# New Surefire E2DL 200 LUMENS?!?!



## l2icel3all (Oct 23, 2009)

I just received an e-mail and noticed that Surefire sent it to me with the subject line of: "New E2D LED Defender Now 200 Lumens" and came here to post this info. Heres the link: http://www.surefire.com/E2DL. I'm guessing they're using the same internals as the Lx2 but now have decided to put a strike bezel on it. I'm in for 1 LOL.


----------



## funkymonkey1111 (Oct 23, 2009)

with a $149 price tag!


----------



## brighterisbetter (Oct 23, 2009)

I got the same email and am interested. SUBSCRIBED


----------



## Search (Oct 23, 2009)

It's just to compete with the LX2. Probably same LED.


----------



## outersquare (Oct 23, 2009)

lol that would be funny if they only increased the paper spec, since some of them already measure 200..


----------



## l2icel3all (Oct 23, 2009)

Search said:


> It's just to compete with the LX2. Probably same LED.


 
Thats my thought exactly. Either way I'm down for 1. I always wanted a strike bezel on my LX2 now I get the best of both worlds.


----------



## vb14 (Oct 23, 2009)

This is what I'm wondering when I got the email. Did they change anything on the light itself? or just updated the specs....


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Oct 23, 2009)

same here, I had the E2D, now the E2DL mkI,and then i get this lovely email. I guess they updated the light. Now it'll probably put out close to 250lumens. 

Still no reason to "upgrade" from the mkI


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 23, 2009)

*HELL YEAH!!!!! Just got this from SureFire:*


----------



## steveG (Oct 23, 2009)

*******s! Just when I had decided I was OK with my E2DL instead of the LX2!


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 23, 2009)

Ok, the "old" one was already over 200 lumens, so this one might very well be very close to 300 out the front. I'm down for one or two!


----------



## l2icel3all (Oct 23, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Ok, the "old" one was already over 200 lumens, so this one might very well be very close to 300 out the front. I'm down for one or two!



I don't know about that. I think they basically used the same LX2 head internals on this "new" E2DL. But either way I'm down for 1


----------



## Viper715 (Oct 23, 2009)

Darn you Surefire just as I was about to spend all my money on some newly released lights you pull me back in to an old favorite.


----------



## xpawel18x (Oct 23, 2009)

Just got the email, for a second I thought I would be the first one to make a thread about this..:sigh:

Anyway, I kinda feel this is not fair. All the folks who bought a 120 lumen E2DL for $149 and now there's a new one with 200 lumens for the same price.:thumbsdow

Notice that on the website the stats do not say "improved performance" like on other models that actually did get an update. I think they are finally starting to use the real OTF lumens we have known the E2DL for. I guess we'll have to wait and see until someone gets one and compares it to the previous "120 lumen" version.


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 23, 2009)

Yikes....
The old one did 200L OTF.
New one claims 60% increase.

60% x 200 = 120 additional Lumens!!!



By that logic, you could run it off a 17670 and still get over 200 OTF :twothumbs


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 23, 2009)

xpawel18x said:


> I think they are finally starting to use the real OTF lumens we have known the E2DL for. I guess we'll have to wait and see until someone gets one and compares it to the previous "120 lumen" version.



I don't think SF would do that. Historically they have always been one of the few who honestly rate their products for Lumen output. If they advertise a 60% increase of the new versus the old, I am inclined to believe that it is an actual OTF increase. Not just a spec update.


----------



## funkymonkey1111 (Oct 23, 2009)

xpawel18x said:


> Notice that on the website the stats do not say "improved performance" like on other models that actually did get an update. I think they are finally starting to use the real OTF lumens we have known the E2DL for. I guess we'll have to wait and see until someone gets one and compares it to the previous "120 lumen" version.


 
the email said that "its light output increased by an impressive 60%." that indicates a performance upgrade, not a rating change. 

if SF changed the way it did its ratings, wouldn't it have increased them on all its other products, too?


----------



## Blindasabat (Oct 23, 2009)

Not every E2DL put out 200L. MrGman admitted his 200L one was brighter than most others he saw and somebody tested another one at 160L. I think they are likely up to Q5's consistantly or more likely just using the LX2 drive specs and so can increase the spec lumens.


----------



## KDOG3 (Oct 23, 2009)

Man I was about to put my LX2 up for sale anyway. Sweet. On my short list....


----------



## jonan (Oct 23, 2009)

OH YEA!!! does batteryjunction have these in stock??:twothumbs


----------



## seattlite (Oct 23, 2009)

I purchased an E2DL as a retirement gift for one of my co-workers a few months ago, at it was as bright or a little brighter than my LX2.

However, the E2DL I purchased 1.5 years ago was noticably dimmer than my LX2. So, I'm thinking that the E2DL that I purhcased a few months ago was in the new 200L batch.


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Oct 23, 2009)

I would imagine that they're just advertising this light as it already was, 200 lumens. They just don't want to sell themselves short. I could be wrong. We won't know until someone tests it...


----------



## gsxrac (Oct 23, 2009)

xpawel18x said:


> Just got the email, for a second I thought I would be the first one to make a thread about this..:sigh:
> 
> Anyway, I kinda feel this is not fair. All the folks who bought a 120 lumen E2DL for $149 and now there's a new one with 200 lumens for the same price.:thumbsdow
> 
> Notice that on the website the stats do not say "improved performance" like on other models that actually did get an update. I think they are finally starting to use the real OTF lumens we have known the E2DL for. I guess we'll have to wait and see until someone gets one and compares it to the previous "120 lumen" version.



Exactly! I thought id be the first to post about it but I should have known! And I think its good they kept the price the same instead of increasing it?


----------



## pipspeak (Oct 23, 2009)

OK, this is getting silly... have an E2DL, just bought an LX2 for higher output and to see if I like the UI better, and now SF throws a new E2DL into the mix just to confuse me more :mecry:

Either way I'll be ending up with just one light, either the LX2 or new E2DL. 

Anyone know if the higher output E2DL head is available yet? And I wonder if SF will "accidentally" release a single-mode version of the MkII ?!


----------



## run4jc (Oct 23, 2009)

I've got both - bought them both last month. From 50 feet in you can't tell the difference - from beyond that my LX2 has more throw. Just my .02. I think I'll play wait and see on this one...

But I did have to pause and smile when I got the email...


----------



## Schuey2002 (Oct 23, 2009)

Just saw this email. And the first thing that came to mind was, "Oh, I'll bet they just updated it to reflect what it was really puting out!"

Would really like to see a test of this 'new' E2DL before I buy one, though...


----------



## Drywolf (Oct 23, 2009)

I just got this from OpticsHQ
 
"Just spoke with SureFire. They did NOT change the LED, only packaging since all the later E2DLs have been running at that output."
 
Frank


----------



## Schuey2002 (Oct 23, 2009)

Thanks! Just what I thought....


----------



## csshih (Oct 23, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Ok, the "old" one was already over 200 lumens, so this one might very well be very close to 300 out the front. I'm down for one or two!



I doubt it.
they're probably just now rating correctly this time.


----------



## outersquare (Oct 23, 2009)

lol serious, like i said, they just changed the paper spec..


----------



## henry1960 (Oct 23, 2009)

I do not forsee this light throwing OTF lumens of much more then the Lx2 and the older E2DL light for the simple reason that SureFire is usally pretty close to what they say about the actuall lumens on there lights.

Now i have the E2DL and it is about the same as my LX2 which would bring my E2DL light at 200 lumens which for SureFire to make that kind of mistake is a rarity. So bottom line is i think they just rewrote the specs and it will be the same light that all of us who bought the older version of the E2DL.

But if i am wrong i will sure be in line very fast to buy me up at least one of these new 60% increased E2DL lights. :twothumbs


----------



## Hitthespot (Oct 23, 2009)

henry1960 said:


> I do not forsee this light throwing OTF lumens of much more then the Lx2 and the older E2DL light for the simple reason that SureFire is usally pretty close to what they say about the actuall lumens on there lights.
> 
> Now i have the E2DL and it is about the same as my LX2 which would bring my E2DL light at 200 lumens which for SureFire to make that kind of mistake is a rarity. So bottom line is i think they just rewrote the specs and it will be the same light that all of us who bought the older version of the E2DL.


 
And I believe you got it exactly right. I just purchased the Jetbeam III M R2 and my Old E2DL is almost as bright. You really have to look to notice the differnce. I don't believe there could possibly be any change at this point.


----------



## MrGman (Oct 23, 2009)

I am quite certain that they upgraded their emitters a while back and now that they have nothing but good high output emitters in stock they are getting around to upgrade their advertising and specs to match on new units.

I very seriously doubt that they are underrating their light outputs on this one particular model by 60% and so would continue to do so and have a new light that is really 320 lumens with a claimed output of only 200. 

At some point in the past they started to put newer better emitters into their units and most likely were not sure of consistency in supply so they simply waited to make any claims about it until now. 

The light that I bought and tested over a year ago turned on at 210 lumens and held 203L after the first minute. 

It would be foolish to think that this new E2DL rated at 200 lumens would be 60% above that because its "SureFire Lumens". 

So if you bought one in the last year chances are its already the 200 lumen model and running out and buying one that says 200 lumens on the package is not going to get you one that is miraculously over 300 instead.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 23, 2009)

You will be able to distinguish these _'new'_ models easily.

They have the new packaging like the LX2 and A2L.

See here


----------



## sovereign (Oct 23, 2009)

I have an E2DL single stage. Just picked up an LX2 last week as well. My E2DL is pretty close to the same as my LX2. I doubt this new one puts out 320 lumens.


----------



## Search (Oct 23, 2009)

I too have a single mode E2DL. This seems like a pretty good time to call and see if I can get a replacement for the "faulty" bezel.

Unfortunately, without a way to make the new head a single stage I'm left with a bitter sweet feeling. I want the extra output but I don't want two modes.


----------



## sfca (Oct 23, 2009)

Search, could there be a modder that could eliminate the dual-stage?

How can we verify by serial number that ours is the new 200 lumen spec? 
The one I bought in the summer had the newer old packaging - without the yellow "new dual mode / more runtime" and with the Borofloat glass vs Pyrex.

Mrgman, you still providing the lumen rating service?


I imagine if the LX2 is "a bit" brighter then the E2DL this could be that extra "bit".

On another note I've been trying to get to Milkyspit to have mine modded but no replies to emails...


----------



## Search (Oct 23, 2009)

Throughout the time I've been a member I've asked but never found anyone who has even attempted to convert the E2DL to a single stage from dual stage. It's controlled in the driver so I don't think it's possible. The only thing you could do is probably put a new driver in it so it might not be a big hassle if you could find someone who wanted to do it.

If you called SF and said you had a single stage "faulty" light they apparently give you the dual mode one in return of the original "faulty". You couldn't depend on them giving you the updated one but I wouldn't put it past them to not send out the older versions anymore. This assumption coming from the fact that the 120 lumen version isn't up for sale on the website.

I personally don't care for it. Maybe in the future I'll mod it but I'm getting something to replace it anyway (bored C2 + M30 w/ 18650). I would recommend modding the single mode with an SST-50 LED hehe.


----------



## xpawel18x (Oct 23, 2009)

Drywolf said:


> I just got this from OpticsHQ
> 
> "Just spoke with SureFire. They did NOT change the LED, only packaging since all the later E2DLs have been running at that output."
> 
> Frank


 
Hah I knew it. Can someone call SF and confirm this? I bought my E2DL in May '09 it was my first surefire. The new packaging and 200 lumens looks great though. If it really would be upgraded, then SF should replace the old bezels with the new ones for free since it is still $149. BTW last time I checked my E2DL is just as bright as my LX2, the only difference is that the LX2's hotspot is bigger but the E2DL's spot is smaller and tighter.


