# How many Lumens for hiking at night in the woods ?



## Valmet62 (Jun 20, 2011)

I am looking for a light ( preferably neutral ) to take with me when I hike the many miles of log trails cut out from the woods close to my apartment. How many lumens would you suggest ? In some areas the trees don't even allow the moon light in. My Eagletac T100c2 does ok, but am wondering if a 300 lumen light would really make that much difference. What do fellow CPF members use out in the woods when there is absolutely no other light source ?

Valmet62


----------



## B0wz3r (Jun 20, 2011)

If you let your eyes adapt, you'll be surprised with how little light you can get away with. I've never needed more than the M1 setting on my Zebralight H51w with diffusion film, and that's only about 25 lumens.


----------



## Schuey2002 (Jun 20, 2011)

I've hiked many a night through the local trails that wind their way around a series of lakes. And most of those times I used nothing more than a CMG Infinity Ultra. I don't know how many lumens they make, but it can't be much. I had no problem seeing where I was going while using it..

PS - I always have my 45 lumen KX2 in my pocket as back-up, but really if ever needed it..


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jun 20, 2011)

if you just want to see where you're going, like B0wz3r said, you really shouldn't need that much. 27 lumens from my Fenix E05 are more than enough for me to get around. that takes care of me out to 30-40 feet. if you want to look around some and really light up things beyond that, it's up to you. for anything beyond 50 feet, i like at least 100 lumens.


----------



## KLowD9x (Jun 20, 2011)

Not many lumens at all. I use Medium 1 on the Spark in the woods and even then, that is almost too much light.

The Fenix LD25 looks like the perfect light for being outside in the dark. 48 lumens (which is plenty for the dark of night) for 11 hours (will get you to the next morning if needed) and comes in neutral white (makes colors show true, which can be a life saver in the wilderness) and runs on common batteries (kill off your rechargeables? Keep a pack of lithium primaries in your pack.)


----------



## jhc37013 (Jun 20, 2011)

You must want to explore the area and see all around because 20-30 lumens is enough to illuminate a path, I don't blame you I would want to light up the whole area to. Look into a 600+ lumen light like the Lumintop TD15X and Fenix TK35, high output lights can eat up battery's so getting some Li-Ion 18650's and charger would be a good idea as well if you don't already have some, backup battery's is always good to have as well.


----------



## carrot (Jun 20, 2011)

I will happily hike with as little as 5 lumens or perhaps even less. You will find that in the woods you need a lot less light than usual because there is very little ambient light. However there is no real maximum limit because the woods do tend to soak up light pretty easily and your eyes will adjust, but you do not need a lot of light to see ahead of you. You may, however, want a light with a lot of flood (M61) in case you need to get your bearings, or a light with a lot of throw (G5) if you need to be able to follow trail markers. This is of course, situationally dependent and when I hiked Mt. Fuji at night I had my Saint on the "middle" setting, for about 10 lumens. I prefer to have a headlamp when I am hiking and right now the Petzl Tikka 2, Princeton Tec EOS and Petzl Tikka XP2 are all on my highly recommended list for hikers on varying budgets.


----------



## EnduringEagle (Jun 20, 2011)

I use two setups as I like to keep my hands free. One is a Quark 123 in a Fenix headband/Clamp. This will get me 43 lumins for 6.2 hours as I like the extra light on the trail. The other setup is Petzl tikka Plus 2 which gets me 50 lumins (or less if I set it) for 55 hours or economy at for 140 hours. Strobe is longer than that. Very comfortable and durable.


----------



## shane45_1911 (Jun 20, 2011)

Malkoff M61W (230 lm) in my C2 is always my go-to light when in the woods. Great spill AND good throw all in a flawless beam that is tinted just right (IMHO).


----------



## TMedina (Jun 20, 2011)

There are only two reasons I'd take a retina burner with me into the woods: 1) to signal my location and 2) scare off critters (that haven't successfully ambushed me).

As others have pointed out, the basic rule of thumb: less ambient light, less artificial needed. And the converse is true.

I usually have two flashlights with me - usually between 45 - 100 lumens. Those lights are picked for battery use and overall run time and not, necessarily, lumen output.

-Trevor


----------



## dcbeane (Jun 20, 2011)

How about a Surefire E1L outdoorsman? I bet the 3 lumens is enough most of the time and 45 lumens is a click away.
I like mine. I'd like to find a fully functional beater E1L so.... somebody have at it and sell me yours at a cheap price.


----------



## Orum (Jun 20, 2011)

When I'm out camping and have to walk a winding trail to the nearest latrine, I can get away with very few lumens, 30 if the manufacturer is to be believed. But what I don't like about my light is where it puts them--all in the center. I think the more important thing would be getting a nice wide, even beam, especially if you're in an area that has dangerous animals you could potentially trip over around (snakes?). Also, if you are in an area with bears, I would certainly want something with enough power to blind one. I certainly wouldn't rely on it being the best way to diffuse the situation, but would definitely want it at my disposal.


