# Zebralight SC5 and SC5w First Impressions



## jak (May 13, 2015)

===UPDATE BELOW===

My SC5w showed up in the mail today. Here's my first impression so far. Please share yours!

*Here's what's awesome about it:

*

It's really bright on my mere Eneloop Pro!
It's the design a single AA light deserves -I like it much better than the ribbed look of the SC52s, which looks quite bulbous.
Fantastic build and LED positioning
Grippy and comfortable form-factor with a perfect click to the switch

*Here's what's not awesome about it:

*

This particular specimen seems to have a less then subtle tint problem. Upon shining it on the wall, my co-worker commented "Oh cool! It looks like a Gobstopper." referring to the purple pupil and green iris on display. Ironically, the flood/spill is one of the best neutral whites I've seen from Zebralight. No joke though, it looks like a monster's eyeball. While that's kinda neat, I'm gonna have to exchange it.







*Other observations:*



The battery indicator seems to do its first blast on max brightness, and the subsequent bursts are at a lower level.
The prongs that replace the single spring are a nice touch.
The pocket clip is serious about becoming one with your pocket. It clings tightly. That could be good or frustrating I imagine.


I'm think I'm going to enjoy carrying/using this light. I just am bummed that I have to send it back and wait for another one because of the tint.

*===UPDATE===

*I finally got around to sending my light back. (It pays to live close to Zebralight; I shipped it back on a Monday and got my replacement on Wednesday!) 

*Here's the result:*



Without question, this tint is the best tint of all my lights. It makes every previous Zebralight "W" lights look ultra-warm. I am impressed.
I think Zebralight is stepping up their customer service. They actually called me, like,_ on the telephone_, to confirm my shipping address. (I had original light shipped to me at work, but billing address is my home.)

Like I said above, I'm going to enjoy using this light. I will still keep my SC62w in my pocket for EDC, but I will use this for anything else. It's a keeper!






A quick photo to compare a few tints​


----------



## snowlover91 (May 13, 2015)

Hmmm interesting regarding the tint, how close was the beamshot taken? What level of brightness is that at and does it disappear at lower/higher modes? Do you have any other lights to compare it to that are rated in the 400-600 lumen range and if so how does it compare? Mine arrives tomorrow and I'm hoping the tint is good on my copy, sorry to hear yours wasn't as good as hoped


----------



## jak (May 13, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> Hmmm interesting regarding the tint, how close was the beamshot taken? What level of brightness is that at and does it disappear at lower/higher modes? Do you have any other lights to compare it to that are rated in the 400-600 lumen range and if so how does it compare? Mine arrives tomorrow and I'm hoping the tint is good on my copy, sorry to hear yours wasn't as good as hoped


It's noticeable at any distance over a meter, at any brightness level. I'll try to post a comparison with my SC62w and SC62d tonight. (The exposure on that first beamshot was adjusted so that the imperfection shows up.)

Did you order cool white or a neutral (w)? Do share your results. If other Gobstoppers are reported in the next day or 2, I may exchange mine for cool white.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 13, 2015)

I ordered the neutral version and have a few other neutral lights to compare it to, my EA41w by Nitecore and then a SC32w with nearly perfect tint. I also have a Nichia 219 P60 drop in so I can use it as a reference point. Btw when comparing my SC32w with my Nichia 219 they are almost identical in tint so when you get a good neutral ZL it compares quite favorably to the Nichia 219 in my experience. I also have a SC62w on the way so I can compare it as well, the SC5w should arrive tomorrow evening and after work I should be able to post some thoughts on it and hopefully pictures as well.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 13, 2015)

Anyone try sticking a 14500 in their SC5/SC5w yet?

It would be awesome if doing so upped the output to 800 lumens or so.


----------



## Amelia (May 13, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Anyone try sticking a 14500 in their SC5/SC5w yet?
> 
> It would be awesome if doing so upped the output to 800 lumens or so.



It will probably do that... for about 0.003 seconds.


----------



## markr6 (May 13, 2015)

jak said:


> No joke though, it looks like a monster's eyeball. While that's kinda neat, I'm gonna have to exchange it.tint.



G-ZUS already Zebralight!! Where the hell are you getting your emitters from? I guess from the trunk of a Cadillac DeVille in a back alley of Detroit somewhere...dime a dozen.

Tired of this stuff. Still not giving up on you, though!


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 14, 2015)

markr6 said:


> G-ZUS already Zebralight!! Where the hell are you getting your emitters from? I guess from the trunk of a Cadillac DeVille in a back alley of Detroit somewhere...dime a dozen.



I wonder if this is a LED with bad tint, or an AR coating that is causing bad tint? Probably more the LED in this case, since it's the spot. But I have a few lights with purple spill, and I think that may be the coatings fault.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 14, 2015)

Mine should arrive in a few minutes, right before work of course. Hopefully I'll have enough time to test it out briefly before work, if I do I'll post some initial thoughts about it. It's hard to wait lol!


----------



## snowlover91 (May 14, 2015)

First impressions before going to work, tint is PERFECT and comparable to my Nichia 219. Brightness is up there for sure I don't have a way to measure it but compared with other similar lights on the same settings it is comparable, at least 400 lumens IMO. Anodizing is flawless and threads are very smooth. Impressed with my copy and I'll post some pictures and further updates tonight with beam shots as well!


----------



## markr6 (May 14, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> First impressions before going to work, tint is PERFECT and comparable to my Nichia 219. Brightness is up there for sure I don't have a way to measure it but compared with other similar lights on the same settings it is comparable, at least 400 lumens IMO. Anodizing is flawless and threads are very smooth. Impressed with my copy and I'll post some pictures and further updates tonight with beam shots as well!