----------



## reneir0492 (Oct 23, 2009)

we are all gona just have to see until someone test both lights, but very anxious to know


----------



## outersquare (Oct 23, 2009)

reneir0492 said:


> we are all gona just have to see until someone test both lights, but very anxious to know


 
there is nothing to test, 
there is already a vendor reply that they only changed the spec to match what it already ran at.


----------



## Dan FO (Oct 23, 2009)

*The Secret*

The single stage is really a 2 stage with both stages set to high.


----------



## pipspeak (Oct 24, 2009)

outersquare said:


> there is nothing to test,
> there is already a vendor reply that they only changed the spec to match what it already ran at.


 
But it sounds like that at some point in the last couple of years Surefire did change the emitter, so the oldest versions might not have the same output as the more recent versions.


----------



## KDOG3 (Oct 24, 2009)

Now if they would do the same with the E1B that would ROCK.


----------



## jp2515 (Oct 24, 2009)

KDOG3 said:


> Now if they would do the same with the E1B that would ROCK.



My guess is it will happen sometime. The new 1 celled Scoutlight sure looks like a E1B (if you look hard enough)


----------



## KDOG3 (Oct 24, 2009)

jp2515 said:


> My guess is it will happen sometime. The new 1 celled Scoutlight sure looks like a E1B (if you look hard enough)



Yeah, I started a thread about that a few days ago. The M300A Scoutlight looks a lot like an E1B but at 110 lumens. No reason to think the latest batch of E1Bs' couldn't be running the same. But I'll wait for the "official" versions before I decide to get it. And then of course, theres' the LX1 we're all waiting to see...no specs on that either.


----------



## claren (Oct 24, 2009)

Where did you get the clip on the Defender ? Is it off one of the newer model Surefires ?


----------



## Size15's (Oct 24, 2009)

Seems to me that SureFire are moving to ensure all models are rated according to ANSI/NEMA FL 1-2009 - which for SureFire would mean increasing their lumen output ratings on some models.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 24, 2009)

That is the clip from the LX2.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 24, 2009)

Are there beamshots of all the newer Surefires anywhere? I'd like to see all the newer SF's together.


----------



## sovereign (Oct 24, 2009)

KDOG3 said:


> Yeah, I started a thread about that a few days ago. The M300A Scoutlight looks a lot like an E1B but at 110 lumens. No reason to think the latest batch of E1Bs' couldn't be running the same. But I'll wait for the "official" versions before I decide to get it. And then of course, theres' the LX1 we're all waiting to see...no specs on that either.



Does the M300A actually have a new emitter, or is just an E1B emitter with revised specs, the same as the E2DL?


----------



## dcycleman (Oct 24, 2009)

it would be really cool to put a single mode e2dl bezel on an LX2 body, then you would have a crenellated LX2 with the same UI.


----------



## divine (Oct 24, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> Yikes....
> The old one did 200L OTF.
> New one claims 60% increase.
> 
> ...


If you started with 120 lumens and increased it 60 percent, you would be doing 60% times 120.

120 with 60% more output is 192, it must be approximate. From 120 to 200 is actually a 66.66667% increase, and 60% looks a little nicer on paper.


----------



## sovereign (Oct 24, 2009)

claren said:


> Where did you get the clip on the Defender ? Is it off one of the newer model Surefires ?



Yes. LX2. With the three clips I have and these three lights, I think this is the best configuration for them. The E2DL is carried much more now that it has the LX2 clip. Otherwise, way too much bezel sticks out for me.


----------



## Schuey2002 (Oct 24, 2009)

The X300/400 need a 60% lumen upgrade too!


----------



## Hero (Oct 24, 2009)

sovereign said:


> Yes. LX2. With the three clips I have and these three lights, I think this is the best configuration for them. The E2DL is carried much more now that it has the LX2 clip. Otherwise, way too much bezel sticks out for me.


 
That's my problem with the E2DL. I wish SF sold its pocket clips separately.


----------



## sfca (Oct 24, 2009)

The runtime's been upgraded from 1.9 hours to 2 - now equal to the LX2. If this means the LX2's runtime graph that would be superb.



Chao said:


> *Almost 2 hrs regulation in high beam*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





*Sovereign *- wondering what method you used to get the clip to fit or anything else to fit it perfectly?


----------



## sovereign (Oct 24, 2009)

sfca said:


> *Sovereign *- wondering what method you used to get the clip to fit or anything else to fit it perfectly?



Nothing. It fits perfectly without modification. Why they do not include this clip with the E2DL is beyond me. The normal, short clip, combined with the long bezel always left me thinking it might end up on the ground. On the other hand, the short clip works fine with the L2 as it has a short bezel and LOOONG body. I will eventually get another LX2 clip for the LX2, somehow...


----------



## KDOG3 (Oct 24, 2009)

sovereign said:


> Does the M300A actually have a new emitter, or is just an E1B emitter with revised specs, the same as the E2DL?




Not sure. I'm just hoping a "new" E1B comes out soon with the 110 OTF lumens.


----------



## Entrope (Oct 25, 2009)

_(Post Removed)_


----------



## sovereign (Oct 25, 2009)

KDOG3 said:


> Not sure. I'm just hoping a "new" E1B comes out soon with the 110 OTF lumens.



Yes, that would be great, but if we can figure this out NOW I can unload my current E1B before the not-so-smart-shoppers figure out what's coming down the pike!


----------



## Hero (Oct 25, 2009)

Is there a resource anywhere that would tell me the manufacture date of my E2DL by its serial number? I just bought it, but it was a display model at the store so I'm curious as to how old it is. 

With this potentially new lumen output E2DL model out, I'm considering returning the one I just bought while it's still within the return policy.


----------



## Tempest UK (Oct 25, 2009)

Hero said:


> Is there a resource anywhere that would tell me the manufacture date of my E2DL by its serial number?



SureFire serial numbers are generally not very useful for establishing a date of manufacture, or any kind of chronology. 

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## a99raptors (Oct 25, 2009)

Woo Hoo! Definitely gonna get this one! The hospital bills can wait..... hehehe...


----------



## ampdude (Oct 25, 2009)

xpawel18x said:


> Anyway, I kinda feel this is not fair. All the folks who bought a 120 lumen E2DL for $149 and now there's a new one with 200 lumens for the same price.:thumbsdow



You are serious?


----------



## samalw (Oct 25, 2009)

Has anyone confirmed that Surefire actually increased the output or just remeasured and relabeled the E2DL? What changed? Marketing ploy or physical change of LED? :candle:


----------



## xpawel18x (Oct 25, 2009)

Hero said:


> Is there a resource anywhere that would tell me the manufacture date of my E2DL by its serial number? I just bought it, but it was a display model at the store so I'm curious as to how old it is.
> 
> With this potentially new lumen output E2DL model out, I'm considering returning the one I just bought while it's still within the return policy.


 
I believe the manufacture date of the light is on the front page of the little manual that comes with the light.


----------



## MKLight (Oct 25, 2009)

KDOG3 said:


> Not sure. I'm just hoping a "new" E1B comes out soon with the 110 OTF lumens.





sovereign said:


> Yes, that would be great, but if we can figure this out NOW I can unload my current E1B before the not-so-smart-shoppers figure out what's coming down the pike!



I just got an e1b on sale for $99.99 at lapolicegear.com...haven't opened it yet. Do you think I should send it back and wait for the new model. I am interested in the LX1...and probably the new e1b. Its not like I have to have the e1b right now...BTW, I got the silver one.

Thanks!
MK


----------



## dcycleman (Oct 25, 2009)

ampdude said:


> You are serious?


 ya I really dont understand that statement either


----------



## OfficerCamp (Oct 25, 2009)

xpawel18x said:


> Anyway, I kinda feel this is not fair. All the folks who bought a 120 lumen E2DL for $149 and now there's a new one with 200 lumens for the same price.:thumbsdow



It's just like Apple computer, I remember when I got my iphone... "oh sweet, an iphone, it does this, that, and the other thing. What? The iphone 3g came out the next week??? DAMN YOU APPLE!!!!!!!"


----------



## Dan FO (Oct 25, 2009)

To the best of my knowledge the E2DL has always put out over 200 lumens, somewhere on CPF someone with an IS tested one about a year ago and it put out 208-209 lumens.

*OK, found it from last February in an actual Integrating Sphere* https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2849490&postcount=62

*E1B was tested over a year ago at 113 lumens in an actual Integrating Sphere* https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2572733&postcount=1

Don't waste your money buying new lights, they are already there.


----------



## MKLight (Oct 26, 2009)

Dan FO said:


> To the best of my knowledge the E2DL has always put out over 200 lumens, somewhere on CPF someone with an IS tested one about a year ago and it put out 208-209 lumens.
> 
> *OK, found it from last February in an actual Integrating Sphere* https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2849490&postcount=62
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info and link Dan! :twothumbs!


----------



## pomiata95 (Oct 26, 2009)

MKLight said:


> I just got an e1b on sale for $99.99 at lapolicegear.com...haven't opened it yet. Do you think I should send it back and wait for the new model. I am interested in the LX1...and probably the new e1b. Its not like I have to have the e1b right now...BTW, I got the silver one.
> 
> Thanks!
> MK


then you 'll pay for restocking free.i have don it before .


----------



## Blindasabat (Oct 26, 2009)

There have been about three posts that explain the increase of claimed lumens. And to a large part these have been ignored while the incorrect ones have been taken as fact. 
The increse in the spec is due to the recent CONSISTANT availability of higher bin LEDs. SF was likely still getting a mix of a few Q2's and maybe even P4's in the initial production of the E2DL - it HAS been out for a while! I had one myself (not 200L!) a long time ago. Lately they have confirmed (to themselves) that they are RELIABLY getting higher bins through testing that they all now meet 200L. The one tested by MrGman in his IS was over 200L, but even he later said it was brighter than others he saw, and other people tested E2DLs at 160-ish lumens. Lately they are testing higher on AVERAGE, and it is due to better bins in ALL of them, not just a few anamalous ones.

It is more likely than not that a new E2DL will be brighter than an old (more than several months old) E2DL. 

You CAN NOT rely on what a random SF customer service person tells you. If they were always right, the new KX3 has a P60 module and SF would release product as promised instead of 9 months to 2 years later.


samalw said:


> Has anyone confirmed that Surefire actually increased the output or just remeasured and relabeled the E2DL? What changed? Marketing ploy or physical change of LED?


----------



## funkymonkey1111 (Oct 26, 2009)

so, is the simple sum-up here true--you can get LX2 Lumamax equivalent performance from the new E2DL for $50 cheaper?


----------



## outersquare (Oct 26, 2009)

funkymonkey1111 said:


> so, is the simple sum-up here true--you can get LX2 Lumamax equivalent performance from the new E2DL for $50 cheaper?


 
and you could have got it maybe 6 months before the LX2 came out..


----------



## xpawel18x (Oct 26, 2009)

outersquare said:


> and you could have got it maybe 6 months before the LX2 came out..


 
This is true, I first had a "120 lumen" E2DL. But then the LX2 came out claiming 200L, so I was like "hmm...i have to get it because its even brighter than my e2dl", and then i got the lx2 and i was like "hmm...my e2dl seems to be just as bright, oh well" :twothumbs


----------



## Federal LG (Oct 26, 2009)

outersquare said:


> lol serious, like i said, they just changed the paper spec..





Easiest upgrade ever! Just print new spec!


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 26, 2009)

funkymonkey1111 said:


> so, is the simple sum-up here true--you can get LX2 Lumamax equivalent performance from the new E2DL for $50 cheaper?



Depends on whether you like knurling, which UI you prefer, and which style you like though!


----------



## Tempest UK (Oct 26, 2009)

DimeRazorback said:


> Depends on whether you like knurling, which UI you prefer, and which style you like though!



Quite right. There's more to a flashlight than its output!

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 26, 2009)

Seems that LX2 would be more user friendly for me. I do like lo mode to come on first, or I could twist through directly to high. That 5 lumens will end of being more like 10 or 12, which is plenty of light for a many tasks.