----------



## richpalm (Jun 20, 2011)

B0wz3r said:


> If you let your eyes adapt, you'll be surprised with how little light you can get away with. I've never needed more than the M1 setting on my Zebralight H51w with diffusion film, and that's only about 25 lumens.



Not me... I need 300 lumens just to walk the dogs and be able to see without straining. Whatever you do, take a backup light also when you go.

Rich


----------



## EnduringEagle (Jun 20, 2011)

richpalm said:


> Not me... I need 300 lumens just to walk the dogs and be able to see without straining. Whatever you do, take a backup light also when you go.
> 
> Rich


Then you need a G5!!


----------



## ringzero (Jun 20, 2011)

10 lumens is plenty for me to hike a trail, if delivered in a general purpose beam with a hotspot for throw and a spillbeam for peripheral vision.

That same general purpose beam when momentarily bumped up to 20 lumens lets me see a bit further down the trail to check for markers and such.

I think that anything very much over 20 lumens is overkill for trail walking that'll wreck your night vision for no good reason.

If you are hiking cross country at night, then you'll want a higher output.

If you are caving, then you'll want a higher output.

If you are doing a predawn approach to the bottom of a climb over rough terrain, then you'll want a higher output.

But for trail walking, I think it's better to avoid totally blasting away your night vision with unnecessarily bright lights.

.


----------



## nzbazza (Jun 20, 2011)

In the years of late night tramping (hiking) I've found that I've never needed more than 30lm of light when off route, although I can appreciate there may be times when brighter is better. 

On a track/trail/route I typically only ever use the M2 level of the ZL H51w or the med level of the PT Eos rebel50, so around 15lm.

For campsite tasks I find anything more than 5lm too bright.


----------



## CyberCT (Jun 20, 2011)

Lol you people are crazy. I wouldn't settle with anything less than the 820 lumens my TK35 puts out . I used it tonight in the woods actually, walking back to the car and looking at what fish were swimming around in the water.


----------



## Burgess (Jun 20, 2011)

Interesting, eye-opening thread here.

(pun intended)


Unless you encounter a " WhatTheHellWasTHAT ? ? ? " moment,
a bright blaster is seldom required for walking through the woods.


Ya' just need something strong enough to spot the occasional 

*Spider Web* !


:eeksign:
_


----------



## Richub (Jun 20, 2011)

It actually depends on how good your night vision is.
Check out how well you'll be able to see on a moonlit night in an open field without artificial light.

If you have a good night vision: Keep the light low & floody, with a brighter thrower handy in case you need to check something out farther away. 
My night vision is exellent, so I need very little light to go around safely. If I'd go hiking right now, my Fenix E05 would be my primary choice, with the TK41 as the second long distance light.

If your night vision is pretty bad, go as bright as your lights & batteries allow you. 
That's why Richpalm always uses at least 300 lumens, I saw him mention several times in his posts his night vision is very poor.

As an example, I have a friend with very poor night vision. 
When we go out together in wintertime on a moonlit night, I can see everything clearly in open fields and such, and even see a touch of color, while my friend is almost blind. 
He can only spot bright things a few feet away, without being able to tell if it's a piece of paper, or a light colored rock.


----------



## badtziscool (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm with most of the ppl who replied here. Once your eyes have adjusted, you need very little to see the trail. In the clear and a good moon, you don't even need any light. For the areas that are covered or if there's no moon, I would say 100 lumens is all you need, and that's to have some reach to look for a suitable campsite. Of course, having a multimode light that can go from 100 lm to 1000 lm is kinda nice


----------



## 00Moonshine (Jun 21, 2011)

Well, it depends. For navigating a trail that I'm familiar with 1 lumen is sufficient (SF Saint Minimus on lowest setting). But for trying to find my way in unfamiliar territory I like at least 200 lumens. And if your "woods" contain any critters that may be above you on the food chain (bears, mountain lions, wild hogs) I'd suggest you can't have too many lumens. For me, the Minimus on low usually does the trick, but it's always backed up by a M3LT CombatLight or a HoundDog XM-L, the latter mounted on a rifle.


----------



## stockwiz (Jun 21, 2011)




----------



## B0wz3r (Jun 21, 2011)

badtziscool said:


> I'm with most of the ppl who replied here. Once your eyes have adjusted, you need very little to see the trail. In the clear and a good moon, you don't even need any light. For the areas that are covered or if there's no moon, I would say 100 lumens is all you need, and that's to have some reach to look for a suitable campsite. Of course, having a multimode light that can go from 100 lm to 1000 lm is kinda nice


 
On full moons, I find that I can still get away with 20 - 30 lumens and be just fine. In fact, if I go lower (aprox. 15 - 20) I find my light blends into the moonlight, but is just like having the moonlight in shadowed and dark areas; it's like having moonlight everywhere, all the time.


----------



## mmace1 (Jun 21, 2011)

I've hiked some at night. To join the conensus: for perfect comfort in terms of the trail, and with only my own path to light - 25 lumens. Something like a Fenix E05. Less is doable however. 

In terms of looking around (up tall trees, across fields/ravines/etc) or scaring the crap out of wildlife - I can't personally imagine using more throw than your rather good Eagletec can produce. 

