# Why aren't there more TIR lenses?



## kramer5150 (May 15, 2010)

Why dont more manufacturers use them? What is it that the manufacturers don't like about them?

PROS:
-optical efficiency
-small/compact size
-plethora of beam patterns
-readily available manufacturing distributors

CONS:
:thinking:

**EDIT**
By definition TIR lenses are not de-focused moon-beam aspherics like the Dorcy 1AAA, earlier Inova X1 or DX flood to throw lights. These single lens Aspherics waste lot of side emitted lumens lighting up the inside walls of the light bezel, and its understandable why these are not very popular.

TIR lenses refract almost all the emitted light out the front of the lens. Examples are the Malkoff M60/M30, Surefire E2DL/E1B/E2L. There are cheaply priced lights that also use TIR lenses, like DX:17650, DX:26929, DX:36355 and the Lowes task force. So they do not have to be any more expensive than any other optic design.


----------



## John_Galt (May 15, 2010)

Probably the cost of development for different applications and beam patterns. I would hazard a guess that it's much cheaper to pick a reflector that is readily available, or has been used in a past product, and use it, than designing a new optic for each new type of LED that becomes available.


----------



## kramer5150 (May 15, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> Probably the cost of development for different applications and beam patterns. I would hazard a guess that it's much cheaper to pick a reflector that is readily available, or has been used in a past product, and use it, than designing a new optic for each new type of LED that becomes available.



But thats part of the point. Theres no need to design anything. Khatod, Fraen (2 off the top of my head) optics are readily available off the shelf.

Given the success of the Malkoff designs (which just use off the shelf Khatod TIRs) you'd think more manufacturers would key in on this.

:thinking:


----------



## paulr (May 15, 2010)

They used to be a lot more common, but reflectors make nicer beams, at least compared to older Luxeon optics (NX05, Fraen, etc). I haven't tried the latest optics.


----------



## LEDninja (May 15, 2010)

CONS:
TIR optics need a fancy mould, which can cost up to tens of thousands of dollars. Reflector moulds are much simpler.
Most flashlight manufacturers are metal machine shops. In many cases they can machine a reflector themselves. They don't have the ability to make a precision molded optic. (You just have to buy a kiddy binoculars at the dollar store to find out how bad cheap optics is.)

Reflectors provide a main beam for distance, spill for close up. TIR optics provide a main beam only. No use seeing over 300 feet away and twisting your ankle because you can not see the pothole/gopher hole right in front of you.
In the olden days CPF members stick satin scotch tape on the front of their Inova X1 lens to diffuse and widen the beam. And they bought the reflector Nuwai QIII instead of the optic Nuwai Aurora.


----------



## ^Gurthang (May 15, 2010)

K,

I've been thinking the same thing. Anyone tried DigiKey for these optics? 

This is an interesting Ledil optic: the Rocket SS [smooth spot]

http://www.ledil.fi/datasheets/DataSheet_Rocket.pdf

In stock at DigiKey, maybe time to order it and a few other optics.


----------



## jimmy1970 (May 15, 2010)

The Malkoff M60 is an excellent example of how optics can actually provide superior throw & spill! The spill beam of the M60 extends right down to the feet of the operator if the light is held in a horizontal, forward facing position. No light I have seen can match this ability.

I say, bring on more optics!!!

James...


----------



## gcbryan (May 15, 2010)

I agree. I think they should/could replace all reflectors with the exception of the dedicated "throwers". In that case aspherics are better so even then most reflectors would not be needed.

I think a few of the negative comments in this thread are from those who are confusing TIR optics with aspherics (regarding the no spill type comments).


----------



## Noctis (May 15, 2010)

kramer5150 said:


> Why dont more manufacturers use them? What is it that the manufacturers don't like about them?
> 
> PROS:
> -optical efficiency
> ...


Well, optics have to be specifically made for each individual LED, whereas with reflectors all you really have to worry about is the size of the opening where the LED fits in.