Good deal!! I'll have to wait until Sunday for mine. I really hope it's a keeper.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 15, 2015)

Had a chance to more thoroughly test out the SC5w tonight and must say this light is quite impressive, more to follow about this below! Unfortunately I do not have a SC52w to compare this to; however I will say the tint on this light is probably one of the best neutral whites I have in my collection and is just as good as my Nichia 219 which is pretty impressive. First of all a few pics of the light, anodizing is very good and is an olive grey color. Tail cap threads are smooth and the o-ring seems to provide a good seal although I have not tested it underwater. I did also test the runtime on the 500 lumen setting and came up with 3 mins and 2 seconds before stepping down. It must have some type of thermal sensor or safety built in because when I tried to turn it off and back on in turbo it still came on at the 300 lumen step down mode but after cooling for around 30 seconds or so it would turn on to turbo once again. Heat sinking is excellent as the whole light, not just the head, warmed up to be quite warm but not unbearable.















Next I took a few pictures of the updated tail cap spring design. Instead of one larger spring it now appears as if they've used several small springs with a smooth round disc on the end. I'm not sure why the change but I must say I like it better as these discs are very smooth and do not scratch the bottom of any batteries tested. 













Last but certainly not least, a few beam shots! The first one is simply to give you an idea of the tint while the next two are used to give you an idea of the brightness of this light. Since it is rated at 500 lumens on high I thought I would compare it to my Nitecore SRT5 which uses 18650 batteries and is rated at 700 lumens on high. Both pics were taken with the exact same settings and shutter speed. Based on this alone I would estimate the output of the SC5w to be a solid 400+ lumens as it compares quite favorably to my other lights in this lumen range such as my Nichia 219 drop in rated for 500 lumens and my SRT5 rated at 700 (probably more like 500-550 on 18650 batteries).

Nice tint! I don't have any white walls to use for beam shots so this was the best I could do, a white wooden door.




ZL SC5w




Nitecore SRT5


----------



## UnderPar (May 15, 2015)

This is really an interesting light. Will get one soon as it is available in our area. Thanks for sharibg


----------



## chrisc983 (May 15, 2015)

I just started using zebralights. I have the H502W and SC52W this may have to be my next light from them. UI is great one you learn it and build quality is really good too. Thanks info on it.


----------



## Sarlix (May 15, 2015)

Nice shots snowlover.


----------



## scout24 (May 15, 2015)

Got mine an hour ago. Wasn't expecting it until Monday, so no AA cells with me today. First impressions? It's beefy. More stout than I envisioned. Same bezel diameter as my HDS 325 which got carried today. Sanded the clip down to get rid of the mirror finish. Centered emitter, button has a good feel. The smooth reflector has my hopes up for a bit of throw, I'll know tonight.


----------



## reppans (May 15, 2015)

scout24 said:


> Got mine an hour ago. Wasn't expecting it until Monday, so no AA cells with me today. First impressions? It's beefy. More stout than I envisioned. Same bezel diameter as my HDS 325 which got carried today. Sanded the clip down to get rid of the mirror finish. Centered emitter, button has a good feel. The smooth reflector has my hopes up for a bit of throw, I'll know tonight.



Would you mind posting a side-by-side photo of those 2 lights - and underexposed so you can see some detail in the hotspots?


----------



## scout24 (May 15, 2015)

I'll do what I can...


----------



## seasam (May 15, 2015)

thanks for posting tailcap pictures snowlover91. I love that new tailcap design - I'm guess it's to minimize resistance with the high amp draw needed to do 500 lumen from an envelop. cool idea.


----------



## chuckhov (May 15, 2015)

"...500 lumen from an envelop. cool idea"


You're Darn Tootin it's a Cool Idea!

You need to Patent that! 

Sorry - I couldn't resist...
-Chuck


----------



## snowlover91 (May 15, 2015)

seasam said:


> thanks for posting tailcap pictures snowlover91. I love that new tailcap design - I'm guess it's to minimize resistance with the high amp draw needed to do 500 lumen from an envelop. cool idea.



I'm that's part of the reason and also maybe to prevent damage to the battery as well? The new design hasn't done anything at all to any of my batteries whereas other lights with a traditional spring will lightly scratch the battery after a few uses. 

The throw is pretty good on this light, I don't have a SC52 to compare it with so its hard to say but it does have a well defined hot spot and heat sinking is excellent. My 3 minute runtime test of this light showed how the heat doesn't just build up in the head but distributes through the whole flashlight body making it bearable. I've used some lights that after 1-2 mins on turbo will burn your hand if you hold them, this light only gets warm but not uncomfortable. Also, it is built like a tank and the switch has a nice firm click to it.


----------



## cyclesport (May 16, 2015)

My SC5w arrived today and thought I'd throw my initial observations in the mix. Build quality, LED centering, even anodizing, grippy knurling all very good...as is functionality, battery meter, program-ability, all modes functioning as per spec. 

Tint and overall beam quality compared to other lights (ZL: SC62w, SC52w, SC52, H52w, and various Nichia 219a/b lights)...

*Max mode appears to be close to a true 500lumens by comparison to several other lights.

* Tint is certainly cooler than ALL my other warm/neutral ZL's by at least 300k to 500k...matching my reference Nailbender 5000k XM-L2 P60 drop-in in tint. Beam is also largely free of most undesirable purples, blues, greens, and is completely acceptable. _**This was not always the case just a year ago, but it seems ZL is finally achieving some acceptable tint consistency...if indeed color temp consistency is still in flux._

* And best surprise for me is that the spill beam is virtually free of all rings or artifacts with a fairly crisp hot spot as the only visual give-away, or indicator that this is a smooth reflector! Good job ZL!