Bill


----------



## Zeruel (Oct 27, 2009)

Well, SBR1 is selling this "new" E2DL over at MP and I've popped the question.

He said "It's a bit brighter, but not a HUGE amount. The same as an LX2 compared to the older E2DL's."


----------



## Size15's (Oct 27, 2009)

Zeruel said:


> Well, SBR1 is selling this "new" E2DL over at MP and I've popped the question.
> 
> He said "It's a bit brighter, but not a HUGE amount. The same as an LX2 compared to the older E2DL's."


I caution about drawing conclusions unless a good number of each were compared side-by-side - say a dozen of each. Otherwise the natural variation of LEDs and other factors such as differences in tint can really mess with comparisons...


----------



## Howecollc (Oct 28, 2009)

Runtime on high has increased as well, from 1.9 to 2.0 hours.
How do they do it?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 28, 2009)

Howecollc said:


> Runtime on high has increased as well, from 1.9 to 2.0 hours.
> How do they do it?


Better emitters and/or more efficient drivers.


----------



## Howecollc (Oct 28, 2009)

Oh, so that explains Fenix's ratings; they've found a source unbeknownst to Surefire.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 28, 2009)

Howecollc said:


> Oh, so that explains Fenix's ratings; they've found a source unbeknownst to Surefire.



Howecollc, please elaborate on the meaning of that post? Are you implying something. I am just trying to figure it out. Are you being facetious?


Bill


----------



## Howecollc (Oct 28, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Howecollc, please elaborate on the meaning of that post? Are you implying something. I am just trying to figure it out. Are you being facetious?
> 
> 
> Bill


Unfortunately, the facetiousness of my last 2 posts has possibly been open to misinterpretation due to my reluctance to use Internet chatspeak terms such as "LOL" and the like. I don’t care for them in general, and further find the expression “laugh out loud” to not really be a fitting reaction following a facetious remark.

I hereby propose a new acronym be added to the list of Internet jargon: *SNUB* (snicker under breath). It far better suits my personality, and I will be using it for clarification in future posts henceforth.

No disrespect meant to Bullzeyebill or Outdoors Fanatic.


----------



## Size15's (Oct 28, 2009)

We do have a fine collection of Smilies for expressing emotions that are perhaps even more helpful than "chatspeak" to ensure the intention of communication is also communicated. :green:


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 28, 2009)

Howecollc said:


> Unfortunately, the facetiousness of my last 2 posts has possibly been open to misinterpretation due to my reluctance to use Internet chatspeak terms such as "LOL" and the like. I don’t care for them in general, and further find the expression “laugh out loud” to not really be a fitting reaction following a facetious remark.
> 
> I hereby propose a new acronym be added to the list of Internet jargon: *SNUB* (snicker under breath). It far better suits my personality, and I will be using it for clarification in future posts henceforth.
> 
> No disrespect meant to Bullzeyebill or Outdoors Fanatic.






These "internet chatspeak terms" were created to help people understand the tone that the 'speaker' is trying to express.

Without them, there is a lot of confusion and misunderstandings, as it is often hard to tell through plain text what emotions are being conveyed.

For instance, I didn't even have to write a word to express how I felt towards your post. I simply showed my feelings, with the forehead slap.
Even if you "don't care for them" for the courtesy of others, you could attempt to use _some_ to clearly express yourself.


----------



## steveG (Oct 28, 2009)

Howecollc said:


> Unfortunately, the facetiousness of my last 2 posts has possibly been open to misinterpretation due to my reluctance to use Internet chatspeak terms such as "LOL" and the like. I don’t care for them in general, and further find the expression “laugh out loud” to not really be a fitting reaction following a facetious remark.




Hahaha! I'm with you Howecollc! I can't bring myself to use smileys and abreviations either.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 28, 2009)

Hahaha _is_ an expression to which he disagrees with...


On topic, has anyone bitten the bullet yet??


----------



## Howecollc (Oct 28, 2009)

DimeRazorback said:


> These "internet chatspeak terms" were created to help people understand the tone that the 'speaker' is trying to express.
> 
> Without them, there is a lot of confusion and misunderstandings, as it is often hard to tell through plain text what emotions are being conveyed.
> 
> ...


By the same token, for the benefit of the slower members of his audience, maybe we should have Dennis Miller stop in the middle of his rants to further explain all the rapid-fire references he spews forth. Might not be as hip of a show, but at least no one would have to think too hard.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 28, 2009)

Seeing as this is a _community_, you shouldn't find it too hard to take into consideration other people, by allowing them to understand what you are saying, or more so in what way you are saying something...


Just my opinion.

Oh, and this Dennis Miller, he has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


----------



## Howecollc (Oct 28, 2009)

DimeRazorback said:


> Oh, and this Dennis Miller, he has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


This guy is sharp as a razor. Guess I should have used Dame Edna as an example instead.


----------



## DM51 (Oct 29, 2009)

Howcollc... ignoring the advice of CPF staff and being rude to other members is a swift route to suspension from CPF. One more smart-a$$ comment from you, and that's what you'll be facing.


----------



## bullfrog (Oct 29, 2009)

I know a few of you have already done the same but, I was on the phone earlier with SF on a different issue and just for the sake of it asked if I should drop my 120 lm E2DL and pick up the new 200 lm rated E2DL - she replied that its the same emitter and they are no different - they just rerated the output...


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 29, 2009)

:naughty:

The flashaholic in me still wants to buy a new one to compare to my current one


----------



## bullfrog (Oct 29, 2009)

DimeRazorback said:


> :naughty:
> 
> The flashaholic in me still wants to buy a new one to compare to my current one



haha - I sold my e2dl in anticipation of my LX2 - I'm tempted to re-buy an e2dl to see it against my LX2 :devil::shakehead


----------



## xpawel18x (Oct 29, 2009)

bullfrog said:


> I know a few of you have already done the same but, I was on the phone earlier with SF on a different issue and just for the sake of it asked if I should drop my 120 lm E2DL and pick up the new 200 lm rated E2DL - she replied that its the same emitter and they are no different - they just rerated the output...


 
I was going to call them to ask that. Thanks for saving my time.:thumbsup:


----------



## Federal LG (Oct 29, 2009)

But... do you guys think it has changed in some (physical) way ?? Driver ? Perhaps a new LED inside?

Or Surefire just stop underrating E2DL lumens (just a marketing change) ??


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Oct 29, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> But... do you guys think it has changed in some (physical) way ?? Driver ? Perhaps a new LED inside?
> 
> Or Surefire just stop underrating E2DL lumens (just a marketing change) ??


 


I'm guessing they just re-rated thier lights to show actual output as they have always underrated in the past. Probably due to so many people looking into other lights that have a "claimed" higher lumen rating.
The gereral consumer will look at the specs writen on the box and go for the brighter and cheaper light it seems. Thats my guess..


----------



## bullfrog (Oct 29, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> But... do you guys think it has changed in some (physical) way ?? Driver ? Perhaps a new LED inside?
> 
> Or Surefire just stop underrating E2DL lumens (just a marketing change) ??



According to surefire, there was no physical change to any part of the E2DL - just the box :ironic:


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 29, 2009)

DaFABRICATA said:


> I'm guessing they just re-rated thier lights to show actual output as they have always underrated in the past. Probably due to so many people looking into other lights that have a "claimed" higher lumen rating.
> The gereral consumer will look at the specs writen on the box and go for the brighter and cheaper light it seems. Thats my guess..



That's what I was thinking also!


----------



## Search (Oct 29, 2009)

Quit trying to figure out what's going on. On the first page it was noted that SF told OpticsHQs that the LED was not changed. Only the packaging because the later E2DLs were already putting out 200 lumens.

This is confirmed by Mr Gmans testing.

There isn't a new E2DL. There is new E2DL packaging.


----------



## seale_navy (Oct 30, 2009)

yeah I think, its a new packaging.

nevertheless, those new E2DL shall be put to the test, to have a final say...


----------



## Federal LG (Oct 30, 2009)

Got it... it´s just marketing.

Thanks for the answers. :thumbsup:


----------



## Size15's (Oct 30, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> Got it... it´s just marketing.
> 
> Thanks for the answers. :thumbsup:


It's just marketing catching up with reality.
SureFire will use the best LEDs they can get and these will improve through time resulting in the normal output and runtime increasing.


----------



## Blindasabat (Oct 30, 2009)

Another example of their CS reps being clueless for our purposes. Of course Emitter means different to them than BIN. There have been E2DL's tested to far less than 200L. Newer bins = newer rating.


bullfrog said:


> I know a few of you have already done the same but, I was on the phone earlier with SF on a different issue and just for the sake of it asked if I should drop my 120 lm E2DL and pick up the new 200 lm rated E2DL - she replied that its the same emitter and they are no different - they just rerated the output...


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 30, 2009)

Size15's said:


> It's just marketing catching up with reality.
> SureFire will use the best LEDs they can get and these will improve through time resulting in the normal output and runtime increasing.



 Every marketing department I've ever worked with is waiting for reality to catch up with them!! We normally have to tie them down or just keep them in the dark to keep them from blabbing theory all over the place as though it was reality, before prototypes were even conceived of!!


----------



## Dan FO (Oct 30, 2009)

Blindasabat said:


> Another example of their CS reps being clueless for our purposes. Of course Emitter means different to them than BIN. There have been E2DL's tested to far less than 200L.



Do you have some links to prove that? (E2DL's tested to far less than 200L)

I posted links to back my post


----------



## sfca (Oct 30, 2009)

I, for one would still like to see a beamshot comparison of '08, '09 and now these new packaged E2DL models just for the sake of it.


----------



## Blindasabat (Oct 30, 2009)

Superdave said once he measured one at 166 
and according to this:
http://www.3500z.com/Misc/Lights/Integrating%20Cylinder%20Results.xls
Jordan's E2DL tested at 171 Lumens.
<edit 2> Found where I saw that spreadsheet: Superdave's post here. I guess he tested Jordan's E2DL. 


Dan FO said:


> Do you have some links to prove that? (E2DL's tested to far less than 200L)
> 
> I posted links to back my post


----------



## Dan FO (Oct 30, 2009)

Blindasabat said:


> Superdave measured one at 166 and according to this;
> http://www.3500z.com/Misc/Lights/Integrating Cylinder Results.xls
> Jordan's E2DL tested at 171 Lumens.



I am asking for actual links, not he said she said.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 30, 2009)

Dan FO said:


> I am asking for actual links, not he said she said.



I do not understand your request. That was a link to some results, not IS, but comparative results.

Bill


----------



## Blindasabat (Oct 30, 2009)

Did you see the link to the spreadsheet yet? Edited my post to add another link to show the source of that spreadsheet. I guess I have to do all the searching instead of just believing the highest number I hear. 


Dan FO said:


> I am asking for actual links, not he said she said.


The he said she said is everyone taking the one that was measured at over 200L as representative of all of them.


----------



## Search (Oct 30, 2009)

Your going to have fluctuations. Given that no one can tell the difference in 166 or 206 it's irrelevant. A good average is possibly 200 and that lures people to purchasing. Given they didn't pull the number out of their rear end I don't think it matters.


----------



## _R__Y__A__N_ (Nov 1, 2009)

I have a "Revision A 3-2008" model E2DL (according to the manual). I have no idea how many lumens it actually puts out...

So is mine more likely to be a dimmer one or a brighter (200 lumen) one, given the age? I don't know really know what "old" is for an E2DL, since I don't know when they came out exactly.

Thanks!


----------



## DimeRazorback (Nov 1, 2009)

Who really knows unless you do some evidential testing!

As long as it makes the night bright, that is all that matters to me


----------



## Size15's (Nov 1, 2009)

_R__Y__A__N_ said:


> I have a "Revision A 3-2008" model E2DL (according to the manual). I have no idea how many lumens it actually puts out...