Question though - do you want more light just to create an even brighter area around you, or to see an even greater distance?


----------



## enomosiki (Jun 21, 2011)

Rather than sticking with a single output, it'd be better to get a flashlight with multiple output modes. Start off low for hiking, crank it up as soon as you see and/or hear anything suspicious.


----------



## Valmet62 (Jun 21, 2011)

I am more interested in seeing greater distances.

Valmet62


----------



## mmace1 (Jun 21, 2011)

Valmet62 said:


> I am more interested in seeing greater distances.
> 
> Valmet62


 
Ah OK...we should all shut up about just seeing the trail then. Sorry. 

You might want to re-post the question in terms of achieving greater throw than your current Eagletac model though. Since how far a light can shine is of course a combination of its lumens output and its beam focus. It would be very easy to design a 300 lumen light that could project light a far *shorter* distance than the T100C2...so your question is really about throw, not lumens. 

So...maybe rephrase in a new thread with "Recommend hiking lights that can throw significantly further than my Eagletac C100C2", or something like that?


----------



## ebow86 (Jun 21, 2011)

Depending on the situation and surroundings, even a 2AAA mini maglite will provide sufficent light to navigate around with, provided theirs no moon or ambient light. Not that I would be walking around in the dark forest with such a light having dangers lurking around every corner

I personally believe that the best light for navigating around dark woods is by far the A2 aviator. Your LED's give more than enough light to navigate around yet with a simple press you have 80 lumens of wonderful incan goodness on tap. Wooded arears with lots of trees and foliage are where incandescents really shine, once you see the surroundings in the vivid clarity and warmth of a good incan, it's hard to go back to anything less.


----------



## Richub (Jun 21, 2011)

Valmet62 said:


> I am more interested in seeing greater distances.
> 
> Valmet62


 In that case I'll recommend the Fenix TK41. Throws a LONG way, even on medium setting. 
On turbo it's simply amazing, but reading around on CPF you've already noticed 100 or so other flashaholics say the same about the TK41s throw.


----------



## bodhran (Jun 21, 2011)

20-30 lumens is fine for me, and I don't feel like I'm intruding on other hikers or campers enjoyment. If I need more light, then a high of 100 lumens seems more than enough. More important to me though is a neutral or warm tint.


----------



## whomever (Jun 21, 2011)

carrot said:


> I will happily hike with as little as 5 lumens or perhaps even less. You will find that in the woods you need a lot less light than usual because there is very little ambient light. ... You may, however, want a light with a lot of flood (M61) in case you need to get your bearings, or a light with a lot of throw (G5) if you need to be able to follow trail markers.



+1

On a trail in deep woods, I usually use low on a Zebralight H501, which is in the low single digit lumens. I may click it up to medium (low double digit lumens) for a stream crossing or whatever. I will use high (100ish lumens) prior to leaving camp in the dark, to make sure I'm not leaving anything.

For hiking, I strongly prefer an all flood light like the 501. When you have a light with a hotspot, you (well, me anyway) end up just focusing on the hotspot - it's a lot harder to avoid rocks in the trail and so on, and it's hard to read in bed, cook in the dark, and so on.

When you do want a thrower is scouting for trail markers, etc. I carry the 501 and use it 99% of the time; I also carry a H51 (and used to carry a surefire) for the 1% cases where throw is nice, and as a backup.


----------



## Cataract (Jun 21, 2011)

On regular flat trails, I use from 0.2 lumens when it's real dark to 30 lumens when it's real bumpy. I might go as high as 50 lumens on rough mountain trails. I don't remember ever needing more than ~100 lumens to check out noises (no bears around here) and do remember my eyes hurt every time I go from 0.2 to 100 lumens, but I often use a lot more than that just to find out if there's a big puddle of mud ahead, only so I don't have to get there and turn back before I look for an alternate road. Of course, I always have something strong to play with, but for actual walking 30 lumens is plenty of light.


----------



## rickypanecatyl (Jun 21, 2011)

I hike quite often in woods, jungles, mountains at night. A cheap pinch light next to the cosmo magazine at the grocery store check out is plenty to see a well defined trail. At the same time I've had my 80K lux varapower with me and times it just didn't reach far enough. I was searching across moores and valleys and was hoping to be able to see to the other side to be sure of my direction.

I saw a caving movie recently...Sactum I think it was called. Of course caving is different than hiking but there is a lot of overlap. Wathcing the movie would make it obvious why you would want a light that ran on 2-3 lumens or so but would last for days and why also having a light with 100K lux is nice too. 