* Reflector being slightly deeper and wider should give a little better throw but haven't had a chance to test.

* Nor have I had it long enough to get a sense of the light's efficiency yet.


----------



## hatman (May 16, 2015)

Thanks for these early reports.
Please be sure to identify which battery you're using.

(I have Panasonic eneloops rated at 1.2 volts, 1900 mAh. I take it that these are not the "pro" eneloops referred to?)


----------



## snowlover91 (May 16, 2015)

I used the Duracell Ion Core which are the Eneloop Pro's rebranded and have a capacity around 2400-2500mah according to my charger. They handle the turbo mode perfectly!


----------



## scout24 (May 16, 2015)

I'm sure it affects runtime, but my regular white Eneloops that are 4-5 years old work perfectly with turbo mode as well. 3 minutes almost to the second before stepdown. I'm using the highest of H2 levels right now, with a double click to turbo. While there is a visible difference, it's not tremendous to my eyes... I'll keep my mah's for runtime.


----------



## gkbain (May 16, 2015)

Just had my SC5w for just a few hours. Some of my early observations... Clip is stiffer, than on my SC52, or the area under the clip makes it harder to clip onto pocket. Sure that will cause the shredding factor to go up. 14500 go in but may be to long to seat tailcap, I haven't tried. Comparing to other lights I have, the 1 lm mode seems to be less than 1 lm. Tint is good. Not yellow/green like my Olight S10 L2 NW. It is a little bigger than the SC52 and sturdier looking. Steps down from H1 at 3 min. +- 2 sec. Feels more secure in my hand than 52, a combination of knurling and added body bulk and I can tell the weight difference as well. Been caring the 52 for sometime so I notice the little differences. The anodizing on the body and tailcap is the same color greyish green. My 52 body and tailcap are a little different color. Emitter seems to be centered reasonably well. Tailcap threads are smoother than 52 or it may be because it is new. Switch takes less effort than my 52, silent but a click feel. Beam is clean despite smooth reflector. Don't know what to think of the new tailcap spring/springs. Ran a couple of Eneloop Pros through it. Turned on H1 and left it. It does get very warm. I may go back to caring the 52 and slowly start caring the 5 and eventually convert. There is a difference in the way it caries and the way it feels. All in all I am impressed and I am sure I will get use to the differences given a little time. Hard to break old habits.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 16, 2015)

Thanks for the post! Any beamshots comparisons? Would love to see some shots of the SC52 on a 14500 vs the SC5 on high to see how close the 500 lumen modes are. 

Also, a beamshot of the 325 lumen H1 vs the 280 lumen H1 would be great too!


----------



## Amelia (May 16, 2015)

The post before the last one brings up using 14500 in the SC5. Won't that kill it? The Zebralight specs don't show high voltage spec that is high enough for 14500... am I missing something?


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 16, 2015)

Amelia said:


> The post before the last one brings up using 14500 in the SC5. Won't that kill it? The Zebralight specs don't show high voltage spec that is high enough for 14500... am I missing something?



Bottom line is we won't actually know what will happen with 14500 until some daring individual tries it. Yes, the SC5 isn't rated for 14500, but that doesn't necessarily mean 14500 will damage it.

For example, I recall when the SC600 mark I first came out, someone tried 2*CR123 in it. That's 6v! ... much higher than the light was rated for. Yet the light still actually worked fine.


----------



## fnsooner (May 17, 2015)

Does the SC5 out throw the SC62?

Does the new style tail cap fit the SC52?

I am trying to justify buying the 5, but it seems like it is a tweener that I probably wouldn't use much. I carry a SC62w ninety percent of the time and the SC52(F)w when I want to go light.

Thanks everyone for all of the impressions and pictures. Mucho appreciated.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 17, 2015)

I have a SC62w coming tomorrow so I can try to get some comparison pics of the two for you. I think the biggest benefit of this light is the turbo lasts 3 mins vs 1 and you don't need a lithium battery to get the turbo. Other than that though there isn't much benefit between the SC5 and 52 light.


----------



## markr6 (May 17, 2015)

Compared to my SC52w

• Heavier
• Feels better in hand
• Nice knurling
• No flattened spot for clip to rest on - will shred the **** out of anything you clip it on
• Slightly smaller hot spot, slightly better throw but don't buy it for that or you may not even notice
• 500lm levels on both lights appear to be the same
• Thicker than I expected. Personally, I won't carry it in a pocket.

I think the SC52w is the winner here. I had to have both before deciding for sure; now I know.












Now the tint...ahhhhh yes the Zebralight tints. At first glace, I thought I hit the jackpot...on par with my L10 Nichia 219. Then I noticed the purple eyeball in the center some others mentioned. Here's a photo cooked in Photoshop since the camera doesn't catch it so well:






Deal-breaker. It's going back.

So, they say doing the same thing over in over is insane, right? Well, I'm the most insane person of all time. I let Zebralight screw me about 7,281 times now and I'm all out of patience. This is the end. I'll stick with my current lineup since it's more than enough. And they're all nice. But no more.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 17, 2015)

For those interested I came up with a pocket clip solution for the Zebralights since they are notoriously known for being pocket shredders due to the very tight pocket clip. I'll try to post pics tonight, it's an aftermarket clip that costs $6-7 shipped and fits any Zebralight and transforms the stiff pocket clip to a nice firm one that won't shred pockets.