That relates to the manual itself and not the flashlight. The manual and flashlight are not directly linked and either could change without notice. The manual could take some time to be updated, if at all to some changes.


----------



## xpawel18x (Nov 1, 2009)

_R__Y__A__N_ said:


> I have a "Revision A 3-2008" model E2DL (according to the manual). I have no idea how many lumens it actually puts out...
> 
> So is mine more likely to be a dimmer one or a brighter (200 lumen) one, given the age? I don't know really know what "old" is for an E2DL, since I don't know when they came out exactly.
> 
> Thanks!


 
My manual also says "Revision A 3-2008" and I bought the light in May 2009. Compared to my LX2 it nearly produces just as much light. I would think it is possible for it to be near 200 lumens.


----------



## _R__Y__A__N_ (Nov 1, 2009)

> As long as it makes the night bright, that is all that matters to me


Yeah, me too... just curious as to how bright mine is, and don't have a way of testing it accurately.



> That relates to the manual itself and not the flashlight.


Ah, okay. Well, I bought mine back on 12/11/2008. Is that old for an E2DL? When did the 200 lumen ones start making regular rounds in manufacturing, you think?


----------



## sfca (Nov 2, 2009)

I bought mine this summer.

The old packaging had a yellow "New dual mode / more run time" (vs. the old E2D) labelling. Mine didn't. 
Mine also had Borofloat glass vs Pyrex for the 2008 version. That said, even though mine might be newer I can't be certain if the one I have is the already updated version.


----------



## njet212 (Nov 3, 2009)

*New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

I've bought surefire E2DL 2 months ago ( the packaging was 120 lumens version ) and i bought LX2 around 1 month ago. And then i compared the output between E2DL dan LX2, i was amazed. The output from this 2 lights are nearly the same on my eyes, then i sent an email to the SF Costumer Service and this the reply :



_*" We actually started shipping the 200 lumens E2DL-BK in February 2009. Though the packaging stated 120 lumens, it was actually the 200 lumen model inside. Depending on the time frame you purchased your flashlight, you may have received the 200 lumen output E2DL-BK and this is why you do not see a difference between that and the LX2. If you would like to return the E2DL-BK into our facility, we can test the lumen output for you. Just forward you shipping address and we will set up a return number for you "*_


So if you got E2DL Febuary 2009 production, you've already own surefire 200 lumens version !!!


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

Wow, thats great customer service!


----------



## Search (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

Crap. I've got a single-mode E2DL. Which means I've got one from the very first batch. I won't be giving it up for an E2DL any time soon!

Hm, I wonder if anyone in the MP would trade an LX2 for a single-mode E2DL in fair condition  probably not even worth the shot lol


----------



## DimeRazorback (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

I would hold onto that single mode if I were you!


----------



## sfca (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

I bought mine online and although it was the 2009 (non-box) packaging, it might have been opened so I for one will definitely take up that offer.

But...I need to have a light to carry in place of that in the meantime, so let's hope the Canadian dollar goes up (please!) and when the Quark Turbos or Maelstrom come up on 4sevens.ca, 4sevens has a Christmas sale!

That or I'll take the Surefire AZ2 being released - on sale.


----------



## Blindasabat (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

Can you test the amp draw on your respective E2DL's? I still wonder if it was an LED and/or also driver upgrade that drop the spec change.


----------



## njet212 (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*



Blindasabat said:


> Can you test the amp draw on your respective E2DL's? I still wonder if it was an LED and/or also driver upgrade that drop the spec change.




I'm afraid i can't do that :sigh:

I'm just a guy who could only turn the flashlight on/off, changing battery, and switch flashlight mode.


----------



## Mjolnir (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

It isn't all that difficult. If you have a multimeter than can measure current draw, you just take off the tailcap and use the leads to complete the circuit.


----------



## njet212 (Nov 3, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*



Mjolnir said:


> It isn't all that difficult. If you have a multimeter than can measure current draw, you just take off the tailcap and use the leads to complete the circuit.



It's seems difficult to me since i've never done this thing before 

But I will get a multi meter soon and maybe i'll just ask the guy at the shop to show me how to use it ( Ok i'm tryin to learn here )

Hopefully could post an update very soon regarding the amp draw.


----------



## RedLED (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

Can we go by serial numbers on this? I bought mine on 4-11-09 at Plaza Cutlery. I always thought it seemed brighter than 120?

Thanks for any info.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

I wouldn't trust that.

The order could change during assembly, and therefore two lights with a serial separation of one number could of been assembled on different days, or weeks.

Safest thing is to go by the packaging :thumbsup:


----------



## RedLED (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

Agree. No longer have the packaging, only save boxes. I do have the receipt with the date.


----------



## bondr006 (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

Well, I have a custom Milky ME1B Transformer that puts 200+ lumens out the front, and my E2DL that I got Aug 14, 2008 is brighter than the ME1B. Both have optics, so it's easy to put them side by side and see what one is brighter. That seems to contradict SF's statement...

_*" We actually started shipping the 200 lumens E2DL-BK in February 2009."*_


----------



## Size15's (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*



bondr006 said:


> Well, I have a custom Milky ME1B Transformer that puts 200+ lumens out the front, and my E2DL that I got Aug 14, 2008, is brighter than the ME1B. That seems to contradict SF's statement...
> 
> _*" We actually started shipping the 200 lumens E2DL-BK in February 2009."*_


As far as I'm concerned there is variation in output about a normal value. As better LEDs become available in greater numbers this normal value will increase.
As a result of periodic testing of production samples I'm suspect SureFire gain confidence that the normal out has increased sufficiently to trigger a change to the rating. Obviously such inline changes will result in lags for packaging etc that has already been printed.

Al


----------



## njet212 (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*



DimeRazorback said:


> I wouldn't trust that.
> 
> The order could change during assembly, and therefore two lights with a serial separation of one number could of been assembled on different days, or weeks.
> 
> Safest thing is to go by the packaging :thumbsup:



Do you mean we could read the bar code to identify when the light was produced ? If so how do we do that ?


----------



## Gern Blanston (Nov 4, 2009)

I just ordered a 200 lumen Defender from Bass Pro. If it's not significantly brighter than my E2D LED that I bought last fall, it's going back. I would be so disappointed in Surefire if all that they did was to change the packaging.


----------



## asdalton (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*



bondr006 said:


> Well, I have a custom Milky ME1B Transformer that puts 200+ lumens out the front, and my E2DL that I got Aug 14, 2008, is brighter than the ME1B. That seems to contradict SF's statement...



I got my E2DL a month or two later than yours, and I'm sure that it's also brighter than 200 lm. It has a slightly higher ceiling-bounce brightness than my Malkoff M60.

As others have said, the "increase" in output from 120 lm to 200 lm is likely due to better emitters becoming consistently available, so Surefire is now confident to back up the higher number for every E2DL it sells.


----------



## kelmo (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*

I wonder if this also includes the KX2C?

I recently purchased a E2DL body and tailcap and installed a long clip for mine. Man that sucker is bright. It's output is on par with my 9P w/M60W. It is one of the early releases.

120 lumens with a good tint is nothing to ***** about!

Enjoy what you got. You could be part of the un-washed masses yearning to be enlightened!!! Now that would truely suck...


----------



## HKJ (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*



njet212 said:


> It's seems difficult to me since i've never done this thing before
> 
> But I will get a multi meter soon and maybe i'll just ask the guy at the shop to show me how to use it ( Ok i'm tryin to learn here )



You can check this guide on how to do measurements.


----------



## bullfrog (Nov 4, 2009)

Gern Blanston said:


> I just ordered a 200 lumen Defender from Bass Pro. If it's not significantly brighter than my E2D LED that I bought last fall, it's going back. I would be so disappointed in Surefire if all that they did was to change the packaging.



dude, I got bad news for you - according to surefire that is just what they did and they aren't claiming anything else. You might see a slight increase or hell maybe a decrease or no change at all. No need to get mad at surefire - if anything, they are just being MORE honest now as their older 120 lumen rating was just rediculously out of line w the output.

Expect the output to be around the same and you might just be pleasently surprised


----------



## DimeRazorback (Nov 4, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire 200 lumens E2DL fact*



njet212 said:


> Do you mean we could read the bar code to identify when the light was produced ? If so how do we do that ?



No, I'm saying if you want to be _sure_, buy one with the new packaging.

That way, you *will* get a 200 Lumen version.

If you bought one with the older style blister pack, there is no real way to tell... unless you have adequate testing facilities.


----------



## Techjunkie (Nov 5, 2009)

I was just in a hardware store in NYC and out of curiosity, asked the guy behind the counter about price of the Surefire's in his display case. He handed me a new E2D LED Defender, out of new packaging with batteries already loaded. He mentioned the output was 200 or 230 lumens, I don't remember which. I was very impressed with the optics and the intensity of the beam. It definitely overpowers the Solarforce R2 drop-in that I have in a cheap Chinese torch (UF 502c w/2x18500). The emitter did not look like a standard CREE XR-E to me. It appeared much smaller to me, like maybe an XP-E (or mabye an XP-G or a Diamond Dragon, I've never seen any of them up close). Does anyone know for sure what emitter SureFire is using in the E2DL now? Not the specific bin, just which product. The box and the website don't say. Thanks.


----------



## bullfrog (Nov 5, 2009)

Techjunkie said:


> I was just in a hardware store in NYC and out of curiosity, asked the guy behind the counter about price of the Surefire's in his display case.



No idea about the emitter - just curious which store it was...? 

Always looking for more surefire retailers in the city!


----------



## Techjunkie (Nov 5, 2009)

bullfrog said:


> No idea about the emitter - just curious which store it was...?
> 
> Always looking for more surefire retailers in the city!


 
It was a TrueValue at Broadway 21st, here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...6&panoid=F0yvYfB3UAR0URNUJMifRg&cbp=12,0,,0,5


----------



## Gern Blanston (Nov 6, 2009)

bullfrog said:


> dude, I got bad news for you - according to surefire that is just what they did and they aren't claiming anything else. You might see a slight increase or hell maybe a decrease or no change at all. No need to get mad at surefire - if anything, they are just being MORE honest now as their older 120 lumen rating was just rediculously out of line w the output.
> 
> Expect the output to be around the same and you might just be pleasently surprised


 
Well, I'm buying the new one to get the higher output: if it's the same output as my original E2D LED, I have no need for another. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm buying it based on Surefire's implied statement that the current product is significantly brighter than my old model. It seems to me that if Surefire isn't claiming that there's a difference between the 120 and 200 lumen models, they should have some kind of warning on their website saying, "if you have the previous 120 lumen version, don't buy the 200 lumen version because they're exactly the same, unless of course, you want two. All we did was change our packaging to reflect the actual output".

Anyway, we'll see.


----------



## straightpuke (Nov 6, 2009)

Gern Blanston said:


> Well, I'm buying the new one to get the higher output: if it's the same output as my original E2D LED, I have no need for another. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm buying it based on Surefire's implied statement that the current product is significantly brighter than my old model. It seems to me that if Surefire isn't claiming that there's a difference between the 120 and 200 lumen models, they should have some kind of warning on their website saying, "if you have the previous 120 lumen version, don't buy the 200 lumen version because they're exactly the same, unless of course, you want two. All we did was change our packaging to reflect the actual output".
> 
> Anyway, we'll see.



Once you get your new E2DL, can you compare them and post it up? I'd like to know if there's a difference.


----------



## Size15's (Nov 6, 2009)

On average the current E2DL should be higher output than an 'old' one.
Individual comparisons may vary.
Lets hope that you see a visible difference [but I personally wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if I couldn't - it would mean that I've been enjoying a high performing original E2DL!


----------



## Techjunkie (Nov 6, 2009)

Battery Junction distinguishes the 120 to 200 lumen difference between the products on their product pages for the single output E2DL (120) and the dual output (200). I wonder if the member here with the Battery Junction banner in their signture can comment on a direct comparison.