Looking at my DeCree XP-G, focusing the optic seems to be a pain, and the cheap glue tends to get unstuck easily.

Nailbender says that using an XRE with an optic doesn't necessarily mean more throw. And considering the hotspot of my SST-50 is much more noticeable on the high ceiling of a large supermarket(50+ ft) than my Malkoff M60, I'd be inclined to agree.

Then we also have to start the 20 page debate on whether an optic or reflector causes more lumen loss.

However, nowadays I believe that a beam profile like the M61 with tons of spill is more preferable to the tight beam of the M60.

I still think the optics option should be available for the enthusiast, but long story short, it probably isn't practical or cost effective.


----------



## defloyd77 (May 15, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> I think a few of the negative comments in this thread are from those who are confusing TIR optics with aspherics (regarding the no spill type comments).



Actually there's a lot of confusion between the type of optics that get called TIR optics, like Inova's old TIROS, Surefire's Outdoorsman/Defender/backup and Gerber Firecracker and lights that used what are commonly called collimators, like the Malkoffs, Princeton Tec EOS, Peak's new lights, the Task Force 2C, Rayovac 3C and so on.

The former lights, the TIROS, Surefires and Firecracker all have more of a narrower beam pattern while the rest do not.

The thing is, from what I've read on here, total internal reflection optics (TIR) and collimators are really the same thing. All I know is I love the beams of the Princeton Tec EOS, Gerber Firecracker and the Peak Eiger, I want more optics!


----------



## RedLED (May 15, 2010)

I have the Malkoff, and love it...but, has anyone picked up the Surefire LX2, TIR? 

Amazing beam! A throw and spill mix that are very, very good!

TIRs do cost more money to R & D, and make, while reflectors are cheaper to manufacture, and have been with us since the begining. However, new coatings on the reflector surfaces could be something we do not want to ignore.

I want companies to R & D the TIR system as is will offer more for the future designs of lights to come. 

All of this is moving so fast it is almost unbelievable.

Plus, for me, I love any kind of optical devices.


----------



## kramer5150 (May 15, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> I think a few of the negative comments in this thread are from those who are confusing TIR optics with aspherics (regarding the no spill type comments).



x2... Aspherics are completely different from TIRs, and should not be confused when replying to this thread. The fore-mentioned inova X1 is an example of an aspheric design, its just de-focused a little more than an aspheric thrower.

Many TIR lenses come as a kit with a molded plastic lens holder. No need for anything custom in that regard either.


----------



## recDNA (May 15, 2010)

kramer5150 said:


> x2... Aspherics are COMPLETELY different from TIRs, and should not be confused when replying to this thread. The fore-mentioned inova X1 is an example of an aspheric design, its just de-focused a little more than an aspheric thrower.
> 
> Many TIR lenses come as a kit with a molded plastic lens holder. No need for anything custom in that regard either.


 
Suppose I wanted to add a TIR lens to a 6P...would I black out the reflector or what???


----------



## jcw122 (May 15, 2010)

What is a TIR lens?


----------



## kramer5150 (May 15, 2010)

recDNA said:


> Suppose I wanted to add a TIR lens to a 6P...would I black out the reflector or what???



No... You dont even need a reflector. The easiest way to achieve this is to just drop in a Malkoff M30/M60.

Example of a TIR, Malkoff M60 taken apart






Beam pattern of a TIR lens. No rings, No artifacts, no abrupt bezel cut off on the far side spill. Just a wall of light with a spot in the middle.


----------



## gcbryan (May 15, 2010)

recDNA said:


> Suppose I wanted to add a TIR lens to a 6P...would I black out the reflector or what???



You would unscrew the reflector and replace it with a TIR.


----------



## recDNA (May 15, 2010)

Malkoff too expensive and I prefer more throw and less spill from a TIR. Something more like an LX2 than a M60


----------



## gcbryan (May 15, 2010)

recDNA said:


> Malkoff too expensive and I prefer more throw and less spill from a TIR. Something more like an LX2 than a M60




For a XR-E you can get a bag of 5 for about $4 on DX that will just snap-on the emitter.