----------



## Mr Floppy (May 17, 2015)

No front on shots of the reflector? I am thinking that the 'eyeball' is reflector related somehow. A donut hole of sorts.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 17, 2015)

Mr Floppy said:


> No front on shots of the reflector? I am thinking that the 'eyeball' is reflector related somehow. A donut hole of sorts.



You asked, here they are! Not the best but tried to capture the reflector as best as I could.


----------



## sale (May 18, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I think the SC52w is the winner here.



Thanks for the pics and the info. Now I know too!!!


----------



## Mr Floppy (May 18, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> You asked, here they are! Not the best but tried to capture the reflector as best as I could.



Thanks! No expert on reflector design but I think the dark centre is just part and parcel of smooth reflectors. The question would be how the spot is it at distance?


----------



## snowlover91 (May 18, 2015)

I've not noticed the purple tint in the center or what seems like a "donut hole" shape in my sample. Perhaps in those who have this it is either a problem with the LED itself or the reflector is not centered or seated deep enough? I have one of the old MC-E lights from back in the day and it does have a donut hole in the center of the hot spot but even as bad as it is you really can't notice it in real world usage.

Also with the addition of a different pocket clip this light is no longer a "pocket shredder" and is far more convenient. I still think between this light and the SC32 I would go for the SC32 since it has nearly identical runtimes but is PID regulated and much smaller/lighter. However this is a great EDC light and will find much use as well, my emitter seems to be perfectly centered btw


----------



## StorminMatt (May 18, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> I still think between this light and the SC32 I would go for the SC32 since it has nearly identical runtimes but is PID regulated and much smaller/lighter.



Now why the SC32 got PID, but not the SC52 or SC5 is something I will never understand.


----------



## markr6 (May 18, 2015)

Quick response from ZL for an RMA. Back in the mail. Oh well


----------



## markr6 (May 18, 2015)

Mr Floppy said:


> Thanks! No expert on reflector design but I think the dark centre is just part and parcel of smooth reflectors. The question would be how the spot is it at distance?



The purple dot appears at about 4' and beyond. Any closer than that and I can't see it.


----------



## geokite (May 18, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Now why the SC32 got PID, but not the SC52 or SC5 is something I will never understand.



I suspect that it has something to do with the voltage it accepts. Are there PID regulated lights that use 1.4V batteries?

Steve


----------



## snowlover91 (May 18, 2015)

markr6 said:


> The purple dot appears at about 4' and beyond. Any closer than that and I can't see it.



I wonder what the cause of this purple dot may be? I tried my light at a distance on all brightness settings and couldn't detect any dot or purple in the center so it seems to be specific to certain lights. Could it be a flaw in the reflector or the LED itself? Did you decide to just return it or do you plan to try once more? If you haven't already you might should give the SC32w a try... I know another Zebralight but it gives similar specs to the 52/5 lights but in a much smaller package. The SC32 and SC62 are the two best EDC lights from them IMO. The 62 offers the extra power and long run times while the 32 offers a compact yet amazingly bright package. Not that the SC5 is bad but for an extra half inch in length you get the SC62 with much stronger battery. The 32 at only 2.6" long is TINY.


----------



## fnsooner (May 18, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> I have a SC62w coming tomorrow so I can try to get some comparison pics of the two for you. I think the biggest benefit of this light is the turbo lasts 3 mins vs 1 and you don't need a lithium battery to get the turbo. Other than that though there isn't much benefit between the SC5 and 52 light.



Thanks snowlover, I look forward to your comparison. I am especially interested on your thoughts about the SC62w.

@markr6, sorry to hear about the tint on your new light. The life of a tint snob is filled with heart ache. I am probably going to pass on the SC5. 

I know you have now sworn off of ZLs, but the SC52Fw is one sweet light that I qrecently purchased and it has a decent track record of having a good tint. It has now knocked the SC52w out as my backup to my SC62w. It is a great compliment to the 62w.


----------



## markr6 (May 18, 2015)

I don't use my SC52w often; it's the "nightstand" light. I really like it, but the SC62w just beats everything I have, or what I can see on the market.

After getting the SC5w, the SC62w was even more appreciated. The SC5 is quite a bit larger and bulkier than the SC52...even closer in size to the SC62 so I don't really see a benefit to it.

As some hinted, a SC62w and SC32w seems like a great pairing. But I do like to keep an AA-compatible light around. The fact the SC52 accepts both NiMH and Li-Ion makes it a must have in my mind.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 18, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I don't use my SC52w often; it's the "nightstand" light. I really like it, but the SC62w just beats everything I have, or what I can see on the market.
> 
> After getting the SC5w, the SC62w was even more appreciated. The SC5 is quite a bit larger and bulkier than the SC52...even closer in size to the SC62 so I don't really see a benefit to it.
> 
> As some hinted, a SC62w and SC32w seems like a great pairing. But I do like to keep an AA-compatible light around. The fact the SC52 accepts both NiMH and Li-Ion makes it a must have in my mind.



Have you tried the SC32 yet? I think you would be pleasantly surprised with it, completely disappears in your pocket and you don't even know it's there but gives 400+ lumens with great tint and nice beam as well. Between the SC5 and SC32 I would use the SC32 for EDC use while the SC5 would be a nightstand light or hiking/outdoors as well. The SC5 is a little too heavy for EDC use for me but it's very rugged, the bezel on the front seems quite protective and thick. Anyways if you don't have the SC32 yet I think you should give it a try, great EDC light and super small/lightweight.