As for me, I am primarily interested to know which emitter (not bin, emitter as in XPG, XPE, XRE) is in the new dual output 200 lumen model. Having seen it in person, it did not look like any XRE I've ever seen.


----------



## MKLight (Nov 6, 2009)

Size15's said:


> On average the current E2DL should be higher output than an 'old' one.
> Individual comparisons may vary.
> Lets hope that you see a visible difference [but I personally wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if I couldn't - it would mean that I've been enjoying a high performing original E2DL!




+1


----------



## Gern Blanston (Nov 7, 2009)

straightpuke said:


> Once you get your new E2DL, can you compare them and post it up? I'd like to know if there's a difference.


 

Sure thing. I'll let you know if I see a subjective difference. If there isn't, I'll just return it and be happy with my original.

I looked back at the email announcement from Surefire, and they do advertise that they've made improvements to make the new one is brighter than the original.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 7, 2009)

Gern Blanston said:


> Sure thing. I'll let you know if I see a subjective difference. If there isn't, I'll just return it and be happy with my original.
> 
> I looked back at the email announcement from Surefire, and they do advertise that they've made improvements to make the new one is brighter than the original.



I have been a CPF'er for years, and one of the tools, besides a DMM, I bought was a light meter. Not any more expensive that my next light. You will get some data from a light meter, not IS data, but good comparative data about lights that you own, comparing them to each other. Do not depend only on subjective info when comparing lights. I preach this, ever so often, and it usually falls on deaf ears, particularly those who are proud of their "IS" eyes. Get a light meter.

Bill


----------



## Paladin (Nov 8, 2009)

Gern Blanston said:


> I looked back at the email announcement from Surefire, and they do advertise that they've made improvements to make the new one is brighter than the original.


 
FWIW, today I checked three E2DL's for tailcap current draw on high and low.

Sureprise, surprise, the oldest one from a 120 lumen marked blister pack was 440 mA on high, 20 mA on low. The two newest ones included one from a blister pack, and another in the latest box pack and they drew 710 mA and 740 mA on high, 20 mA and 30 mA on low. The same body and pair of cells were used for all measurments. My meter only gives resolution to 10 mA, so the variation in low is likely not as dramatic as 30 vs. 20 mA.

Based on an admitedly small sample size the newer E2DL's seem to be driven harder than the original version. As and aside, a single level KX2C pulled 840 mA.

Paladin


----------



## seale_navy (Nov 9, 2009)

so anyone got their final verdict yet? i would love to see side by side comparison though..


----------



## Mikellen (Nov 9, 2009)

Paladin said:


> FWIW, today I checked three E2DL's for tailcap current draw on high and low.
> 
> Sureprise, surprise, the oldest one from a 120 lumen marked blister pack was 440 mA on high, 20 mA on low. The two newest ones included one from a blister pack, and another in the latest box pack and they drew 710 mA and 740 mA on high, 20 mA and 30 mA on low. The same body and pair of cells were used for all measurments. My meter only gives resolution to 10 mA, so the variation in low is likely not as dramatic as 30 vs. 20 mA.
> 
> ...


 

Since the older version was measured at 440 mA on high while the newer versions were measured at 710-740 mA, would that mean that the older 120 lumen light will have more runtime than the newer ones?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 9, 2009)

Mikellen said:


> Since the older version was measured at 440 mA on high while the newer versions were measured at 710-740 mA, would that mean that the older 120 lumen light will have more runtime than the newer ones?



Yes, and at a lower light output, less lumens. This should be mostly true, unless the LED was a super high flux LED and could be capable of high output, even at 440mA draw from the batteries.

Bill


----------



## sfca (Nov 9, 2009)

Mikellen said:


> Since the older version was measured at 440 mA on high while the newer versions were measured at 710-740 mA, would that mean that the older 120 lumen light will have more runtime than the newer ones?



Hmm that makes sense but I assumed the newer E2DLs would have a runtime graph like the LX2 - the web specs were bumped up to 2.0 hours from 1.9.

Here's Chao's runtime graph of LX2 and E2DL(sample size of 1).


Chao said:


> *Almost 2 hrs regulation in high beam*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## flamethrowen (Nov 12, 2009)

*New Surefire E2DL Color Change?*

Apologies if this question is redundant to another, but I recently purchased two E2DLs. The first arrived in a blister pack. It's light is best described as common LED bluish. The second arrived in a box and was advertised as 200 lumens. Its light appears to be more "yellowish". Enclosed instructions for both state 120 lumens. 

They both appear to have similar "brightness" to my rookie eye.

Has anyone else noticed a color variation with this light with the "120" vs. "200"?

Can you tell lumen value by SN?

Kind regards.


----------



## Size15's (Nov 12, 2009)

flamethrowen :welcome:

There is normal natural tint variation. 
It has been reported that SureFire are confident that their E2DL's have been at the 200 lumen output level for quite some time. The rating change reflects this confidence that the nominal output has indeed increased. As you have noted SureFire have not yet changed the rating in the E2DL manual. They'll revise it in due course.

It is highly likely that both your E2DLs are operating at the 200 lumen level.

The main purpose for having a serial number is to differentiate one from the next. SureFire have not used serial numbers to draw lines in the sand where new changes have been introduced.

Al


----------



## flamethrowen (Nov 12, 2009)

Thanks! Did not know of such color variation. There is enough of a difference that it is really surprising. Appreciate the prompt response!


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 13, 2009)

I just ordered one and they stated that while its in the previous 120 lumen packaging, its more than likely a 200 lumen version. I hope so...


----------



## bullfrog (Nov 13, 2009)

Ugh I sold my E2DL over the summer and now you guys are making me want to buy another even though I hated the crenelations and UI.

Would be interesting to compare output to my LX2s... :naughty:

Can anyone confirm which online retailers have the newer packaging 200 lm rated in stock? 

Might just have to go to Paragon tomorrow...


----------



## kelmo (Nov 13, 2009)

Hey bullfrog,

Just buy a E2DL body and a KX2C on the Marketplace. This is one of my favorite LED setups. I've also got a KX2 single stage that I use when max brightness is not practical.


----------



## Size15's (Nov 13, 2009)

kelmo said:


> Hey bullfrog,
> 
> Just buy a E2DL body and a KX2C on the Marketplace. This is one of my favorite LED setups. I've also got a KX2 single stage that I use when max brightness is not practical.


If you can't find what you need on the CPF MarketPlace then you could look at the "VTAC-L4" which is the KX2C bezel on a normal body with Z68 TailCap...


----------



## mckinngk (Nov 14, 2009)

Quick Q - I just received my E2D, and the threads and inside barrel are bare Aluminum. My L4 had a gold-colored coating on its threads and innards. Is this normal for the E2D?
 
BTW – I LOVE this new light!


----------



## Size15's (Nov 14, 2009)

mckinngk said:


> Quick Q - I just received my E2D, and the threads and inside barrel are bare Aluminum. My L4 had a gold-colored coating on its threads and innards. Is this normal for the E2D?
> 
> BTW – I LOVE this new light!


:welcome:
I assume you mean E2DL rather than E2D [which is the incandescent version] given this an E2DL thread in the LED flashlights forum but the explanation applies to both products - a while ago they changed from using a coloured ChemFilm to a clear ChemFilm because of the environmental pollution issues associated with the manufacturing processes and end of life issues of using the coloured version of the product. We've had threads on this topic before where there are more details. I'm sure the threads can be found following a quick search.

Al


----------



## mckinngk (Nov 14, 2009)

Thanks Al. Yes, it is the LED version (200 lumens). For some reason, I am a “search” idiot – I can’t EVER find stuff using that function. Regardless – thanks again!


----------



## outersquare (Nov 15, 2009)

ok i'm surprised i never noticed before, but i just compared my buddy's e2dl against mine. 
He says he bought his literally when it first came out and mine from late '08..

when you look inside the optic, you can still see the LED, i think they are all cree XREs. 
The older one has an old style XRE, where the entire inside of the LED dome is coated in phosphor.
The more recent one has a new style XRE where only the die has a phosphor coating, the rest of the dome interior is silver.

like the difference between these two;
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.2394
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.15943


I am not sure this is enough to distinguish output variants, but there IS a physical difference between old and newer production..

funny enough they were both about the same brightness, but i only looked during the day

i have not looked at the newest 200 lumen package ones, but i am not sure i should bother. 
i do live pretty close to the surefire facility, maybe i will stop by and have them look at mine.


----------



## l2icel3all (Nov 16, 2009)

bullfrog said:


> Ugh I sold my E2DL over the summer and now you guys are making me want to buy another even though I hated the crenelations and UI.
> 
> Would be interesting to compare output to my LX2s... :naughty:
> 
> ...



I'll see you there. :thumbsup:


----------



## l2icel3all (Nov 16, 2009)

Hey guys some interesting info that I found that I thought I'd share with you guys. At my job I looked at the "new" E2DL and the serial numbers started with B instead of the usual A or X which is not as common since its the first wave. I don't know if this makes a difference but I'm sure they put B just to clarify that this is the "newer" model. But as others on this thread have said its just the new packaging. So I think the serial numbers on the E2DL starting with B is just a way to differentiate between the old packaging and the new.


----------



## Size15's (Nov 16, 2009)

l2icel3all said:


> Hey guys some interesting info that I found that I thought I'd share with you guys. At my job I looked at the "new" E2DL and the serial numbers started with B instead of the usual A or X which is not as common since its the first wave. I don't know if this makes a difference but I'm sure they put B just to clarify that this is the "newer" model. But as others on this thread have said its just the new packaging. So I think the serial numbers on the E2DL starting with B is just a way to differentiate between the old packaging and the new.


Whilst SureFire could using the "A" and "B" serial numbers in this way, it is not something they have done before - I understand this is simply so they can 'double' up production/assembly.
It would be helpful to ask SureFire whether they can explain this instance though...


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 16, 2009)

Just got mine today.... It was in the 120lumen packaging and the serial number is A31446. Don't know if that means anything. I got it from OpticsHq which sells alot of lights so its probably relatively new stock.... it appears very bright but its a bright sunny day right now so I can't really tell if its a 200Lumen model. Oh well. If its the ones that run at 440mah then I've got extra runtime. If its one of the newer ones, then I've got a 200L model....so win, win....


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 16, 2009)

Mine also has an odd quirk in the UI. It won't switch to low if you click faster than say 2 seconds. I actually like that. Makes SOS/signaling better since its not going to low in between.....

Also I was thinking about the "which version" issue. Did the original 120 lumen versions have the gold chemkoted interiors? Maybe the new clear chemkoted versions are all the 200 lumen versions. Don't know though, just a thought.


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Bump. Is there a way to tell which version you have yet?


----------



## SUREFIRED (Nov 18, 2009)

KDOG3 said:


> Bump. Is there a way to tell which version you have yet?



A surefire dealer told me that the 120s had an A0xxxx serial, while the 200s had a B0xxxx serial.


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Argh. Then I may have a 120 lumen version. Longer runtime but now i am tempted to get a 200 lumen labeled version as well. Hmmmm......


----------



## Mercaptan (Nov 18, 2009)

My E2DL, which came advertised in the box as 200 lumens, has an Alpha prefix. Methinks the Alpha/Bravo prefix on the serial number is rubbish.


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Mercaptan said:


> My E2DL, which came advertised in the box as 200 lumens, has an Alpha prefix. Methinks the Alpha/Bravo prefix on the serial number is rubbish.



Good point. I guess the only thing that will solve it for me is a voltmeter so I can measure the current from the taicap. If its 440-ish, then I've got an older one, if it 770-ish, then its a newer one.....

Well that and buying another one! LOL!


----------



## DimeRazorback (Nov 18, 2009)

Don't use the serial number as a reference.

It simply refers to when the _body_ was assembled/etched.

A lower number body could possibly sit around waiting to be assembled with a head and tailcap for a few weeks.