Just remove the reflector. They they have a small collimating optic over the led and then the rest of the TIR and the effect is similar to a reflector except the spill is less because the collimating optic re-directed some of the light that would be spill into the hotspot.

So the hotspot is a bit brighter and the spill is a bit less bright in intensity which also makes the hard outer edge going from spill to darkness a smoother transition (which is what I like).

That smoother transition means that when you are shining your light at something at night you don't have that distracting hard edged halo moving around in your periphery.


----------



## Painkiller1009 (May 15, 2010)

I like this type of reflector setup also. 
I bought the Mx power off of DX sku 31730 on a impulse buy and it worked out great. Seems to be back ordered now though.


----------



## recDNA (May 15, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> For a XR-E you can get a bag of 5 for about $4 on DX that will just snap-on the emitter.
> 
> Just remove the reflector. They they have a small collimating optic over the led and then the rest of the TIR and the effect is similar to a reflector except the spill is less because the collimating optic re-directed some of the light that would be spill into the hotspot.
> 
> ...


 
The pill is screwed into the reflector. The reflector is the ground isn't it? If I remove the reflector the pill flops like a fish out of water. I don't get it.


----------



## gcbryan (May 15, 2010)

recDNA said:


> The pill is screwed into the reflector. The reflector is the ground isn't it? If I remove the reflector the pill flops like a fish out of water. I don't get it.



OK, you're talking about a drop-in module right? Otherwise, the pill doesn't flop around. But in either case the TIR just becomes the reflector.

As far as I know the reflector isn't the ground. The circuit is completed behind the led.

The TIR is about the same size as the reflector so it does the same thing including acting as a spacer to press against the front lens to keep the pill from flopping around.


----------



## recDNA (May 15, 2010)

The bottom of the pill containing the LED will touch the positive pole of the battery. If the pill is surrounded by plastic and doesn't somehow contact the tube of the flashlight there is no ground.


----------



## gcbryan (May 15, 2010)

recDNA said:


> The bottom of the pill containing the LED will touch the positive pole of the battery. If the pill is surrounded by plastic and doesn't somehow contact the tube of the flashlight there is no ground.



That's what the outer spring is for is it not?


----------



## Yapo (May 15, 2010)

+ 1 on more lights to use TIR lens/optics!

I find that they can give more efficient use of light in the beam by focusing more light into the hotspot to provide more throw and/or a larger hotspot and less light into the typical wide spill from a reflector which(to me) has little use the further away you need to see while the "aura of light" around the hotspot is enough for shorter distances.

And if you really need flood then slap a diffuser on an you get a smooth wall of light!

Surefire and Malkoff has utilized some nice optics giving nice smooth beams although not all optics give smooth beams. 

For example my led lenser P5 when focused, throws quite nicely but it projects the image of the die out along with some rings around it although it was designed to be adjustable to give both throw and flood which would make it hard to have a perfect beam.

Also as others have mentioned there are quite a few companies designing and making lenses now with different beam patterns and sizes for specific LEDs.

Although from the couple lenses ive tried and data sheets of the lens ive seen it seems like the optics greater than 20mm in diameter give smoother beams with more possible throw than the smaller ones.


----------



## dirtech (May 15, 2010)

IMHO, there is no better beam than with a TIR as with the M60. Reading this thread, there seems to be much confusion on what they are. I would love to see more options with TIR's. In fact, I would probably abandon reflectors completely as I loathe the sudden cutoff of light that is absent with an M60 type optic.


----------



## jimmy1970 (May 16, 2010)

dirtech said:


> IMHO, there is no better beam than with a TIR as with the M60. Reading this thread, there seems to be much confusion on what they are. I would love to see more options with TIR's. In fact, I would probably abandon reflectors completely as I loathe the sudden cutoff of light that is absent with an M60 type optic.