----------



## seasam (May 18, 2015)

my 2 cents after receiving today: this light is more of an exercise in pushing the limits of what you can do with a AA rather than the trying to be the successor to the SC52. it's nicely done, but it has lost much of the pocketability of the SC52. upside is that it fits in the hand better (for me). 

it would be a great general purpose flashlight for those who prefer to stick to a more familiar battery type. in my case it will make a perfect night stand light. I like it :thumbsup:


----------



## StorminMatt (May 18, 2015)

geokite said:


> I suspect that it has something to do with the voltage it accepts. Are there PID regulated lights that use 1.4V batteries?
> 
> Steve



There isn't anything about a PID controller that would rule out its use in a light that runs on 1.2V, especially since the boost regulator would supply any higher voltage it may need.


----------



## markr6 (May 18, 2015)

seasam said:


> my 2 cents after receiving today: this light is more of an exercise in pushing the limits of what you can do with a AA rather than the trying to be the successor to the SC52. it's nicely done, but it has lost much of the pocketability of the SC52. upside is that it fits in the hand better (for me).
> 
> it would be a great general purpose flashlight for those who prefer to stick to a more familiar battery type. in my case it will make a perfect night stand light. I like it :thumbsup:



Great way to sum it up!


----------



## magellan (May 18, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> Have you tried the SC32 yet? I think you would be pleasantly surprised with it, completely disappears in your pocket and you don't even know it's there but gives 400+ lumens with great tint and nice beam as well. Between the SC5 and SC32 I would use the SC32 for EDC use while the SC5 would be a nightstand light or hiking/outdoors as well. The SC5 is a little too heavy for EDC use for me but it's very rugged, the bezel on the front seems quite protective and thick. Anyways if you don't have the SC32 yet I think you should give it a try, great EDC light and super small/lightweight.



After reading the posts here which were very helpful I have ordered the SC32 and SC32w in both the AA and CR123A versions.

I have a lot of lights but these are my first Zebras. Given all the positive things I've heard I finally decided to dive in.


----------



## gkbain (May 18, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> For those interested I came up with a pocket clip solution for the Zebralights since they are notoriously known for being pocket shredders due to the very tight pocket clip. I'll try to post pics tonight, it's an aftermarket clip that costs $6-7 shipped and fits any Zebralight and transforms the stiff pocket clip to a nice firm one that won't shred pockets.


Tell us more about the pocket clip. The clips on the 5 & 52 are real shredders, especially the 5.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 18, 2015)

This thread I started about it, it works great and is cost effective at $6-7 a clip shipped. http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?401561-Zebralight-Pocket-Clip-Fix


----------



## Sarlix (May 18, 2015)

Can anyone comment about throw, does it go further than the SC52 at comparable outputs?

edit: Nevermind apparently I can't read, this has already been answered

:tired:


----------



## Mr Floppy (May 18, 2015)

markr6 said:


> The purple dot appears at about 4' and beyond. Any closer than that and I can't see it.



That to me is the LED is bit high in the reflector. I wonder if the solder is a bit thicker under your LED? I wonder why they went smooth with the reflector?


----------



## snowlover91 (May 18, 2015)

For those who asked for comparisons between the SC62w and the SC5w here are a few beamshot pics as well as a comparison between the two lights showing how similar they are in size. One thing I will mention is that even though the beam shots don't picture it very well, my SC5w has probably the best tint out of all my lights and is comparable with my Nichia 219 but slightly better to me. Also the better throw of the SC5 is apparent both in the pics and in real life, it isn't a tremendous difference but the hotspot is much more focused and less diffuse. All pictures were taken on the medium setting which is 45 lumens for the SC5w and 65 for the SC62w.






Closeup beam shots about 2.5 feet away. SC5w on the left and SC62w on the right.
​




5 foot beam shots. SC5w on the left and SC62w on the right.
​


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 19, 2015)

Received my SC5w today.

Very nice. It's definitely bigger and heavier than my SC52w, but at least so far it seems to maintain turbo for much longer. The SC52 has a 1 minute timer on 14500 compared to the SC5's 3-minute timer. But I've also experienced an issue on all my previous zebras in that once the cell gets depleted, they no longer run the full amount of time on turbo. Unclear whether this new light will have that issue, but so far it's looking good (running on brand new Eneloop Pro).

Just tried removing the clip on the SC5. This reduces the weight a bit and gives better grip. I'm undecided whether I'll keep it this way as like previous Zebras the corners of the clip mount are sharp. But the clip mount does seem to be a bit more flush, which should help.

My SC5w's tint is perfect, and there's no sign of any purple dot in the center of the beam. Looks like I lucked out on the tint lottery.


----------



## markr6 (May 19, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> But I've also experienced an issue on all my previous zebras in that once the cell gets depleted, they no longer run the full amount of time on turbo.



I was playing around with my SC52w yesterday. It would only stay in 500lm mode for about 2 seconds with a 14500. Voltage check gave 2 flashes. Measured 3.71v on the DMM.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 19, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I was playing around with my SC52w yesterday. It would only stay in 500lm mode for about 2 seconds with a 14500. Voltage check gave 2 flashes. Measured 3.71v on the DMM.



That sounds like a weak battery, unable to deliver the necessary current or has too much voltage sag.


----------



## markr6 (May 19, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> That sounds like a weak battery, unable to deliver the necessary current or has too much voltage sag.



It's Zebralights cell. I will be replacing it with a non-protected cell when the time comes, though.


----------



## chuckhov (May 19, 2015)

Actually, if it measured 3.71v it needs to be charged - That voltage level is an almost depleted battery, especially in a high drain situation.

Thanks,
-Chuck


----------



## holygeez03 (May 19, 2015)

Nice photos... I doubt I will be tempted enough to replace my SC52w... but I might try the SC5w if I need another AA Zebralight in the future...

I wonder if there will be a SC6 in the future with the new aesthetics?