I don't know if this makes sense, but when there is a good moon out and I'm not walking in really dense forest I like to be able to "feather" a low lumen light in with the moonlight - usually about 2-5 lumens of warm light. Often I've been in a scenario when the moon is out and I can make out mountain peaks 10 miles away. I can barely make out the trail I'm walking on by the moonlight alone. If I turn on 100 or even 10,000 lumens of light there is no way I'll be able to see the big picture as well. 10,000 lumens with a 1 million lux at 1 meter isn't near enough light to show the mountain peaks 10 miles away. In that kind of scenario adding 2 lumens the trail is helpful to not stumble and enables me to still see the mountain peaks miles away. 50 lumens though and my night vision would be shot and I would only be able to see the area lit up by my light.
Of course the best light to jockey all these real world variables around is a multi mode light. Some multi mode light are useless for this - like a jetbeam RRT3 - tons of levels that really aren't that different. Seriously spacing levels powers of 10 apart covers the different types of lighting you might need such as .5, 5, 50, 500 lumens.


----------



## EnduringEagle (Jun 21, 2011)

For hiking I think it is all about how much weight you are willing to carry around. The TK41 is a great light no doubt but carrying it around may not make you happy.


----------



## B0wz3r (Jun 21, 2011)

rickypanecatyl said:


> I don't know if this makes sense, but when there is a good moon out and I'm not walking in really dense forest I like to be able to "feather" a low lumen light in with the moonlight - usually about 2-5 lumens of warm light.


 
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me... Sounds like you're echoing what I mentioned before... I like a low level light that is low enough that it washes out under a full moon, but still gives illumination in shaded/shadowed areas, so that the level of light in those areas is comparable to the brightness of the moonlight. That way I get a sort of 'seamless transition' between moonlit areas and shadowed areas.


----------



## Cataract (Jun 21, 2011)

Seems like we do the same thing. I like to use the minimum amount possible so I don't have to wait around to get my night vision back, unless the terrain is rough enough to twist an ankle.


----------



## indychris (Jun 21, 2011)

Surprise, surprise, 35+ posts and almost that many opinions!





So I'll add mine. I hike at night quite a bit, and in wooded areas. I've become accustomed to not needing much light, but I will admit to when I first started it took me a while to not want a really bright light b/c of _things that go bump in the night_. Then it dawned on me that the only thing a BRIGHT light would do for me is let me see what's about to eat me just a little bit better!





Seriously, though, if you're otherwise happy with your EagleTac, maybe try the T20C2 MKII with an R2 module. It gives you good throw with some adequate (for me, anyway) spill, and will allow you to adjust your brightness as well. Or you could even opt for the new XM-L High Output and go with 12/105/500 lumens or a burst of 720. Or you could compromise and go with a XP-G R5 which I think falls somewhere in the middle. I took the T20C2 MKII with XP-G R5 on a recent trip to the Grand Canyon. It worked great!

There really is almost a limitless number of options, so good luck choosing!


----------



## octaf (Jun 21, 2011)

Walking in the woods at night, I find bright lumen or strong hot spot kind of disturbing. I do not deny that there's an occasion you need to light up the distance with throw, but in most cases I find low lumen floody light much more comfortable for walking.


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jun 21, 2011)

indychris said:


> Surprise, surprise, 35+ posts and almost that many opinions!



really? i got the impression that the growing consensus was 30 lumens or less.


----------



## KenAnderson (Jun 21, 2011)

rickypanecatyl said:


> I hike quite often in woods, jungles, mountains at night.
> 
> I don't know if this makes sense, but when there is a good moon out and I'm not walking in really dense forest I like to be able to "feather" a low lumen light in with the moonlight - usually about 2-5 lumens of warm light. Often I've been in a scenario when the moon is out and I can make out mountain peaks 10 miles away. I can barely make out the trail I'm walking on by the moonlight alone. If I turn on 100 or even 10,000 lumens of light there is no way I'll be able to see the big picture as well. 10,000 lumens with a 1 million lux at 1 meter isn't near enough light to show the mountain peaks 10 miles away. In that kind of scenario adding 2 lumens the trail is helpful to not stumble and enables me to still see the mountain peaks miles away. 50 lumens though and my night vision would be shot and I would only be able to see the area lit up by my light.
> Of course the best light to jockey all these real world variables around is a multi mode light. Some multi mode light are useless for this - like a jetbeam RRT3 - tons of levels that really aren't that different. Seriously spacing levels powers of 10 apart covers the different types of lighting you might need such as .5, 5, 50, 500 lumens.


 
This was well spoken and I agree fully. Shining a bright light across a moore won't necessarilly kill my night vision as the vast expanse disperses the light, but shined at an object 20 feet away and I see stars when the bright light goes out. Close up, I need small lumens for a small area, and the perfect light for me is a well spaced out multi-level.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 21, 2011)

Are there zombies in these woods


----------



## rodwolfington (Jun 21, 2011)

I just use my Petzl Tikka 2 for trail running. I am actually going to get a red colored headlamp, so it doesn't disturb my night vision.


----------



## Lumens my eye! (Jun 21, 2011)

Though unenlightened, I would choose a multi mode for trail excursions. No shortage today of any number of good lights with Hi and low features and levels that will do the job. My preference though is a light with default low, nothing worse than being bounced in the eyes with your reacher when all you want is to check your map or just keep an eye on the trail, with the right switch-
a quick tap and the big guns are giving you a better look at Sasquatch or what ever made that noise, then, back to saving battery life. My favorite currently is the x pro series, good output span, and for me 2 levels are enough, my only current complaint with the X p series is the bump shift.
If anyone cares to respond I would be interested in finding other default low lights.
Thanks
LMI!