+ 1. You have got to love the M60 - great cross country running light - you can actually see where your stepping whilst being able to see down range!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kramer5150 (May 16, 2010)

jimmy1970 said:


> + 1. You have got to love the M60 - great cross country running light - you can actually see where your stepping whilst being able to see down range!!!!!!!!!!



x2... you can illuminate where you are stepping, _and _down the path at the same time.

It continually surprises me that the Malkoff drop ins are the ONLY lights in the CPF community that use the Khatod optics.


----------



## kengps (May 16, 2010)

x3......There is nothing as fine as an M60. A great throwing hot-spot, a secondary halo around it and then very faint sidespill right down to your feet. You must try one to appreciate it. Great defensive lights, as you can blind somebody while still seeing 90 degrees off to your side. There is a reason Malkoff has such a cult following among Law Enforcement. I still have one, but wish it was up to standards as far as output goes. 230 lumens/ 7000 lux is a bit weak for me these days.


----------



## kengps (May 16, 2010)

Anybody know what LED Malkoff used for the M60/M30? As I recall mine was 230 lumens, but I can't remember whether thats OTE or OTF.


----------



## gcbryan (May 16, 2010)

I agree that there is really no need for a reflector these days.

I would like to see a graduated effect which would be easy with moulding plastic optics meaning that the center hotspot is basically clear and then as you go away from the hotspot the diffusion effect increases so that by the time you get to what would have been outer edges there are no edges anymore.

The hotspot allows you to see your subject and the less diffused area around the subject is still helpful and far from the subject is only diffused light.


----------



## tygger (May 16, 2010)

I'm confused. If TIR is better in every respect than a standard reflector, and costs are virtually the same, why aren't all lights made that way? Wouldn't more manufacturers have started using them by now?


----------



## kramer5150 (May 16, 2010)

tygger said:


> I'm confused. If TIR is better in every respect than a standard reflector, and costs are virtually the same, why aren't all lights made that way? Wouldn't more manufacturers have started using them by now?



Thats what has me totally puzzled... and I can't think of any logical reason why they aren't used more often. The malkof M60 Khatod beam artifacts get totally washed out in the field, so not even that is a really logical reason.


----------



## kramer5150 (May 16, 2010)

kengps said:


> Anybody know what LED Malkoff used for the M60/M30? As I recall mine was 230 lumens, but I can't remember whether thats OTE or OTF.


One of mine is a Q4 and another is a Q5 both XRE


----------



## Chauncey Gardner (May 16, 2010)

I have a Elektrolumens DeCree that I just tried out & expected the throw to be quite a bit better than it is. 
It gets torched by a Jetbeam TC-R3 (rrt-2) & beaten by a faithful old D-Mini (Q5 3mode pill) in throw. 
Brighter & much smoother but past about 70yrds becomes more diffuse & loses steam to the more tightly focused, lower output lights.

Is a 20 degree optic still too wide when comparing it to fairly deep (for smallish heads), smo reflectored lights?

Were my expectations out of line perhaps for what is supposed to be a narrow focus, 300 lumen light with this type setup? 


It was supposed to be my new walking light but is a good bit floodier than I expected. Like the beam, just not what I had anticipated.

Suggestions welcome from Malkoff users or any other quality narrow beam (prefer a 3 mode) drop in's using a collimater / TIR optic options available.

Before I get suggestions on the search funtion (I've been through the p60 dropin thread & others), just looking for some input from users. Thanks.


----------



## LEDninja (May 16, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> I think a few of the negative comments in this thread are from those who are confusing TIR optics with aspherics (regarding the no spill type comments).


MOST optics have minimum spill which is their main advantage over reflectors. All the light goes into the main beam, none is wasted in spill. The fact that Malkoff found one that has spill is the exception that proves the rule.

Most optics are not designed for flashlight use but for fixed lighting. They come in 1, 3, 7 etc. arrays for that purpose and the multi optic arrays are not suitable for flashlight use so you don't see them. Also a lot of optics with spill provides spill in one direction only - they give you a wide rectangular beam, not a circular hotspot with a circular spill.
Check out the full Carclo, Ledil, Fraen catalogs. You are nowhere near an expert on optics just because you have seen a couple of flashlights with carefully selected suitable optics.

