# Brightest AA battery driven LED flashlight?



## antjames (Dec 23, 2007)

I currently have a Fenix L2D Premium 100 (the one with apparently 175 Lumens!), and it's fantastic, superbright and does exactly what I want it to do. The minor flaw in the plan is that at $62 each, I reckon I could get a couple of cheaper ones, that combined would be brighter!

SO, I've been looking at both Kai and DX and would like to get a couple of similar ones. Essentially, my wishlist is:
Takes AA batteries (don't mind if it needs 1xAA, 2xAA, 3xAA etc, - CR123's are $10 each in the UK, hence I want to avoid them!)
As bright as possible!
Push button preferable over twist.
Approx. price I guess at $30, but flexible on that?
I want to buy from either Kaidomain or Dealextreme, as they seem to be cheap and well respected.
I have to admit that I'm not too hot on my technical side of things, and don't really understand the comparability of lux to lumens. (I'm guessing the higher lux figure, the better anyway).

Ones I have seen are the Ultrafire C3 (I presume it's brighter with the 2xAA option), the Ultrafire C5 (but it's twist on/off), but looks a lot brighter than the C3. And then there's the WF606A...?

I also like the look of the Romisen RC-F4, as that's a great spec for the price, but takes the CR123s. :thumbsdow Something very similar that takes AA's would be perfect!


So, any help / advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated. :twothumbs

ant


----------



## ltiu (Dec 23, 2007)

The L2D Q5 is a tad brighter than the rb100.


----------



## ThatGuyBri (Dec 23, 2007)

Some 1xAA value leaders:
JetBeam C-LE V2
LumaPower LM31


----------



## Marduke (Dec 23, 2007)

There are two versions of the Ultrafire C3. The single mode version gains no brightness with the extension tube, only runtime. The 5-mode version gains both brightness and runtime with the extension tube. If you buy either with the extension tube bundle, they can also be uses in 1xAA format by simply not using the extension tube.

Review of both:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/178942


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 23, 2007)

Marduke said:


> There are two versions of the Ultrafire C3. The single mode version gains no brightness with the extension tube, only runtime. The 5-mode version gains both brightness and runtime with the extension tube. If you buy either with the extension tube bundle, they can also be uses in 1xAA format by simply not using the extension tube.
> 
> Review of both:
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/178942


Thanks for the link to my review Marduke. 

Here's the link to my L2D round-up (as you'll see, the Q5 is the brightest at the moment). My output scale is consistent between reviews, so you can directly compare it to the C3 review.

Fenix L2D Q5 vs R100, R80, Q2, P4 Comparison Review: RUNTIMES+


----------



## matrixshaman (Dec 23, 2007)

AA lights are not going to get quite as bright as CR123's or RCR123's. Power available is voltage times current and AA's at 1.5 volt have less than half the power of RCR123's at 3.6 volt. If you get a light that uses rechargeables you'll pay about $5 to $6 for a good rechargeable and about $10 for a charger and that should be good for at least a couple hundred uses so there is no reason to avoid this great battery format for cost alone. I've got a lot of DX lights in both AA and CR123/RCR123 format but none of the AA come close in brightness to the CR123 type lights. But if you still want the AA you might look to one of the Rebel based lights. I don't own this one yet but from what I've seen it may be the brightest : 20 mode AA Rebel $23
I see others have added some info while I was writing. I'm not saying Rebel's are brighter than a Cree Q5 here but comparable I believe and I was influenced by Mac's test of about 50 LED's most of them Cree and a few Rebels. The Cree LED's output was all over the scale and bin codes didn't seem to be a good indication of how much Lumens you were going to see out of any one particular LED - they varied by a huge amount it seemed. But the Rebels were all close together and while not a conclusive test or even an extensive one it made me think that Cree has a lot more variation in output within one bin versus the Rebel. That and reports by others of largely varying outputs (which could be due to other factors too) within one bin code flashlight such as the Q2 led me to think the Rebel would be a better choice for guaranteed brightness. Just my guess....