----------



## markr6 (May 19, 2015)

chuckhov said:


> Actually, if it measured 3.71v it needs to be charged - That voltage level is an almost depleted battery, especially in a high drain situation.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Chuck



OK. I have the chart showing estimated OCV but can't seem to remember these values. I usually charge around 3.8v, but this cell really seems to kill itself sitting. I think I'm just used to 18650s, though.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 19, 2015)

markr6 said:


> It's Zebralights cell. I will be replacing it with a non-protected cell when the time comes, though.



Doesn't the SC52 have low-voltage protection built into the light? If so, why does Zebralight sell a protected cell with it?


----------



## markr6 (May 19, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Doesn't the SC52 have low-voltage protection built into the light? If so, why does Zebralight sell a protected cell with it?



It does. I only use unprotected cells anymore. I picked this one up while ordering the SC52w before I really knew enough about Li-Ions. I guess they sell protected just for an extra safety measure.


----------



## holygeez03 (May 19, 2015)

I assume it's for liability in case someone decides to us the ZL branded cell in a different, unprotected light... it's also not a bad secondary safety measure. I only have protected cells, just in case... I'm never really in a situation where I need runtime beyond a fully charged 14500... and if I might, I bring an extra AA or two.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 19, 2015)

I'm very tempted to file off the clip mount on the SC5.

I never use the clips anyways. And the clip on the SC5 looks particularly useless because the ribs on the bottom of the head don't have a flat area for the clip. Also the clip gets in the way of the beautiful knurling. Without the clip and clip mount it would feel much better in the hand.

This light feels quite chunky. The battery tube is thicker than it needs to be. This adds extra unneeded weight. Combine that with a NiMH cell and the entire light feels MUCH heavier than an SC52 or SC32. It's nearly the same size and weight as a DQG18650.


----------



## holygeez03 (May 19, 2015)

I too hate the lug that ZL uses for their screw-on clips... I love the removable deep carry clips that come on the headlights... which is a big reason why I EDC my H52Fw... If someone could modify a SC52 to accept the headlight clip, I would send it off.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 19, 2015)

Got out the scale and did a little measuring:

SC5w with Eneloop Pro installed (500 lumens) ..................................................... 89g
SC5w w/Eneloop Pro, but clip removed............................................................... 87g
Modded Convoy S2+ mini triple with sideswitch, and 18500 installed (2500+ lumens)... 83g
DQG18650 w/Samsung 20r 18650 installed (850 lumens) ....................................... 79g

I like the knurling on the SC5w, tint, UI and beam pattern, but given its extra bulk I'm not sure it's going to spend much time as my pocket EDC.


----------



## seasam (May 20, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> This light feels quite chunky. The battery tube is thicker than it needs to be. This adds extra unneeded weight. Combine that with a NiMH cell and the entire light feels MUCH heavier than an SC52 or SC32. It's nearly the same size and weight as a DQG18650.



it's thicker/heavier than it needs to be to simply house a AA, but maybe the extra mass was added to assist from a heat management perspective.

sc52 or sc32 definitely seem like a better pocket carry option. might as well pocket a 18650 light if you are carrying a SC5 :duh2:


----------



## snowlover91 (May 20, 2015)

I must say that after comparing the SC5 with the SC62 for a few days now I have some added thoughts that may help. While the SC5 certainly is a little heavier than the SC62 I find that the SC5 disappears in the pocket a little better due to its shorter length. The added thickness is negligible for me at least and one thing I will say is the SC5 is built like a tank. From an EDC perspective it has a thicker bezel protecting the front lens area while also offering a thicker battery tube which will prove to hold up better over time. The tint is pretty much perfect on my SC5w, it is almost a completely pure white and when comparing it to my other neutral lights and even a Nichia 219 I find that the tint of my SC5w is the most pleasing and pure white/neutral of any of them. Both the SC62 and SC5 are great lights and it really depends on what you use them for and how much brightness you'll need. For most of my EDC tasks I only use the medium modes so there isn't much difference between the two in that regard. To summarize I think the SC62 would have the greater advantage if you need the higher brightness for longer runtimes specifically for outdoor activities like hiking, camping, etc. However I find that the SC5 is a great nightstand/EDC light as it is thicker/heavier which will hold up to drops and other things better while providing enough light for most tasks. 

SC5w Advantages

Smaller length
Common battery
Greater durability for drops
Knurling provides better grip
Great EDC light for most tasks
Better throw

SC62w Advantages

Almost double the brightness
Longer runtimes at higher levels
Not as thick as the SC5w (negligible for EDC though)
Lightweight
Great camping/hiking light

Hope this helps those who are trying to figure out the role of the SC5 compared with the SC62 and SC52. If you already have an SC52 I wouldn't say it's necessary to upgrade but if you have the SC62 it might be a nice companion for EDC use and the advantage of using common AA batteries as well as the thicker bezel for better drop protection.


----------



## Amelia (May 20, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> I must say that after comparing the SC5 with the SC62 for a few days now I have some added thoughts that may help. While the SC5 certainly is a little heavier than the SC62 I find that the SC5 disappears in the pocket a little better due to its shorter length. The added thickness is negligible for me at least and one thing I will say is the SC5 is built like a tank. From an EDC perspective it has a thicker bezel protecting the front lens area while also offering a thicker battery tube which will prove to hold up better over time. The tint is pretty much perfect on my SC5w, it is almost a completely pure white and when comparing it to my other neutral lights and even a Nichia 219 I find that the tint of my SC5w is the most pleasing and pure white/neutral of any of them. Both the SC62 and SC5 are great lights and it really depends on what you use them for and how much brightness you'll need. For most of my EDC tasks I only use the medium modes so there isn't much difference between the two in that regard. To summarize I think the SC62 would have the greater advantage if you need the higher brightness for longer runtimes specifically for outdoor activities like hiking, camping, etc. However I find that the SC5 is a great nightstand/EDC light as it is thicker/heavier which will hold up to drops and other things better while providing enough light for most tasks.
> 
> SC5w Advantages
> 
> ...