The Fraen optic on my Minimak 14500 has a flat front, definitely NOT an aspheric. Still gives me a single blob of light


----------



## gcbryan (May 16, 2010)

LEDninja said:


> MOST optics have minimum spill which is their main advantage over reflectors. All the light goes into the main beam, none is wasted in spill. The fact that Malkoff found one that has spill is the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Most optics are not designed for flashlight use but for fixed lighting. They come in 1, 3, 7 etc. arrays for that purpose and the multi optic arrays are not suitable for flashlight use so you don't see them. Also a lot of optics with spill provides spill in one direction only - they give you a wide rectangular beam, not a circular hotspot with a circular spill.
> Check out the full Carclo, Ledil, Fraen catalogs. You are nowhere near an expert on optics just because you have seen a couple of flashlights with carefully selected suitable optics.
> ...



Who said anything about me being an expert on optics?

We are talking about flashlights so what's the matter with seeing a couple of flashlights with carefully selected optics?

Would it be better if they were not carefully selected?

I'm just saying that optics can do anything you want them to. It's just a matter of money. It's not profitable to design an optic just for a few flashlights in many cases and that's part of the answer as to why there are mostly reflectors out there.

That's also all that most people know about so there's no great demand for optics.

I have a cheap TIR from DX. That's hardly carefully selected but it is made for a XR-E and that how I use them. They have only a little less spill than a reflector.

What's your point?


----------



## Noctis (May 16, 2010)

kramer5150 said:


> Thats what has me totally puzzled... and I can't think of any logical reason why they aren't used more often. The malkof M60 Khatod beam artifacts get totally washed out in the field, so not even that is a really logical reason.


Actually I can't think of a logical reason they ought to be used more often.

Comparing the M60 to the M61, the M61 simply seems more "practical". There's no funny rings or artifacts for people looking for a pretty beam profile. For the practical user, the wide spill lets you see everything immediately in front of you instead of chasing something around with the hotspot.

The extra throw is more or less negligible from the accounts of those who compared the M60 to the M61.

I also like how the light in the spill is nice and consistent, abruptly cutting off at the edge instead of fading away into nothing. Some don't like it, but I feel it makes it easier to identify what's actually inside the beam itself.

You can easily get a more narrow and more throwy beam with aspherics or a fatter/deeper reflector. If we're discussing using an optic to get a wide beam, you'd have to question why anyone would throw their money into researching a completely new design to do the same job as something that's already available.


----------



## gcbryan (May 16, 2010)

Reflectors weren't designed with leds in mind.

If you like the abrupt cut-off that's one thing but if you don't...

Aspherics tend to be for specialized throwers that's true. They can work well in dive lights as well if you need to cut through limited viz water. Spill is not your friend in that particular situation.

XR-E's aren't that efficient in reflectors. If you want to shape the beam you have more control with optics (with XR-E or anything else).

I think we don't have a lot of good optics for flashlights as they aren't commonly used. Most of the negatives are just because they aren't what they could be.

Reflectors work obviously. I never thought about these things before getting involved in dive lights and then coming here and becoming more interested in flashlights in general so I had no preconceived notions about what was good or bad.

I still am the odd man out in many discussions but since I've actually been thinking of these things I've never liked the normal beam pattern. I don't particularly like the aspheric look either but at a distance it's not a problem and that's the only way I use them...at a distance.

I've also learned ways to clean up the look of the beam pattern for my own lights with aspherics.

TIR is what I've come to like. My lights using TIR look almost like they did beam-wise with reflectors. I don't see many disadvantage there. I do like a lower intensity level of the spill particularly near the edges though.

Certainly there's room for both. Since there's already mainly reflectors it would be good to see a lot more optics in my opinion.


----------



## recDNA (May 16, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> That's what the outer spring is for is it not?


 I never use the outer spring.


