsite, not just the table. Still, 1000 lumens is seeming less appealing now.

 

[petrochemicals]

I suppose it should light up a campsite, so I suppose you envisage hanging it from a point up high, as you are going to be very hard pressed doing it from a table. I do not know of the optics of the lanterns mentioned, but as you are going to hang it high, try to do get one with a hook in the base and hang it from the base so the illuminator shines down if the light is mounted in the base. If the illuminator is mounted in the sides such as the fenix 18650 lantern (and what the siege light appears to be)and shining out it should be less of a problem. The old gas and parraffin lamps did just that have the light in the centre shining sideways whilst being the right way up.

Edit.

After looking at the siege and the ust, the ust 300 looks like it has better optics.

Also http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0078ZTWP4/?tag=cpf0b6-20

Same lantern as the siege?

 

[Poppy]

Glare I would say is ................. snip..... The better diffusers give multiple light points by splitting the light with prisms so even thought the light is theoretically as bright, it comes from multiple points along the diffuser to where you are, thus the eye percieves multiple light sources over a wider area, and if ive got this right, the candellas are split over a wider area (the diffuser) giving luminous flux that is lower.

Its a shame that particular NiteFighter lantern isn't currently available. It seems that there is a conflict regarding whether the name of the lantern violates trade name or not. At any rate, the energizer "light fusion technology" lights have reduced glare, and I like them very much. The folding one has 6 emitters, that are hidden, but project their light into the edge of a diffusion panel. And as petrochemicals stated above, multiple points of light (rather than a singe one) reduces glare.

 

[OldOak]

I ended up getting the Siege. I really like it; the design is really intelligent. On the middle setting (175 lumens) it easily lights up a room very well. The main drawback is that even with the frosted globe I find it hard on the eyes. I put the simple shade described above on it and it works great on the middle setting for reading.

I got this the Siege 3D for car camping. I'd like to get the AA version for kayak camping but its performance seems less desirable.

 

[petrochemicals]

Ive been thinking about glare a bit more, and I do not think curved lenses\cases that diverge the light help. You seem to get two imager on the same area of the retina, one in focus and one out of, exaserbating the glare. I drew this as an illustration, I found that a less bright image with divergance is sometimes worse than a brighter image without optics