----------



## cccpull (Jun 21, 2011)

indychris said:


> Then it dawned on me that the only thing a BRIGHT light would do for me is let me see what's about to eat me just a little bit better!



Down here we also have to worry about what you step on, like poisonous snakes.
Moonlight doesn't cut it in the swamp. :shakehead


----------



## EnduringEagle (Jun 21, 2011)

cccpull said:


> Down here we also have to worry about what you step on, like poisonous snakes.
> Moonlight doesn't cut it in the swamp. :shakehead


Yep. Hard to see a black moccasin with a 10 lumen flashlight.


----------



## Ian2381 (Jun 21, 2011)

Actually for me it depends on where you are going. I you are already familiar with the site or have already been there, you could use a low output light but if it's your first time and you are doing a night hike, its better to use a very bright light to familiarize yourself where your going and be able to memorize the trail specially going back. 
This is based on experience as on my last mountain hiking, I only used 40 lumens on my headlamp on a night hike and was able to see the trail but not able to get a better view of the surroundings so come the next morning I wasn't able to find the trail going back and even need a help from a friend(good thing there's a signal from my phone at the highest peek of the mountain).


----------



## ringzero (Jun 21, 2011)

rickypanecatyl said:


> I don't know if this makes sense, but when there is a good moon out and I'm not walking in really dense forest I like to be able to "feather" a low lumen light in with the moonlight - usually about 2-5 lumens of warm light. Often I've been in a scenario when the moon is out and I can make out mountain peaks 10 miles away. I can barely make out the trail I'm walking on by the moonlight alone. If I turn on 100 or even 10,000 lumens of light there is no way I'll be able to see the big picture as well. 10,000 lumens with a 1 million lux at 1 meter isn't near enough light to show the mountain peaks 10 miles away. In that kind of scenario adding 2 lumens the trail is helpful to not stumble and enables me to still see the mountain peaks miles away. 50 lumens though and my night vision would be shot and I would only be able to see the area lit up by my light.





Right here rickypanecatyl gives the best explanation yet in this thread for the advantages of low lumen lighting on the trail.

Using high lumen lighting you move through the darkness confined within a small bubble. Within that bubble your vision is sharp, but beyond the reach of your light everything is black.

With low lumen lighting your vision isn't as sharp, but it's not confined within a little bubble. You can look out across moonlit fields and see the hills way across the valley.

Hiking outside the bubble is much more rewarding - at least it is to me.

.


----------



## Valmet62 (Jun 21, 2011)

Thanks everybody for the responses ! I guess I don't need a longer distance thrower to see over the next hill afterall. Maybe all the hype about all of the new 300-400 lumen lights makes me feel I am missing out. But from the general consensus, I already have what I need, or maybe find something with more spill..

Valmet62


----------



## B0wz3r (Jun 21, 2011)

ringzero said:


> Using high lumen lighting you move through the darkness confined within a small bubble. Within that bubble your vision is sharp, but beyond the reach of your light everything is black.
> 
> With low lumen lighting your vision isn't as sharp, but it's not confined within a little bubble. You can look out across moonlit fields and see the hills way across the valley.


 
In the study of visual perception we refer to this as the "bandwidth vs. acuity trade-off".


----------



## indychris (Jun 21, 2011)

cccpull said:


> Down here we also have to worry about what you step on, like poisonous snakes.
> Moonlight doesn't cut it in the swamp. :shakehead


 
Now that's a GREAT point, and one I hadn't considered given our lack of snakes and poisonous critters overall. I do know that when hiking last around phoenix around squaw peak and South Mtn I was told to keep my eyes open for snakes. Should've thought of that one!


----------



## angelofwar (Jun 22, 2011)

15 lumens on my L2 or LX2. Just the right amount for navigating! And that extra level of high is just a muscle twitch away!


----------



## angelofwar (Jun 22, 2011)

Valmet62 said:


> Thanks everybody for the responses ! I guess I don't need a longer distance thrower to see over the next hill afterall. Maybe all the hype about all of the new 300-400 lumen lights makes me feel I am missing out. But from the general consensus, I already have what I need, or maybe find something with more spill..
> 
> Valmet62



Grab a Surefire L2 off the MP...Nice floody two stage light. Do a search and some reading on it, and you'll see it's a highly prized light.


----------



## quad088 (Jun 22, 2011)

00Moonshine said:


> Well, it depends. For navigating a trail that I'm familiar with 1 lumen is sufficient (SF Saint Minimus on lowest setting). But for trying to find my way in unfamiliar territory I like at least 200 lumens.* And if your "woods" contain any critters that may be above you on the food chain (bears, mountain lions, wild hogs) I'd* *suggest* *you can't have too many lumens*. For me, the Minimus on low usually does the trick, but it's always backed up by a M3LT CombatLight or a HoundDog XM-L, the latter mounted on a rifle.