----------



## Phaserburn (May 16, 2010)

Don't Inforce lights use a TIR?


----------



## rufusbduck (May 16, 2010)

LEDninja said:


> MOST optics have minimum spill which is their main advantage over reflectors. All the light goes into the main beam, none is wasted in spill. The fact that Malkoff found one that has spill is the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Most optics are not designed for flashlight use but for fixed lighting. They come in 1, 3, 7 etc. arrays for that purpose and the multi optic arrays are not suitable for flashlight use so you don't see them. Also a lot of optics with spill provides spill in one direction only - they give you a wide rectangular beam, not a circular hotspot with a circular spill.
> Check out the full Carclo, Ledil, Fraen catalogs. You are nowhere near an expert on optics just because you have seen a couple of flashlights with carefully selected suitable optics.
> ...


 
Optics come in a wide range of beam patterns but so far not for every led out there. For example, I can get 1,3,4,5,6,7 up optics for cree xre,mce,xpe-g from manufacturers such as carclo, khatod, and ledil but not for ssc p7.
I scuba and mtb and for me throw isn't the cat's meow. When diving, what I'm looking at is usually only a few feet away so a 3" dot is less usefull than a 3' patch which is why I modded my Pelican Laserspot with a an mce and 25 degree khatod optic. Likewise when riding, I want to see more than just one rock in the trail so I modded my mr11 halogen lights first with 3 q5's and ledil triple optics(ss for helmet med for bars). I've done other mods and in all cases the beams are smoother with more point sources (i.e. 3 q5 vs 1 mce) and on axis symmetry is best with one optic (1 triple vs 3 nested singles). Currently I'm using a quad xpg with ledil gt-4 xp ss on helmet and med on bars. This gives me better than 3200 lumens that lights the whole trail in front of me with plenty of range. At some point I'll probably redo the Pelican with a triple or quad xpg as well.
I know some people love pure throwers and for them I like aspherics but for most of the things I do from walking the dog to changing a flat a smooth broad beam is better and for that ... Bring On The Optics!


----------



## kengps (May 16, 2010)

Chauncey Gardner said:


> Is a 20 degree optic still too wide when comparing it to fairly deep (for smallish heads), smo reflectored lights?
> 
> Were my expectations out of line perhaps for what is supposed to be a narrow focus, 300 lumen light with this type setup?


 
20 degrees is pretty wide. Malkoff used a 20 degree optic for the M60W. I had one and it was very dissapointing. it was very wide and very weak. The M60 uses an 8 degree optic.


----------



## kengps (May 16, 2010)

From looking at the links some have posted here......all the optics are tiny. Are there larger optics available? a 25mm optic is never going to give the throw of a larger reflector. Larger seems to be the trend. I know I have a problem going back to 25mm lights now that I routinely carry a 30mm floody 550 lumen light that will out-throw my M60.


----------



## gcbryan (May 16, 2010)

I think there is an upper end limit to optics in terms of weight and cost.


----------



## Guy's Dropper (May 16, 2010)

I really liked the Inova TIROS optics and was disappointed when they switched to reflectors.


----------



## ampdude (May 16, 2010)

I found the Inova TIROS optics to not be very durable and that's what turned me away from optics to a large extent.

(that and I'm mostly an incan guy anyways)


----------



## ^Gurthang (May 16, 2010)

Regarding larger TIR optics....

I've found Dialight makes a 50 mm TIR optic but it fits Rebel K2 and Osram Dragon emitters. OTOH, for the price you could afford to try it

Both Ledil and Dialight make 26mm optics 

Ledil makes 35 & 38 mm optics for MCE emitters

All are cheap enough to experiment with other emitters....