----------



## chakrawal (Dec 23, 2007)

Nitecore DI


----------



## LedZep (Dec 23, 2007)

Would the output of the l2d Q5 be noticeably lower (by eye) compared to the p3d Q5?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 23, 2007)

Well, my 2AA driven VIP with a Seoul P4 driven at 1 amp to the led, with a 3" reflector (BBH) is pretty bright at 42,000 lux. BTW, 2AA NiMh's have plenty of current, and deliver mucho wattage/hrs.

Bill


----------



## matrixshaman (Dec 23, 2007)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Well, my 2AA driven VIP with a Seoul P4 driven at 1 amp to the led, with a 3" reflector (BBH) is pretty bright at 42,000 lux. BTW, 2AA NiMh's have plenty of current, and deliver mucho wattage/hrs.
> 
> Bill



I'm guessing that's not in the $30 range but if you want to sell it for even twice that I'll take it


----------



## wishywashy7 (Dec 23, 2007)

ltiu said:


> The L2D Q5 is a tad brighter than the rb100.



I would have to agree that the L2D Q5 may be the brightest 2 x AA light for now:twothumbs


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 23, 2007)

matrixshaman said:


> I'm guessing that's not in the $30 range but if you want to sell it for even twice that I'll take it



Sorry, I missed the $30.00 part. VIP setup did cost more. Early on I did try out lights that were less expensive, and over the years I progressed to more expensive ones. When I started out we did not have Fenix types lights to choose from. Just Streamlight, Maglight, and Surefire, to name a few. Inova was just starting production. The minimag was one of my less expensive lights. People have more choices today, which is a good thing.

Bill


----------



## davidra (Dec 23, 2007)

I got this light (the famous Tonch because of the misspelling) and have been impressed with the output....and it's certainly reasonably priced. The clicky is a bit stiff, but not anything too unreasonable. 

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.6973


----------



## JCup (Dec 23, 2007)

The Fenix L2D-CE Q5 is very strong. It's likely one of the brightest. This is a 2xAA, the size of a mini-mag.

I had not paid much attention while these very bright Cree and Philips LED's came out. I just got a Fenix and it is not that far from my old school Surefire 9P...nearly as bright looking a few hundred feet off to the trees behind my home, and a much larger primary cone. I can see almost as much detail.

And from my observation of the specs, a good NiMH AA battery is quite similar to the total mAh rating of a CR123a. It requires a boost circuit to get one (or two) AA's up to the necessary Voltage, and maybe an active circuit if you regulate the current, or to supply alternate output levels. The CR123 based lights did not need this circuit, that battery had twice had the Volts.

Now we have tiny surface mount active control circuits, have the diodes mounted properly on a ceramic substrates (instead of molding them inside the plastic lens with leads), larger die sizes, and more efficiency at the microstructure level of the dice. This technology moved a leap in 2007 instead of 2008.

I'll put it this way, if I had to give up one of the two I mentioned, Adios Surefire. It has three CR123's, and they are worth about $4-6 any way you cut it (cost nearly as much as a good AA NiMH)

And I know there is a rechargeable LI CR-123 format now, but the technology on these new hybrid NiMH (Eneloop) is mature and proven. They have now achieved a decent shelf life.

You may observe my lack of enlightenment rating, but I am not blinking photons. I think I bought a "Photon Micro light" within months of them going on the market, and let me tell you the LED's are different now.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 23, 2007)

JCup, welcome to CPF, nice well thought out post you did there.

Bill


----------



## Blast54 (Jan 12, 2013)

Looking to bump this thread. Notice it is from 2007 and I assume there are more modern lights than recommended back then.
I too am looking to replace my existing units that use an array of different batteries to an army of lights that are all powered by the NiMH's. 
Recommendations please!

Thanks
Bill 
Foster,RI


----------



## tonkem (Jan 12, 2013)

Look at the Zebralight Sc52. Check out the dealer forums in cpfmarketplace for some deals on it right now. 280 Lumens on a single aa or 500 lumens for 1 min on a 14500 lithium....