What an excellent writeup! Thank you! 

I don't have an SC5, and probably won't be buying one, but I do have a SC52w and SC62w. You pretty decently summarized the difference between those 2 as well in your above post.

For me, it almost entirely boils down to weight/size vs. runtime. If I'm going camping, the SC52w/H52w combination is my first choice, unless I plan on an extended trip or one in which I plan to do several night hikes. In that case, I'll put up with the extra size/weight and take the SC62w/H600Fw combination. I like interchangeability of batteries, so I never (for example) take something like the SC52w/H600Fw combination.


----------



## Tixx (May 20, 2015)

Most of what I think has been said. With this light, just seems they should have made it CR123 compatible at this size. I think I just need something more to justify keeping it. 

I guess it just fills the gap where someone is not willing to go into the Li-Ion rechargeable world.


----------



## ahtoxa11 (May 20, 2015)

Tixx said:


> I guess it just fills the gap where someone is not willing to go into the Li-Ion rechargeable world.



Running on AAs is nice. I have an h52 that's basically treated as a backup when I go somewhere, because I can always score a pack of AAs at the minimum, just about anywhere.


----------



## StorminMatt (May 20, 2015)

Tixx said:


> Most of what I think has been said. With this light, just seems they should have made it CR123 compatible at this size. I think I just need something more to justify keeping it.
> 
> I guess it just fills the gap where someone is not willing to go into the Li-Ion rechargeable world.



Given the fact that the light is already a AA light and that 14500s are better from both the standpoint of capacity and available quality cells (compared to CR123), it would have been better to just make it 14500 compatible (like the SC52) rather than CR123 compatible.


----------



## Amelia (May 20, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Given the fact that the light is already a AA light and that 14500s are better from both the standpoint of capacity and available quality cells (compared to CR123), it would have been better to just make it 14500 compatible (like the SC52) rather than CR123 compatible.



I only own one CR123/16340 light (a leftover SRT3 from my multi-fueller project) for those very reasons. For me, CR123 just doesn't make sense. I've been tempted by the Zebralight H32w because of the PID, but I'm going to give it a pass because it just doesn't "fit in" with the rest of my lights and their AA/18650 scheme. Now... if a quality Japanese made 16340 cell ever arrives on the scene, I might reconsider...


----------



## Tixx (May 20, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Given the fact that the light is already a AA light and that 14500s are better from both the standpoint of capacity and available quality cells (compared to CR123), it would have been better to just make it 14500 compatible (like the SC52) rather than CR123 compatible.




I figured to differentiate it from the SC52, give is something unique rather than competing with the SC52. It would give potential sales a boost rather than choosing one or the other with the same platform.

Thinking SC80. smaller and weighs less.


----------



## Tixx (May 20, 2015)

Amelia said:


> I only own one CR123/16340 light (a leftover SRT3 from my multi-fueller project) for those very reasons. For me, CR123 just doesn't make sense. I've been tempted by the Zebralight H32w because of the PID, but I'm going to give it a pass because it just doesn't "fit in" with the rest of my lights and their AA/18650 scheme. Now... if a quality Japanese made 16340 cell ever arrives on the scene, I might reconsider...



Yeah, of course. If you only use AA/18650, then a light that takes CR123 size batteries would be the odd one out.


----------



## gkbain (May 22, 2015)

I have carried the sc5w for a few days now and agree with several of the posts. The lights specs doesn't seem to be very much at all bigger than the 52, but after caring the 5 for a few days the small size difference does make a difference. IMHO it is a better night stand light than an EDC. I have ordered the SC32w to try that. In the meantime I am back to caring the 52 for now just wish it was a w instead of a cw.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 22, 2015)

gkbain said:


> I have carried the sc5w for a few days now and agree with several of the posts. The lights specs doesn't seem to be very much at all bigger than the 52, but after caring the 5 for a few days the small size difference does make a difference. IMHO it is a better night stand light than an EDC. I have ordered the SC32w to try that. In the meantime I am back to caring the 52 for now just wish it was a w instead of a cw.



You'll really enjoy the SC32 I think, great little light and extremely compact. I have to say that the SC5 is a great EDC for me though and the extra thickness gives better durability. I really wish they would make another SC80 type of light which would be interchangeable between rcr and AA batteries. I still find that my favorite EDC light is still the EX11.2/D10 series from Nitecore.


----------



## StorminMatt (May 22, 2015)

Amelia said:


> I only own one CR123/16340 light (a leftover SRT3 from my multi-fueller project) for those very reasons. For me, CR123 just doesn't make sense. I've been tempted by the Zebralight H32w because of the PID, but I'm going to give it a pass because it just doesn't "fit in" with the rest of my lights and their AA/18650 scheme. Now... if a quality Japanese made 16340 cell ever arrives on the scene, I might reconsider...



What Zebralight needs is an extension tube for the SC32. That way, you can use it with a 14500 and get the benefits of PID (rather than having that stupid one minute timer like in the SC52).


----------



## marinemaster (May 22, 2015)

SC32 takes 17670 battery. If it would be a tad longer it would fit. It should not be difficult to do an extension. But then again it will be almost in the SC62 territory so really it will defend the purpose.....
I think the way ZL is making their offerings is perfect for AA, 123 and 18650 battery format. There is nothing to add or subtract.