----------



## Mercaptan (Nov 18, 2009)

My Alpha prefix serial number E2DL, advertised at 200 lumens, has a draw of 0.59A from the tailcap at 7.2 volts (2x RCR123s).


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 18, 2009)

Mercaptan said:


> My Alpha prefix serial number E2DL, advertised at 200 lumens, has a draw of 0.59A from the tailcap at 7.2 volts (2x RCR123s).



Resting voltage of RCR123's is 7.2? If fully charged, voltage for 2XRCR123's can be 8.4 volts, or thereabouts. Seldom will read 7.2 volts, unless mostly discharged.

Bill


----------



## Gern Blanston (Nov 19, 2009)

Size15's said:


> Whilst SureFire could using the "A" and "B" serial numbers in this way, it is not something they have done before - I understand this is simply so they can 'double' up production/assembly.
> It would be helpful to ask SureFire whether they can explain this instance though...


 
I called Surefire regarding their improved version of the U2, and they said that the improved version SN starts with "B" whereas the original starts with "A".

I got my 200 lumen E2DL from Bass Pro (which has an "A", not a "B" in the SN), and it's noticeably brighter to my eyes (fresh batteries in each). I asked a friend to give his subjective opinion (I didn't tell him which was which), and he immediately picked the new model as being brighter. Certainly not scientific, but that's my impression.


----------



## Size15's (Nov 19, 2009)

Gern Blanston said:


> I called Surefire regarding their improved version of the U2, and they said that the improved version SN starts with "B" whereas the original starts with "A".
> 
> I got my 200 lumen E2DL from Bass Pro (which has an "A", not a "B" in the SN), and it's noticeably brighter to my eyes (fresh batteries in each). I asked a friend to give his subjective opinion (I didn't tell him which was which), and he immediately picked the new model as being brighter. Certainly not scientific, but that's my impression.


Thanks for the info on the U2.
Perhaps we're in a transition period with the E2DL with "B" being definitively 200 lumens and "A" being 200 lumens if so marked on the packaging, and for a bit before the packaging was changed too.
I hope there is this consistency going forward with the use of "B" (etc)


----------



## outersquare (Nov 21, 2009)

confirmed, just got my 200L marked package, serial number still "A" series

200L purchased this week - A36XXX
120L purchased Nov 2008 - A11XXX

just put new SF batteries into my old E2DL and the 200L marked is brighter. 

LEDs looking into the optic are indistinguishable


----------



## outersquare (Nov 21, 2009)

current draw numbers;

200L - .75A
120L - .80A

almost the same, probably also indistinguishable


----------



## outersquare (Nov 22, 2009)

uhh, ok after playing with both some more for couple minutes, the difference is not that big;

old on left
new on right


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 22, 2009)

Hmmmm.....looks like you had one of those 120 lumen versions that was one heck of an overacheiver, like 175 lumens or so.


----------



## outersquare (Nov 22, 2009)

yeah i dunno whats going on :thinking:

when i first played with them, the new one seemed brighter, but it might have been some combination of battery condition/body temperature since they were stored in separate places earlier.. 

Now that've played with them both for a little bit, they seem to have settled down to almost the same.

another thing that is hard to see here is my old one has sort of a corona around the hotspot, the new one is more tightly focused, this may affect perceived brightness. 
The gap in the middle of the head is bigger on the old one.

maybe i'll just take my old one down to the surefire facility and ask them to test it anyways, they aren't far from where i live/work..


----------



## Techjunkie (Nov 22, 2009)

Would someone with the new 200L version with the "B" serial number please post a photo of the business end? I want to see the emitter. Thanks.


----------



## outersquare (Nov 22, 2009)

it will look the same as all the others, the optics are specific to particular models of emitters


----------



## Mjolnir (Nov 22, 2009)

Have you done a "ceiling bounce" test? That is really the only way that you will be able to tell since the beams seem to be slightly different.


----------



## rookiedaddy (Nov 23, 2009)

i think my addiction to Surefire E-series just started... 











This carries a B starting serial number. The bigger hotspot is definitely very useful. My perceived brightness rating:
E2DL > EagleTac T20C2 (Neutral)
E2DL > EagleTac T100C2
E2DL > Fenix TA21 (in fact, all my Fenix lights except the MC-E)
E2DL > LumensFactory D26 3.7V Selected Tint Drop-in (host: SF G2L)
E2DL > Solarfoce 3V-18V single mode Drop-in (host: SolarForce L2)

*Edit/Added:*
E2DL > Olight M20 R2

Current draw:
high - 0.78A
low - 0.02A

Light is perfect in everyway (except black goo on the thread of head, not sure what it is, doesn't smell like Nyogel). The knurling is indeed very good and detail and tough! All in all, I've not had this good a feeling buying a tool since I bought my 1st G2 a couple of years back.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Nov 24, 2009)

I received an E2DL yesterday, a "used" one, but in mint condition. There was no original packaging and according to the seller, it is the old 120 Lumen version, serial starts with an A while the LED looks exactly that the one in the picture of the posting above, silver surrounded. I don't know teh production date of the light.

Man, is that light bright!!! I compared it to about everything I have in the 2 x CR123A class, but none of my other lights can keep up. The hotspot is bigger than on most of my other lights, so I found no light which I could directly compare, the TK11-R2 comes closest (240 Lumen), but the hotspot is still smaller, slightly brighter. No need to take out the RRT-2, tiny bright hotspot, thrower. The Quark Turbo (230 real Lumen) is floodier, that light is also impressive, an outdoor comparison test will be a must to see how the TIR optics perform against the newest Cree generation.

Against the U2 (Lux V) you see best what is going on. The difference is supposed to be 20 Lumen, the visible difference is something else... OK, the U2 is floodier, but it looks real dim next to the E2DL. Unfortunately, I sold my M20-R2 when I got the M20 Titanium (SST-50/500 Lumen). Compared to that one, the E2DL still wins in terms of throw, overall the M20 Titanium is brighter of course, but it doesn't look like 120 against 500, probably 200 versus 350.

I can only guess the output ond my baby, should be not far away from 200 Lumen though. It would really be interesting to see it against a new, officially 200 Lumen light, there can't be much more though. I'm totally happy with this light I got for a killer price. It's my third Surefire and I'm totally impressed how it blows other lights to the wall that are supposed to be much more powerfull. Reading "120 Lumen" in the catalog and looking at the price, it makes you bark. Switching on the light then, when your mouth is still open, it'll stay that way!!!

As for the cons, the UI really sucks, starting on high and only switching to Low if you know how to click right. The crenelations of the bezel even destroy your cleaning cloth (I wouldn't want to get this one against my forehead, the light risks to get stuck in your head...). Runtimes on high are not the best I guess, Li-Ions are prohibited. Guess what, I knew all that before, I didn't care and I don't care now either.

This light really rocks!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Sorry for the slight OT, I didn't find a more suitable thread and didn't want to open a new one for an "old light". As it doesn't happen often I'm really impressed by a light anymore, I had to tell...


----------



## KDOG3 (Nov 24, 2009)

So can we agree that its probably just an improved batch of emitters since the current draws seem to be the same for old and new?


----------



## Techjunkie (Nov 24, 2009)

rookiedaddy said:


> i think my addiction to Surefire E-series just started...
> (pics)
> 
> This carries a B starting serial number. ...


 
Thank you for posting those pics. That's definitely an XRE. I feel like I was seeing things in the hardware shop that day. I must have been seeing spots from the demonstration


----------



## k594 (Nov 25, 2009)

ive been kind of on the fence about getting one of these for a while, but i think im ready to jump and get one now! :devil:


----------



## dwever (Nov 25, 2009)

I have the E2DL and the LX2, both 200 lumens. Consider an LX2 unless you need the defensive capability and the clickie. The LX2 is a _much_ nicer light, a little more money, and won't concern the TSA at airports.


----------



## k594 (Nov 25, 2009)

edit:
GOT ONE FOR A GREAT PRICE DURING BUGOUTGEARS BLACK FRIDAY SALE


----------



## marcos100 (Dec 7, 2009)

I'm new in this flashlight thing and I'm thinking on this or the lx2, but I don't know how the low output compares.
I can't find how useful is 5 against 15 lumens. I don't want to throw 200 lumen on a sleeping friend when looking for something in a dark room.

What I can do with 5 and 15 lumens?

Thanks


----------



## beaniecap (Dec 10, 2009)

Part of me wants to believe that it is just a spec correction. But I picked up my E2DL back in July 09 and compared to my X300 it doesn't seem as hot. And the X300 is supposed to be 10 lumens dimmer @110L than the E2DL @120L. So I'm not sure what to think.

However if the E2DL really has been upgraded to 200 lumens with the same length of run time I'll seriously be considering picking one up.:candle:


----------



## njet212 (Jan 8, 2010)

OK here's the my rough test result between my E2DL Blister package rated 120 lumens VS LX2 Lumamax. See post #124

I use Krisbow Lux Meter to measure the flashlights output, it's provide the measurement only on Lux / Candlepower. The maximum measurement for this Luxmeter is 2000 Lux ( 185 lumens ), so this is will not so accurate data but it's just give idea about the output between these 2 lights. The conversion i use is www.unitconversion.org


The distance between Luxmeter and The Flashlight is 62 cm ( less than that the Luxmeter cannot read the flahlight output )


*LX2*
High = 1993 Lux / 185 Lumens
Low = 154 Lux / 14 Lumens

*E2DL* ( Blister Pack rated 120 Lumens packaging )
High = 1934 Lux/ 180 Lumens
Low = 101 Lux / 9 Lumens


So this 2 light has nearly the same output on High.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 9, 2010)

We sell SF where I work, so I took my meter there today. I tested 2 new LX2's my own current LX2 and 3 new E2DL's on the same set of batteries. 

Lux results of informal bounce test 


*LX2*
341 (my current LX2)
346
358


*E2DL*
332
342
351


If I had to guess, these two lights seem to possess the same electronics and drive settings.


----------



## njet212 (Jan 10, 2010)

@Patriot:

Which E2DL did you refer to on your post ? Is it the blister pack rated 120 lumens or is it the newest version box pack rated 200 lumens ?


----------



## Patriot (Jan 10, 2010)

njet212 said:


> @Patriot:
> 
> Which E2DL did you refer to on your post ? Is it the blister pack rated 120 lumens or is it the newest version box pack rated 200 lumens ?




Sorry, they're the newest version box pack rated at 200L.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Jan 10, 2010)

Paladin said:


> FWIW, today I checked three E2DL's for tailcap current draw on high and low.
> 
> Sureprise, surprise, the oldest one from a 120 lumen marked blister pack was 440 mA on high, 20 mA on low. The two newest ones included one from a blister pack, and another in the latest box pack and they drew 710 mA and 740 mA on high, 20 mA and 30 mA on low. The same body and pair of cells were used for all measurments. My meter only gives resolution to 10 mA, so the variation in low is likely not as dramatic as 30 vs. 20 mA.
> 
> ...



I just measured my E2DL, which is a 120 Lumen model according to the seller (I got no packaging).

On High, it starts at 760mAh ang goes rapidly to 800mAh where it stabilises. On Low, it takes 30mAh.

I checked the cells, they currently read 2,93 Volt while a new Surefire reads 3,25 Volt. So, the draw on high should be around 685 - 720 mAh.

Probably I got a pretty new old model! :wave:


----------



## Chao (Jan 28, 2010)

I just found this note from Brightguy webpage:

"Note: SureFire is using up old packaging literature that has the old lumen rating of 120 lumens. You can be assured your E2D LED Defender is the newest model with 200 lumens by checking the serial number. If your serial number starts with the letter B, you have a 200 lumen model."

So seems like the serial number starts with latter A can be the 200 lumen model, and starts with letter B is sure the new 200 lumen model!