----------



## LEDninja (May 17, 2010)

You have answered the question yourself. "It's not profitable to design an optic just for a few flashlights." People do not go into business to lose money.
One other problem with optics. The flashlight manufacturers have to design their flashlights to match the available optics. With reflectors the manufacturers can make the reflectors to suit the flashlight. Millermods made his own reflectors for his Arc AAA mods to suit Luxeons and Crees. I can't imagine him making or able to buy optics to fit the tiny Arc head.
Most people buy sub $10 flashlights at Walmart. They go for the lowest price, get their long runtime by going for the big 2D or 6V lantern battery versions.


gcbryan said:


> I'm just saying that optics can do anything you want them to. It's just a matter of money. It's not profitable to design an optic just for a few flashlights in many cases and that's part of the answer as to why there are mostly reflectors out there.
> That's also all that most people know about so there's no great demand for optics.
> What's your point?



PhotonFanatic sells optics for the SSC-P7. Also for SST-50 and SST-90.
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=169435


rufusbduck said:


> Optics come in a wide range of beam patterns but so far not for every led out there. For example, I can get 1,3,4,5,6,7 up optics for cree xre,mce,xpe-g from manufacturers such as carclo, khatod, and ledil but not for ssc p7.
> I scuba and mtb and for me throw isn't the cat's meow. When diving, what I'm looking at is usually only a few feet away so a 3" dot is less usefull than a 3' patch which is why I modded my Pelican Laserspot with a an mce and 25 degree khatod optic. Likewise when riding, I want to see more than just one rock in the trail so I modded my mr11 halogen lights first with 3 q5's and ledil triple optics(ss for helmet med for bars). I've done other mods and in all cases the beams are smoother with more point sources (i.e. 3 q5 vs 1 mce) and on axis symmetry is best with one optic (1 triple vs 3 nested singles). Currently I'm using a quad xpg with ledil gt-4 xp ss on helmet and med on bars. This gives me better than 3200 lumens that lights the whole trail in front of me with plenty of range. At some point I'll probably redo the Pelican with a triple or quad xpg as well.
> I know some people love pure throwers and for them I like aspherics but for most of the things I do from walking the dog to changing a flat a smooth broad beam is better and for that ... Bring On The Optics!


----------



## astanapane (Jun 11, 2010)

TIR makes the beam better and smoother. See the surefire flashlight which wear the TIR lens. 

I do not understand why other companies they are a way from TIR optics.


----------



## robisais (Jul 28, 2014)

Hate to open an old thread, there is alot of info in here that i haven't been able to find elsewhere. The thread is four years old, and that's a millennia as far as high power leds and lenses go. I've been able to find some newer info, but most of it is scattered across a (very) few forums, and some web pages, which mostly go way over my head. I've been building led lights for awhile, looking for the right combination of optics and LED. I have working lights, but always looking for ways to improve. I don't know a lot about the DIY/flashlights, i imagine that what i want is a bit different than most folks here, since i'm using my lights for stage, so i use rgb/rgbw leds, and the optics are usually (not always) to make narrower beams. Sometimes spill is good, sometimes it's better to have none, so a variety i think.. Does anyone know a good source for a variety of TIR optics that are considered name brand? Are there any useful resources that will help those without a Phd in optics and physics know which is the best for a given application? Thanks for the great info in this thread..


----------



## Kestrel (Jul 28, 2014)

At the risk of restarting the M60/M61 debate rolleyes, I know that the the reflectored M61 series has been easier to manufacture compared to the difficulties in maintaining alignment between the emitter and the optic that Gene M had during the M60 run.
Specifically, we did get numerous posters here on CPF complaining about how their M60 hotspot was off center, ringy, etc.
Gene Malkoff had to process a number of returns/exchanges with the (XR-E) M60 line that has not really been an issue with the (XP-G) M61 line.

For me, I couldn't get rid of my M60's fast enough as I greatly preferred the characteristics of the reflectored M61's over the M60 optic.
Ironically, that same reflector isn't a perfect match for the XM-L, and while I love my M91 I confess that it's beam has a few artifacts while my M31's have none.

----------

I had initially followed the optics discussion during the heydey of the SureFire L1, particularly when SF went from an aspheric in the Gen5 to a TIR in Gen6. For folks who wanted to upgrade their Gen5's, a reflector was the only way to go with regards to compatiblity with the newer emitters that folks wanted to use.