 
Thanks for your good sharing and advice - apprecaite more reasons as to why " U cant have too many lumens" - see above letters above in Bold. 

I am new to tracking and would like to learn more - thanks


----------



## luceat lux vestra (Jun 22, 2011)

Cataract said:


> On regular flat trails, I use from 0.2 lumens when it's real dark to 30 lumens when it's real bumpy. I might go as high as 50 lumens on rough mountain trails. I don't remember ever needing more than ~100 lumens to check out noises (no bears around here) and do remember my eyes hurt every time I go from 0.2 to 100 lumens, but I often use a lot more than that just to find out if there's a big puddle of mud ahead, only so I don't have to get there and turn back before I look for an alternate road. Of course, I always have something strong to play with, but for actual walking 30 lumens is plenty of light.


 +1
a few nights ago it was a new moon and I was out walking the dog with my quark aa, and was very surprised when I turned my light on and I thought that I had medium or low because it was plenty of light for just walking around so I bumped my light through its modes and found that I had been using moonlight mode for the five to ten minutes that I was outside!!! Thats 0.2 lumens!!!


----------



## richpalm (Jun 22, 2011)

EnduringEagle said:


> Then you need a G5!!



Got one! <g>


----------



## vali (Jun 22, 2011)

I did some night hiking with a E01 in the past. In some places I wished it had a lower mode (1-2 lumen or so). Right now I use a Mini AA neutral, low when it is dark and there are trees or medium in open areas. I carry a Quark AA2 neutral too just in case I want more light or throw.


----------



## cratz2 (Jun 22, 2011)

My #1 hiking light over the last 5 years or so has been a Mag 2C with a UW0H Lux III module on an old school heatsink and an nFlex driver which provides 8 levels of output and a Mc27mm reflector for less throw, larger hotspot, brighter spill and nicer bean overall than a Mag reflector. I pretty much always use the lowest level which I'm guessing is around 15-20 lumens and if it's wet outside esp in the fall (ie, reflective leaves on the ground) that's too bright.

Lately I've been using a Surefire C2 with a 3 mode Thrunite XML on the lowest setting. I really like larger hotspots for hiking lights and again, I'd guess this is in the 20-25 lumen range.


----------



## gcbryan (Jun 22, 2011)

For me in the woods on a well defined trail 30 lumens on down to 5 lumens (or less) is fine. If it's a mountain trail and the edge of the mountain comes close to the trail sometimes then I'll turn the light up.

If I come out of the woods for some period of time I'll turn the light up as well. Unless you're riding a bike I don't see needing more than 100 lumens under any circumstances.

Admittedly more light might be nice in Australia as it seems that everything there is dangerous 

I don't find a pure flood beam to be the best for hiking but I do like a somewhat diffused beam that still can be directed rather than a tight hotspot and spill beam. The key for me is that it needs to project ahead a bit more than a pure flood.

If you are in camp then a pure flood is often nice. If it's more important to see what you are directing your attention to then a directed beam even on low and even while you are in camp is sometimes preferable to pure flood IMO. If it's a pure spot however it's usually more annoying than useful.


----------



## Reaper (Jun 22, 2011)

Been gone a long, long time and just looked in tonight. Since there's been a lot of improvements and advances in LED's, drop-in's and lights --- I don't know how my choice will hold. I have almost every Malkoff drop-in available but the one I always carry is the Malkoff M61LL in his MD2 with the Hi/Low ring. Low is just about right for night hikes and camping while High is more than enough for anything else. I've used the Malkoff M60 in my Surefire 6P but the blinding light is way too much for the dark of night. Another point in the M61LL favor is the run-time.


----------



## yliu (Jun 23, 2011)

My Fenix TK12 R5 in camping mode have always worked for me for hikes in the wood. The 245 lumen mode throws quite far away, more than I ever needed for a hike.


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Jun 23, 2011)

Beam profile strongly affects this question.

An extremely floody beam profile could be 100 lumens and leave one wishing for more.

An extremely focused beam profile could be annoyingly bright (while also really destroying your night vision everywhere else) with as little as 30 lumens.

When striving for "flashlight perfection" the standard answer is this: You want options.

Which usually is going to mean more than one flashlight...


----------



## DaveAnderson (Jun 23, 2011)

Fun thread. I was out deer hunting two years ago and had two lights with me - a 1x18650 R2 thrower with a deep dish and a Novatac 120P. Well once it got dark and I was out in the brush, I had to pull out the lights to get back to the trail. The larger thrower was almost uselss. It worked fine - 180 lumens of blinding light wherever I shined it. I ended up using the Novatac on something like 5 lumens so I could keep the tree branches from whipping my face while I hiked up the valley back to the trail. Once I hit the trail, the thower was nice to highlight things I was looking at in the distance. 

Going out again, a single light would be the 6P with the nailbender smo 3 mode or 3 mode MCE. Extended runtimes on low and it has a good balance of flood/throw. Quick click and I could light up a remote area pretty well. As fun as the throwers are to play with, they aren't nearly as useful as I had originally thought - once you get out into the woods.