----------



## SunStar (Jan 28, 2010)

I just measured my E2DL (120 lumen variety) that I purchased in December '08. Its serial is A17729. According to my multimeter, it measures better than 800 mA on high and 20-30 mA on low. It seems to settle between 830-840 mA on high after several seconds. It does not disappoint and seems to be as bright if not slightly brighter than my Malkoff M60 / C2.

I'm curious how the amperage draw will compare with the E1B variants (80 v. 110 lumens).

I think Al is probably right in that the average supplied by SF has now achieved a steady state of 200 lumens with nominal variation.


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 4, 2010)

hi,

i was wondering if there is likely to be a large difference in visible brightness if one was to purchase an e2dl today vs. one purchased in november '08.

i was also wondering why they switched to borofloat. i read some posts here that stated that borofloat and pyrex are the same thing from different manufacturers.

can i tell how bright my e2dl is with a voltmeter? i have read about that here but i do not know how to use the voltmeter while the light is assembled.

so unless i just want another one(which i don't) am i going to see any large performance gain if i get another now?

edit: mine has an emitter that looks exactly like the one in post #194, if that helps determine how many lumens it might be. it is very bright imo.

thanks


----------



## Search (Feb 4, 2010)

My E2DL was made before they upgraded them 

... Sooo I put an XPG in it :devil:


I'll raise your 200 lumen E2DLs with my single mode E2DL


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 4, 2010)

i am sure yours is much brighter but i was wondering about the stock ones. my questions are on page 7.

thanks


----------



## Search (Feb 4, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> i am sure yours is much brighter but i was wondering about the stock ones. my questions are on page 7.
> 
> thanks



Sorry, I was talking crap, not speaking to anyone specifically.



nitebrite said:


> hi,
> 
> i was wondering if there is likely to be a large difference in visible brightness if one was to purchase an e2dl today vs. one purchased in november '08.



Yes and no. You probably will see a small difference, but let me stress the word small. It isn't going to be a night and day type of thing.



> i was also wondering why they switched to borofloat. i read some posts here that stated that borofloat and pyrex are the same thing from different manufacturers.



I believe borofloat allows more light to pass through, while retaining more strength. Someone will have to answer this one. I've never put any thought into lens. 



> can i tell how bright my e2dl is with a voltmeter? i have read about that here but i do not know how to use the voltmeter while the light is assembled.



I've got an easier way. Look at the serial number.



> "A" s/n = 120 lumens, "B" s/n = 200 lumens



It will either start with an A or a B.



> so unless i just want another one(which i don't) am i going to see any large performance gain if i get another now?



You might call them, and tell them you have an older head and see if they will let you buy the new one. Being SureFire, they might surprise you and just give it to you. However, their customer service is tier one. I'm sure you can buy the head without buying a new light somehow if you ask the right person :thinking:



> edit: mine has an emitter that looks exactly like the one in post #194, if that helps determine how many lumens it might be. it is very bright imo.
> 
> thanks



:nana:


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 4, 2010)

actually there were "a" serial numbers in early 2009 that had 200 lumens.

a friend has a light meter and has the one in the 200 lumen packaging with the "b" serial.

we tested them today. his puts out 186 lumens mine puts out 174. the reading was in lux of course but he did the conversion. well, not much difference to answer my own question. i can also gather since there is not much difference i don't have to get it just for the borofloat either.

the intresting thing is the new one is not at, or over 200 lumens. surefire always has been known to underate lights. it was all the other companies that overated them. i guess some of them do put out 200 or over but not many of them from what i have read. it is not worth it to me if it probably is going to put out 10 or so more lumens. i like their lights but this one i hardly use.

thanks


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 4, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> actually there were "a" serial numbers in early 2009 that had 200 lumens.
> 
> a friend has a light meter and has the one in the 200 lumen packaging with the "b" serial.
> 
> ...



A simple way to measure output of different flashlight for comparison purposes, particularly those with the same beam shape and make, is to use bounce with a light meter, or luxmeter. Gives comparisons only, not lumens. Bounce readings need to be taken in a fairly small space area without any ambient light present, like a small bathroom without a window. If you are pretty sure of the lumen rating of a given flashlight you can sort of extimate lumens when comparing to other lights. Not perfect, but some of our good testers here on CPF use this method.

Bill


----------



## pm91 (Feb 5, 2010)

I didn't know the E2DL was their best-selling personal defense flashlight.


----------



## Size15's (Feb 5, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> actually there were "a" serial numbers in early 2009 that had 200 lumens.
> 
> a friend has a light meter and has the one in the 200 lumen packaging with the "b" serial.
> 
> ...


It is not possible to do "the conversion" to get lumens from a lux measurement from a light meter. You need a calibrated integrating sphere, correctly set-up and operated to be sure of the lumen output.

Based on the lux measurements you state I'm not sure you can be confident that the two lights are actually different.


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 5, 2010)

i don't know then. i guess he didn't know that much about it.

i looked at the picture here of the old vs. new and they look about the same. i take it all of the old ones put out a lot more than 120 lumens. so with out actually having any way to measure i am still wondering if a new one will be very noticeably brighter. mine is very bright. simply shining my friends new one and my own one on the wall from 13 feet away i couldn't really pick one as being much brighter. they both had fresh sf batteries. also here there was a post that measured a new one at 1934 lux/180 lumens. i wonder how njet212 did that conversion. i take it you cannot do a conversion in that manner. i think if the ones in late 2008 were putting out high 170's to mid 180's there is not much noticeable difference than. there was another old post here where a very old one put out 210. i wish i had some way to measure them properly. 

i am more concerned about what i can actually see rather than numbers though.
i am also still wondering why the borofloat is better(edit: i i see borofloat offers more light transmission than pyrex). i would like to get one if it is a much brighter/better light than mine but if it is not i don't really need two.


size15's, do you think if i get one now i will notice it is much brighter? maybe my friends was not a good example. the lux readings on ours were within about 60 lux of each other.

thanks


----------



## Size15's (Feb 5, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> size15's, do you think if i get one now i will notice it is much brighter? maybe my friends was not a good example. the lux readings on ours were within about 60 lux of each other.


Since you don't appear to be an 'early adopter' having an E2DL from the original release, I am not convinced that a current E2DL will obviously 'brighter' than one from before SureFire put a line in the sand.

Remember that SureFire seem to be taking the approach to actually update their ratings if necessary, as a result of testing production samples more frequently.
In the past SureFire stuck with their inital rating even when performance increased through a general improvement in the LEDs being used.

As for lux measurements - there are so many variables uncontrolled and unknown that even as a comparative rating they are weak-to-useless data.
Unless the measurements were double or ten times different... In which case there shouldn't be much need to take the measurement in the first place because one should be obviously brighter than the other.

Al :shrug:


----------



## symes (Feb 5, 2010)

You know this looked attractive until I read the operating mode thing...

Don't like that the first press on gives maximum output then have to press again to get low output... thought their older approach was better or to have a collar like the U2.

I guess because it is pitched at the self defense market they are thinking "always go bright first"....but I love control - I want to be able to choose that! 

Now if they can just make the LX2 as short as the L4 so it first the small pocket of my 5.11s we'll be good to go!

Simon


----------



## Tempest UK (Feb 5, 2010)

I've no idea exactly how many lumens my E2DL is putting out, but it's one of the very early version and is single-stage only, so I'm happy 

Even so, I can't imagine there being a _huge_ visible difference between my early E2DL and newer versions.

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 5, 2010)

thanks size15's. i think i will just be happy with mine. i guess there is no reason to get a new one. mine was purchased in november 08. they state that if it was purchased after feburary 09 it is the new one. which is a silly statement if you think about it. what if the store had a older one still in stock because they did not move much surefire product?
the other strange thing is some people state they have 08 120 lumen packaging that says borofloat. that must be later packaging. is there any way to tell if it is borofloat or pyrex? if it even matters.

anyways there is hardly a visible difference so they must have been getting some better led's by nov. 08 already. i take it that none of them ever put out only 120 lumens? i guess i was lucky in that respect. i would not ever mind having another surefire. the problem is that i don't see myself needing a weapon and this is somewhat socially unacceptable. maybe i will just get the lx2. that is probably is not much brighter either but at least i can carry it with me.

thanks


----------



## Search (Feb 5, 2010)

Tempest UK said:


> I've no idea exactly how many lumens my E2DL is putting out,* but it's one of the very early version and is single-stage only, so I'm happy *



:devil: I definitely have to agree!



> Even so, I can't imagine there being a _huge_ visible difference between my early E2DL and newer versions.



I wouldn't have cared. It being single mode made all the difference. It seemed as bright as every 200 lumen light I ever had. The TIR makes a huge difference.

Of course now mines got an XPG in it  blasphemy!


----------



## THE_dAY (Feb 5, 2010)

Search said:


> Of course now mines got an XPG in it  blasphemy!




How is the XPG with the TIR in your light, is there less throw but more overall spill?

Does the top bezel tighten down all the way?
DeFABRICATA had mentioned in his post that the E2DL's top bezel had to be unscrewed to get good focus.

Either way, that is one bright setup you have there.


----------



## Search (Feb 5, 2010)

Good question. It should be here any day now :thinking:

Speaking of the devil, Tim modded it for me. He said it has a small gap, but not that much.

He used a smaller board in mine, which allows the bezel to be screwed down even further. If you use the stock board, it will leave a slightly larger gap.

I'm hoping it comes today, but at 3pm I guess I missed it again 



THE_dAY said:


> How is the XPG with the TIR in your light, is there less throw but more overall spill?
> 
> Does the top bezel tighten down all the way?
> DeFABRICATA had mentioned in his post that the E2DL's top bezel had to be unscrewed to get good focus.
> ...


----------



## THE_dAY (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanks Search,

I'd love to here your impressions when it shows up!


----------



## pm91 (Feb 5, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> the problem is that i don't see myself needing a weapon and this is somewhat socially unacceptable. maybe i will just get the lx2. that is probably is not much brighter either but at least i can carry it with me.thanks


 
Wow...you and/or someone considers the E2DL a weapon? And you'd rather not carry it because of that?

I never would have even thought of that, interesting perspective. Sometimes, I think I was born too soon and other times too late - this time I was born too late.


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 6, 2010)

it is drawing 800+ millamps on batteries that are only at 3.02v(like a year old!). does that tell me anyhting about brightness of this light? or what electronics it has?

thanks.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 6, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> it is drawing 800+ millamps on batteries that are only at 3.02v(like a year old!). does that tell me anyhting about brightness of this light? or what electronics it has?
> 
> thanks.



Constant current buck regulated, so is probably pushing 1 amp to the LED, which is about limit of the XR-E.

Bill


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 7, 2010)

now that i know it is being pushed as hard as it can be i guess it depends what bin it is. as to how many lumens it is. i suppose there is no way to tell what bin it is without taking it apart?

some people said the brightest ones were pulling 700 to 800+ma and the weaker ones were in the 400ma range. can you tell if it is the newer one if it is pulling 800+ ma? or did even the old xr-e's have serious output when pushed that hard. anyways, i can't really see a difference between mine and one someone purchased a week ago. so i guess that tells the story right there.

is there any way to tell what glass mine has? for all i know mine is the newer one. surefire said feburary of 09 but maybe some got out before then. i see some people said they had 2008 manuals with borofloat. my 2008 manual says pyrex. as we know the manual is not linked to the light. i wonder if there is a way to tell. i don't know if i need a new light to get borofloat if mine is as bright.

edit: i see cree stated in 2007 that the xr-e pushed at 1 amp made 210 lumens. mine was from the end of 2008. i guess that would explain. the ones with lower output were probably pushing about 1/2 amp then. now all i wonder is if there is a way to see if it has borofloat.

edit2: i can see the difference between a surefire with borofloat and pyrex. the borofloat has a dull mirror polish. the pyrex is very clear. people tend to say they are the same flashlight lens does not agree.


thanks


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 8, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> edit2: i can see the difference between a surefire with borofloat and pyrex. the borofloat has a dull mirror polish. the pyrex is very clear. people tend to say they are the same flashlight lens does not agree.
> 
> 
> thanks



am i correct about the difference i see?

thanks


----------



## Search (Feb 8, 2010)

The XPG in my E2DL is pretty sweet. It's definitely brighter than it was, but this is also considering that my E2DL is from the very first batch sold. The faulty single mode batches. There is no question it's a 120 lumen version, so it was a big step up for me. For people with 200 lumen versions the only thing you would gain is a bigger hot spot.