A similar issue occured with the Gen6's, where the TIR optic was a poor match to the XP-G's that folks wanted to use. Therefore, more reflectors. However, a wonderful coincidence: that TIR optic is an excellent match to an XM-L (albeit producing a very floody beam which I happen to prefer) - and I have two SF L1's utilizing this excellent upgrade now.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 28, 2014)

One thing that could be a MAJOR barrier to using an optic in a light rather than a reflector is durability. Because it would be too cost prohibitive and heavy to use a glass optic, any optic would need to be plastic. And plastic is too easily damaged. I have a few LED Lenser lights kicking around. And all of them have pretty nicely scratched optics after a few years of use. This is also why I chose to get a Zebralight H600 recently rather than an Armytek Wizard. That optic just looked too vulnerable. You could prevent lots of damage to an optic by having a glass lens in front of it. But nobody seems to take this approach.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 28, 2014)

StorminMatt said:


> One thing that could be a MAJOR barrier to using an optic in a light rather than a reflector is durability. Because it would be too cost prohibitive and heavy to use a glass optic, any optic would need to be plastic.



Huh? I have a cheap light that uses a glass optic. Granted, it's small because the the light is a 2xAA light. But it shows that glass doesn't _have_ to be expensive and heavy. On an expensive light, a glass optic shouldn't add that much cost compared to plastic. Decent binoculars use coated glass optics, and they're not too expensive.


----------



## RedForest UK (Jul 28, 2014)

StorminMatt said:


> This is also why I chose to get a Zebralight H600 recently rather than an Armytek Wizard. That optic just looked too vulnerable. You could prevent lots of damage to an optic by having a glass lens in front of it. But nobody seems to take this approach.



The Armytek headlamps do use an 'ultra-transparent and tempered _glass_ with anti-reflective and _lens_ coating', and I believe that the underlying TIR is UCL glass as well. As the lens is more recessed than the zebralights, with a deep stainless bezel, I would actually expect it to be much less vulnerable.


----------



## Derek Dean (Jul 28, 2014)

robisais said:


> Does anyone know a good source for a variety of TIR optics that are considered name brand?


Here you go:
http://www.carclo-optics.com/

You'll have to search around, take measurements, etc., but as you will see, they aren't expensive, so there's a lot of room for experimentation. 

By the way, one of my favorite beam profiles is from a triple LED which uses optics, not reflectors. It's got a HUGE central spot and nicely controlled yet not overly big spill, just beautiful.


----------



## robisais (Jul 28, 2014)

Most of this is over my head, but if any of you happen to know any good reading references that don't get too technical on the net, any links would be great.


----------



## scs (Feb 24, 2015)

I hope TIRs will soon become more common and replace reflectors as the industry standard for high performance flashlights.


----------



## Mr. Nobody (Feb 24, 2015)

TIR lens kick butt!


----------



## recDNA (Mar 9, 2015)

Not enough spill for me


----------



## Phaserburn (Mar 12, 2015)

Lower spill than reflectors, and a tendency to contain artifacts/rings in the beam when not perfectly implemented.


----------



## alpg88 (Mar 12, 2015)

^Gurthang said:


> Regarding larger TIR optics....
> 
> I've found Dialight makes a 50 mm TIR optic but it fits Rebel K2 and Osram Dragon emitters. OTOH, for the price you could afford to try it
> 
> ...



there are 80+mm tir lenses, i just got few from digikey, it is made by ledengin, for their 40w led, i tried to use it with mtg2, it works actually, but i'm not sure it is in 100% focus, the hotspot borders are not sharp.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Mar 12, 2015)

I'd be worried that a giant TIR would weigh a ton. 

Not sure I'd want a huge TIR in a flashlight.


----------



## Grizzman (Mar 12, 2015)

Elzetta's AVS heads use an acrylic optic with a ~32mm diameter. They work very well.


----------