----------



## fnj (Jun 23, 2011)

One idea I haven't seen in this thread is the Zebralight SC600. It's a single compact 18650 light that puts 0.1 to 750 lumens at your immediate command in a single light, so you can do your own experimenting. As an XM-L with a small head, it's not very throwy, but you better believe with 750 lumens when you want it, it's going to reach out pretty good. With its rechargeable battery, it also lets you easily make sure that it is fully charged every time you go hiking.

Another idea is an HDS Clicky single CR123, which would give you 0.07 to 170 lumens. It's a pretty narrow beam, but also has good spill. A very nice choice.


----------



## Darvis (Jun 23, 2011)

no more than 1-10 lumens. Being an avid camper, have to agree with the less is more concensus here and there is lots of great advice! When I car camp, I always have a mega bright light handy, but can't remember the last time I used it outside of just showing off (currently a Malkoff M91).

Diffused or no hot spot lights (such as a Mule) are my preference, I find the lack of a hot spot is what really makes the difference for me when it comes to sheer usability. That said, some preferred lights have been the L1 and/or E1L with the F04 or diffuser film, McGizmo's 3S Mule of any flavor (currently using the XM-L version), my SS Preon ReVo with diffuser (this one is the one I like on hikes, light, bright, great throw and only a AAA! Plus, three levels on tap. Carry as many spare batteries as you want, they weigh next to nothing and the ReVo goes 40 hours on low) For more light, the Malkoff M60LF is the cats pajamas and I always try to have this one handy. I am itching to try the E05 as well...

When you really want a keeper, though, look no farther than the Peak Eiger medium beam with a power level of 0 or 1, maybe 2. This may possibly be the handiest camping light I've ever used. I have all three levels above (and even a Subzero) and find the power level 1 to be the one I most like.

Believe it or not, around camp, a headlamp is more annoying unless camping alone. I've found that I end up blinding more people than not, so once my eyes have dark adapted, I tend to just use the handhelds when I need them. For hiking, headlamps rock, no doubt. I like my older PT Apex 4AA light with a combo of multiple LEDS and one TIR thrower, or any Zebralight headlamp. I prefer a dedicated headlamp, vs a standard light in a holder as I find that these blind me based on where they sit (usually by the ears), vs. a lamp on the forehead shining down.


----------



## edkwok (Jun 24, 2011)

I do a lot of all-night trail running and prefer around 50 lumens in a wide beam. 50 is enough to negotiate roots, rocks, cracks, frogs etc. Most lights I have come across do not give a wide enough beam and you end up having to keep panning the light to see where you are going. I use less brightness when I am walking, maybe just a few lumens to follow the trail, as I find the scenery looks more enjoyable. I also find powerful lights get uncomfortably hot in the hand after a few hours. My favorite is the Surefire U2 which has an ideal (for me) conical beam pattern and the ring brightness control is perfect for real time adjustment. I have an assortment of Fenix but their beam patterns are too narrow for me. If I am out alone I take the Wolf Eyes Thunder for the security of 800 lumens but use it on low most of the time.


----------



## Swedpat (Jun 24, 2011)

My experience is that in the woods at night it usually doesn't need so many lumens. Sometimes I can be surprised of how bright even 30lm actually is in the darkness! Surefire E1L and E2L AA Outdoorsmans are excellent out in the field.


----------



## shuailala (Jun 24, 2011)

10 lumens is plenty for me to hike a trail


----------



## BoarHunter (Jun 24, 2011)

No need for a lot as long as you stay on the trail. But if you go off and you have to figure out what is the best way to negotiate your turns and plan your path in a tangle of logs, brushes, puddle etc..., better have plenty of flood and a thrower but that you can adjust so as not to be blinded !
I use a TK35, does all that.


----------



## quad088 (Jun 24, 2011)

Here in Singapore we have tropical rain forest that are tense and trail path ranging from 2 m to 3m width. Often I had a Garmin GPSmap 62s as it record the entire course so I need not afraid I lost track on return. 

I take along my surefire U2 @ 100 lumens, LL M14 and M3x with extra 3 x fully charged 18650. Usually 80% of the trail I used U2 and the rest M14 and M3x. This weekend I will take along my recent purchased M3LT instead of M3x.


Along the journey we encounter snakes, monkeys and stupid crows.


----------



## scout24 (Jun 24, 2011)

I'll add my two cents- I'm with the under-ten crowd for general hiking, and used my EO1 extensively when my son was in Boy Scouts to hike in and set up camp well after dark. Established trails, some stream crossing, etc. There were times that I realized a warm or neutral tint would have been beneficial. High-CR-I Ra Clicky set up with three low-output modes and max for the fourth level is floody enough to be very useful, and gives you the option of 100lm if wanted. ZL sc51w would work well, too, I feel.


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Jun 25, 2011)

And again I'll say it depends on beam profile.

"Got hotspot"? Yeah, 20 lumens may (under certain circumstances or with certain users) may be too much.

Now consider a Coleman lantern running on propane or kerosene - you can go much, much higher than 20 lumens worth of output and be nowhere near overkill...