Luckily, thanks to Dafabricata, the head is no longer glued. Meaning with a twist I can focus it myself. Too loose and it is dim as most of the light is lost behind the lens. I've got it to the perfect setting where I have no rings in the main hot spot. It's as bright as my NB R4 drop in in my 6P (thanks to the TIRs ability to capture all of the light.

I do like the fact that if I tighten it all the way down it's a very floody light. It's basically now focusable 

It's not loose enough where it will twist on it's own. It's kind of hard to do actually. I would recommend this in a heart beat to anyone with an older E2DL, however people with a 200 lumen version should realize they might loose a little throw, but gain a big hot spot.

Unless you changed to driver to something more like 1.4 amps, you wont get much brighter.



THE_dAY said:


> Thanks Search,
> 
> I'd love to here your impressions when it shows up!


----------



## THE_dAY (Feb 8, 2010)

Nice! So now its focusable!

As bright as the NB R4 drop-in but with better runtime I bet.

Thanks for the update!


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 9, 2010)

isn't the xpg like 350 lumens? that should be a huge difference.

edit: per cree's datasheet, 345 lumens at one amp.
i am confident mine puts out all it can since it is driven at one amp and the first bin did 210 lumens at 1 amp. yours should be brighter than 200 lumens. could someone comment on how the borofloat looks compared to the pyrex please?

thanks


----------



## Search (Feb 9, 2010)

Yea it all comes down to the driver in the E2DL. My NB drop is only 250 - 300 OTF ran at 1.4 amps. The stock E2DL is 200 OTF. It really wouldn't be a noticeable difference to someone with a newer E2DL IMO. You would gain a bigger hot spot and maybe a tad more brightness.



nitebrite said:


> isn't the xpg like 350 lumens? that should be a huge difference.
> 
> edit: per cree's datasheet, 345 lumens at one amp.
> i am confident mine puts out all it can since it is driven at one amp and the first bin did 210 lumens at 1 amp. yours should be brighter than 200 lumens. could someone comment on how the borofloat looks compared to the pyrex please?
> ...


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 9, 2010)

pm91 said:


> Wow...you and/or someone considers the E2DL a weapon? And you'd rather not carry it because of that?
> 
> I never would have even thought of that, interesting perspective. Sometimes, I think I was born too soon and other times too late - this time I was born too late.


That's just a sad mentality, isn't it? But that's reality, not everybody are born with the same freedoms.


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 9, 2010)

i know people walk around with all kinds of things. i don't. i try to have others best intrest in mind and offend no one. thats just my choice. besides the lx2 is a lot nicer light. the bezel on the e2dl will tear up your pocket or poke you. well thats my feeling.

can anyone comment on how a pyrex lense looks compared to a borofloat? i can't really tell because my borofloat is on an orange peel reflector and the suspected pyrex is on a clear reflector. does it even matter?

thanks


----------



## pm91 (Feb 9, 2010)

double-post made in error.


----------



## pm91 (Feb 9, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> please. it is made to strike and looks as if it were made for that purpose. i know people walk around with all kinds of things. i don't. i try to have others best intrest in mind and offend no one. thats just my choice. besides the lx2 is a lot nicer light. the bezel on the e2dl will tear up your pocket or poke you. well thats my feeling.


 
nitebrite - when I first read your post and even after reading it again, I did not get the impression this was your "personal choice", but something you felt socially compelled to do. Now that you've clarified that this is your personal choice, more power to you!! 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 9, 2010)

it is indeed my personal choice. i am also not influenced by others in this choice. no one told me to make that choice. to be honest i just don't like it that much. i don't know what it is about that light but it just seems odd looking to me personally. not in a scary sense either. it is just ugly imo. i will get the lx2 in the next few days. thats what i really wanted anyways. so instead of beating around the bush i might as well go get it.

i am pretty sure my e2dl is at least 175 lumens but the lx2 is what i really wanted. they did not have another 200 lumen light when i got the e2dl so it was the only choice for one that bright. i took what i could get.

i was wondering is there anything the size of a 2 or 3x 123 body that puts out really serious light? like that 4 xpg on one die deal? i'd love that.

i live in a rural area and to light up the road for a couple of miles is just real cool to me.

thanks


----------



## pm91 (Feb 9, 2010)

nitebrite - fair enough. I'm also looking for a 123x2 light that puts out really serious light as well. I've seen some websites that spec out lights in 300 lumen range and to think I was going to settle for 220 lumens!
I've never had a SF and I'm sure I'd like it...I think I'd be disappointed in a light that cost significantly more while getting less lumens. I undertand SF measures lumens OTF compared to at the emitter, however, I'm thinking that not more than 20% is lost when measured OTF, but I could be mistaken.

thanks,
p


----------



## carrot (Feb 10, 2010)

On average, 30%, if not more, is lost between calculated at the emitter ratings and OTF ratings. On top of that, Surefire usually measures the lumen ratings not at the maximum, but after the batteries are somewhat used and their lowest guaranteed output (for instance, the L4 was rated at 80 lumens for a long time even when it was putting out over 100).


----------



## carrot (Feb 10, 2010)

Also, very many lights have a regulation that looks like this:






A lot of manufacturers (not necessarily the one in the graph, I have no idea, this was just convenient) will rate their outputs at the very top of the graph, the output you get for a few minutes at best, and again, calculated emitter ratings. Surefire rates their outputs where it levels off, OTF, so what you get is a more truthful lumen rating.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 10, 2010)

pm91 said:


> Crenalated bezel or not, pounding that into someone's head = a whole lotta hurt.


There are to be no further posts of this type, or discussion of violence, in this thread. 

pm91... you double-posted this. Please edit out the content of one of them.


----------



## pm91 (Feb 11, 2010)

@dm51, done.


----------



## nitebrite (Feb 11, 2010)

what is the highest real lumen 2x123 with surefire type quality? i'd like to know before i go get the lx2.

thanks


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 12, 2010)

nitebrite said:


> what is the highest real lumen 2x123 with surefire type quality? i'd like to know before i go get the lx2.
> 
> thanks



Wait for Gene Malkoff's M61 drop-in and run it in a SF C series body. For now the LX2 is maybe the highest. I am getting higher readings (bounce with lightmeter) with my recent production LX2 compared to my Malkoff M30, and M60, the M60 with two CR123's or two Li-Ions.

Bill


----------



## Jida (Feb 12, 2010)

Although I want to say that I am 'confused' by the violent/offended questions, sadly I am not.

Someone protecting themselves, with a pokey light or a knife, does not mean that they have any interest or intent on harming you.

I show everyone my E2DL and make it a point to have them hit their palm with the front to show them what it can do.


----------



## Stainz (Feb 14, 2010)

I, too, don't look at the E2DL as anything but a light source, despite one Deputy's opinion it could be misconstrued as a CCW. When I dropped mine, just weeks after buying it new 9/08, it landed on the tailcap - bashing it up. I had already sprung the clip - and it just fell off my belt when I bumped it with my arm. More than a year would pass before I contacted S-F - and they sent me a new cap. When I carried it during that year, it was often in a leather sheath, sporting the E1b's tailcap, while the Backup had the filed flat damaged tailcap from the E2DL. With the tailcap replaced on the E2DL, both sported that crenellated tailcap. 

I have used that cap many times - most recently two weeks ago - when a rain-soaked root structure let go - and a huge oak tree took out all three phases up in my subdivision. 9.5 hr without power - but I had two S-F 'candles' in darkened areas in the basement. The best use I've found for that tailcap is standing on end in low level 'candle' use.

There is no understanding our 'wants'. I love my E2DL - but I want a newer, probably indiscernably brighter, E2DL. I had a chance - Christmas - but I ordered an Olight M21 Warrior. On paper, it puts out more - in use, it's spot is larger - warmer, too. I can't tell the difference in brightness. Yeah, you can A-B the E1b & E2DL - and see a minor difference. A new vs my E2DL will obviously be much closer in apparent luminosity. Still... I want one. Great light... three days plus on low level - pretty good. I'm still a primary cell, CR123a from S_F, guy, too. You can't beat their cells - or price, either. Sorry for being 'wound up'.

Stainz


----------



## jono12 (Feb 14, 2010)

I want one of these lights more than anything

Anyone have one for sale or know where I can find one for a fair price?


----------



## astanapane (May 23, 2010)

hello all,

i would like to purchase e2dl 200 lumens from that site http://www.flashaholics.co.uk/surefire/surefire-e2d-led-defender.html. 

How do know if the flashlight is the new 200 lumens one and not the 120 lumens old version? 

Is there anything on the flashlight 200lumens version that i can recognize?

Is there any different of the body or something?

Kind Regards


----------



## stldnder (May 23, 2010)

astanapane said:


> hello all,
> 
> i would like to purchase e2dl 200 lumens from that site http://www.flashaholics.co.uk/surefire/surefire-e2d-led-defender.html.
> 
> ...


 The 200 lumens E2D LED flashlight comes packaged in Surefire's newer boxes which specify output at 200 lumens. I would think you could contact the company and specifically request this packaging to ensure you are receiving the newer higher-output model. Good luck.


----------



## astanapane (May 24, 2010)

stldnder said:


> The 200 lumens E2D LED flashlight comes packaged in Surefire's newer boxes which specify output at 200 lumens. I would think you could contact the company and specifically request this packaging to ensure you are receiving the newer higher-output model. Good luck.


 
There is no other way to find out? 

I heard that this old 120 lumens is the same one as 200 lumens. Is all about marketing thing.

Is there any specific help out there?


----------



## jhc37013 (May 24, 2010)

astanapane said:


> There is no other way to find out?
> 
> I heard that this old 120 lumens is the same one as 200 lumens. Is all about marketing thing.
> 
> Is there any specific help out there?



I only have the new version that comes in the box but other members who have both seem to think that it was upgraded and IIRC Surefire also specifically said that it was indeed upgraded.

As for the link you provided it clearly says it is the new model that comes in the box, the older model came in plastic packaging. So it would appear if your dealer is being genuine that you have nothing to worry about and you will get the newest version.


----------



## astanapane (May 24, 2010)

thank you very much for that info. For now i wait for the LX2. i also would like to get the E2DL 200 lumens that's why all my queries.

thank you!


----------



## Entrekman (May 24, 2010)

My new E2DL (purchased last week) is definitely brighter than my older one (from November of last year)... ACTUALLY it is a little brighter than my LX2 (purchased December of last year).


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 24, 2010)

Entrekman said:


> My new E2DL (purchased last week) is definitely brighter than my older one (from November of last year)... ACTUALLY it is a little brighter than my LX2 (purchased December of last year).



Yeah, I think better flux LEDs are being used. My LX2 holds its own against Malkoff's M61 in output, bounce with lux meter.

Bill


----------



## sl33pyriceboi (Oct 13, 2010)

hello everyone. i hope you guys dont get mad for reviveing an old thread...but this is what happens when i use the search function i guess.



q1: are the hotspot area of the lx2 and the e2dl (200lm) the same can anyone here confirm that with pictures? i read on here some where in these 9 pages that it said the LX2 hotspot is slightly bigger than the e2dl.

q2: does anyone have BEAM SHOTS or hotspot shots of the lx2 and E2DL 200lm side by side?


i got my LX2 new for $125 so im really stoked about it, but the UI is really strange. i kinda like the E2DL's UI because im use to my surefire backup.


my lights i have are: LX2, jetbeam M1X, RRT-0, RRT-1, RRT-2, backup, and maglights.


----------