----------



## reppans (Jan 12, 2013)

Think the Thrunite Archer 1A will beat the SC52 as the brightest AA in a side-by-side test.


----------



## mcnair55 (Jan 12, 2013)

If you look around you can find CR123 in the UK for approx £1.45 each,at the moment one supplier has a sale with them at £0.99p each.


----------



## Wiggle (Jan 12, 2013)

reppans said:


> Think the Thrunite Archer 1A will beat the SC52 as the brightest AA in a side-by-side test.



Isn't it rated at 172 lumens? I've got no reason to doubt the lumen rating on the SC52, it clearly almost matches my 200 lumen lights on H2 (172L) and beats them on H1 (280L). Or do you mean by virtue of having a throwier beam thanks to the XPG2 LED?







and stepped down a bit:






If you look at the below beam shot (Quark AA R5, Quark AA2 NW R4, Preon 2, SC52 on AA) you can see the output is quite ample on the SC52. And the Preon is actually a perfect way to compare the outputs while removing beam profile cause they have nearly the exact same ratio of hotspot to spill. The Preon is rated around 160 OTF, this pic was taken immediately at turn on and you can see alot more output from the ZL. ZL has similar lux in hotspot to the Quark AA R5 (about 110 lumens OTF I believe) but has a hot spot with almost 3 times the area and noticeably brighter spill. Not to mention, ZL is at a slight disadvantage here cause the silly photographer didn't position it on the edge and some of its spill is hitting the support (you can see it lit up in front of the lights bezel).


----------



## reppans (Jan 12, 2013)

Wiggle said:


> Isn't it rated at 172 lumens? I've got no reason to doubt the lumen rating on the SC52, it clearly almost matches my 200 lumen lights on H2 (172L) and beats them on H1 (280L). Or do you mean by virtue of having a throwier beam thanks to the XPG2 LED?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Wiggle, that's actually a good comparison photo (the second stepped down one). 

If my photography understanding is correct, that QAA2 center hotspot looks clearly overexposed (pure white, no detail), while the SC52 has detail through the beam, ie, it is not overexposed. If anything in a photograph is overexposed, you are not capturing the full luminescence - a picture can only go so white. 

If you take another round of shots, further stepped down so that the QAA2 shows some tint/detail in the hotspot, then the difference in luminescence might become more apparent to you. What's your QAA2 R4 rated to BTW.... well below 280, I assume. 

Even still, others will argue the flood/throw difference between an XPG and XML will render a direct photograph beam comparison to be unfair. So, you can use the bounce method and measure ambient light. If you are using a DSLR, I'd be more than happy to tell you how turn your DSLR into an ambient lumen meter, and you can then measure it yourself.

But forgetting about the photographs for a second, I think you might have read some of my posts complaining about ZL's over-exaggeration of its specs. There's a lot more behind it than this, but here's just one example of it - this is Selfbuilt's chart from a Thrunite Neutron 1A test, the listed max of this light is 145 lumens, tested at 240 lumens. The SC51 is listed at 200 lms and is tested at 200 lumens.






Thrunite lists the Archer 1A to be 178 lumens, so by extrapolation, it might rate ~ 295 lumens by Selfbuilt, perhaps?

Now before jumping to conclusions that Thrunite - well, AND 47s and EagleTac (collectively the other major players in the Efficient/AA/14500/Sub-Lumen category) - are merely being too conservative, I'll offer you these two tidbits....

1). I quote SB from his review site: 
"In any case, I still make no claim to the accurate lumen estimate accuracy. But the runtime graphs remain a well-calibrated and internally-consistent relative set of results from my testing, using only new batteries properly examined for relative performance."

And I do agree that his tests are consistent on a relative basis.

2). Could you imagine the uproar from customers, flashaholics, and manufacturers if SB were to adopt a "more conservative" lumen scale used by TN/47/ET? I personally wish he would, because the present state is grossly unfair, will invite bad behavior from what I consider to be honest manufacturers, and forces all of us to mine through a ton of data, or test ourselves, to really learn the truth.

Well, that's my $0.02.


----------