----------



## jorn (Jun 25, 2011)

Dude Dudeson said:


> And again I'll say it depends on beam profile.
> 
> "Got hotspot"? Yeah, 20 lumens may (under certain circumstances or with certain users) may be too much.
> 
> Now consider a Coleman lantern running on propane or kerosene - you can go much, much higher than 20 lumens worth of output and be nowhere near overkill...


 Yep so true. I just saw a episode on mythbuster (seson9, ep11. Let there be light). One of their result was that 0.389 lux was needed (with non night adjusted eyes) to clear a course they had set up with lots of glass in total darkness.


----------



## trialt (Jun 25, 2011)

I think a surefire T1A would be nice for a night hike too. Anyone else agree ?


----------



## ebow86 (Jun 25, 2011)

In my own experience, at least to my own eyes, when using a quality incandescent and LED outdoors, it takes roughly half as many lumens of incandescent light for me to feel comfortable with my surroundings as it does LED light, especially in a forest type environment. So, depending on the surroundings, if I feel safe with 60 lumens of incandescent light, generally speaking, to feel that same reassurance that I have enough light to observe my surroundings to my satisfaction, I would need roughly 120 lumens of LED light. Now of course there are many other factors to consider. What incandescent light am I using? How much throw does the LED light I'm using have? Is it a cool tint or warm tint, etc etc. But in my own experience, this "double the lumens" usually turns out to be the case. I'm not saying this is Gospel truth or hard fact, it's just what my own personal experience has been over the years.


----------



## Swedpat (Jun 25, 2011)

ebow86 said:


> In my own experience, at least to my own eyes, when using a quality incandescent and LED outdoors, it takes roughly half as many lumens of incandescent light for me to feel comfortable with my surroundings as it does LED light, especially in a forest type environment. So, depending on the surroundings, if I feel safe with 60 lumens of incandescent light, generally speaking, to feel that same reassurance that I have enough light to observe my surroundings to my satisfaction, I would need roughly 120 lumens of LED light. Now of course there are many other factors to consider. What incandescent light am I using? How much throw does the LED light I'm using have? Is it a cool tint or warm tint, etc etc. But in my own experience, this "double the lumens" usually turns out to be the case. I'm not saying this is Gospel truth or hard fact, it's just what my own personal experience has been over the years.



Never heard that before, but according to all I read and my own experience it seems probable. The better color rendition of incandescents and the better 3-D feeling and contrast may require less lumens to be useful, yes it feels logical!


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jun 25, 2011)

ebow86 said:


> In my own experience, at least to my own eyes, when using a quality incandescent and LED outdoors, it takes roughly half as many lumens of incandescent light for me to feel comfortable with my surroundings as it does LED light, especially in a forest type environment. So, depending on the surroundings, if I feel safe with 60 lumens of incandescent light, generally speaking, to feel that same reassurance that I have enough light to observe my surroundings to my satisfaction, I would need roughly 120 lumens of LED light. Now of course there are many other factors to consider. What incandescent light am I using? How much throw does the LED light I'm using have? Is it a cool tint or warm tint, etc etc. But in my own experience, this "double the lumens" usually turns out to be the case. I'm not saying this is Gospel truth or hard fact, it's just what my own personal experience has been over the years.


 
you know, i kind of feel that way too. i often feel like i get a much better feel for my surroundings with an incan than an LED at similar brightnesses, much better than even my warmish neutral LEDs.


----------



## ebow86 (Jun 26, 2011)

robostudent5000 said:


> you know, i kind of feel that way too. i often feel like i get a much better feel for my surroundings with an incan than an LED at similar brightnesses, much better than even my warmish neutral LEDs.



I agree. Another thing I have noticed when using a good incan vs a quality LED, even warm tinted LED's, is how much more quickly I can identify things under the full spectrum of light from an incandescent. Just an example, if the edge of my beam catches the glow of an animals eye, when I turn an incandescent beam towards that animal I can instantly recognize it and what it is the same as if I was looking at it in broad daylight. Under that same scenario, an LED, especially a cooler tinted led, it might take me a second or two before my eyes can image whatever that object I'm looking at might be, due to the lack of color and depth to that object. Warm tinted LED's certainly help with the colors but that general "flatness" and lack of depth is still there.


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jun 26, 2011)

ebow86 said:


> I agree. Another thing I have noticed when using a good incan vs a quality LED, even warm tinted LED's, is how much more quickly I can identify things under the full spectrum of light from an incandescent. Just an example, if the edge of my beam catches the glow of an animals eye, when I turn an incandescent beam towards that animal I can instantly recognize it and what it is the same as if I was looking at it in broad daylight. Under that same scenario, an LED, especially a cooler tinted led, it might take me a second or two before my eyes can image whatever that object I'm looking at might be, due to the lack of color and depth to that object. Warm tinted LED's certainly help with the colors but that general "flatness" and lack of depth is still there.



i guess that's where CRI comes into play. even the warmer, hi CRI LED's don't quite match the CRI of an incan.


----------