----------



## hatman (May 22, 2015)

Out of the box, the tint and beam on my 5W are just about perfect -- they're beautiful!

Yes, it's an amazing amount of light for a standard eneloop.

Yes, it's a little chunkier than the 52. And, yes, the clip is tight. That's not all bad. For one thing, it doesn't heat up like the 52s or 62s. It doesn't feel like I could lose it, either.

Yes, the turn on and off button works perfectly.

Yes, the light feels good in my hand.

Did I mention the terrific tint and beam?

I really didn't need another light. Now that I have this I do!


----------



## Tixx (May 23, 2015)

I have my SC5w posted in the for sale section if anyone is interested. Perfect light, just overlaps what I already own and baby is stressing the budget anyways.


----------



## hatman (May 26, 2015)

Perhaps I have missed it -- has anyone compared output with Eneloop and Eneloop Pro?


----------



## Lite_me (May 27, 2015)

hatman said:


> Perhaps I have missed it -- has anyone compared output with Eneloop and Eneloop Pro?


I don't even own one and can answer that. Indistinguishable.


----------



## Al Thumbs (May 27, 2015)

My first impression of the SC5w is that it's a great light. Feels good in the hand, has the ZL interface, switch button has a perfect feel. And it's _bright_.

I compared it to an SC52w. The tint is similar, perhaps a little more neutral. The beam spot is tighter/smaller at the same distance. There is a hint of a dark shadow at the center of the beam. Some have noted this artifact, others not. I wrote to ZL to ask about it. Here's the company's reply:_
All center of the beam (hot spot) have more or less 'soft-focus shadow', due to the smooth reflector used in the SC5(w).

_​This beam artifact is very subtle, and I might not have noticed it at all had it not been flagged by others. And it is not a deal breaker for me; this is only detectable on a white wall, not in the real world.

The SC5w is markedly brighter on its highest setting than the SC52w, both powered by an Eneloop, but otherwise, the lights are more similar than different, and if you have one you might not need the other. But I will keep the SC5w and put it to use, to see what its strengths might be.

An aside on the ZL tight-clip pants-shredding issue: I have EDC'd the SC52 for two years and have not noticed any wear on my pocket. Maybe I wear tougher pants than some. I have also not noticed it fall out of my pocket and become lost. This is more important to me. I like the original clip.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 27, 2015)

Great summary there! How do you like the way it feels in the hand and the extra weight? What are your thoughts on the new tail cap spring design?


----------



## markr6 (May 27, 2015)

Al Thumbs said:


> _All center of the beam (hot spot) have more or less 'soft-focus shadow', due to the smooth reflector used in the SC5(w).
> _



I wonder if they are referring to the purplish dot I had on mine, or something else? If it were just a shadow as in a dim spot, I could live with that, but not the purple surrounded by a nice tint.


----------



## Al Thumbs (May 27, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> How do you like the way it feels in the hand and the extra weight?


 
The light feels good in the hand. I notice it is heavier than the SC52w, but the weight goes well with the size.



> What are your thoughts on the new tail cap spring design?



Unless it becomes unreliable or fails, I don't much care about it.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 27, 2015)

Al Thumbs said:


> The light feels good in the hand. I notice it is heavier than the SC52w, but the weight goes well with the size.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it becomes unreliable or fails, I don't much care about it.



I actually think the new tail cap spring design may be better since it won't scratch up batteries. All my lights with standard springs at the tail cap end up scratching the back of the batteries which isn't a huge problem but I've noticed the new design of the SC5 both makes it easier to screw the tail cap on as well as prevents the battery from being scratched. I hope to see a similar design implemented on the SC32 and 62 lights. The extra heft is nice and as you mention well balanced. I love the tint on my copy as well it's the purest white emitter I have even better than my Nichia 219.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 27, 2015)

Has anyone done any real run-time tests?


----------



## hatman (May 28, 2015)

Comparing the SC5W with eneloop and the SC52W with lithium ion, I don't see a lot of difference with both on high.


----------



## HikingMano (May 28, 2015)

Ugh, just received my SC5w and it's got a noticeable purple tint right in the center of the hotspot. I don't think it's an area of soft focus or whatever, it's definitely purple. Looks horrible against my Nichia 219 and worse than my greenish SC52w. I don't want to settle for yet another sub-par beam just because I don't want to deal with the hassle of returning.


----------



## snowlover91 (May 28, 2015)

hatman said:


> Comparing the SC5W with eneloop and the SC52W with lithium ion, I don't see a lot of difference with both on high.



Shouldn't be much difference since both are rated at 500 lumens at the highest setting level except the SC5 should last an additional 2 minutes on turbo.


----------



## newbie66 (May 29, 2015)

Once the voltage drops a bit on the eneloop, will the output be the same compared with a 14500?


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 29, 2015)

newbie66 said:


> Once the voltage drops a bit on the eneloop, will the output be the same compared with a 14500?



Not sure. Haven't tried it.

I know on my SC52, 62 and 32 when the voltage drops a little bit, they'll stop running in turbo or high at all and will drop down to medium within seconds. So far my SC5w seems to reliably stay in turbo much longer than all 3 of those other lights even on a partially drained cell.

It's unknown whether an SC5 can run on 14500. Zebralight isn't saying, and so far no one else in the world has been daring enough to try a 14500 in theirs and publish the result.


----------



## markr6 (May 29, 2015)

HikingMano said:


> Ugh, just received my SC5w and it's got a noticeable purple tint right in the middle of the hotspot. I don't think it's an area of soft focus or whatever, it's definitely purple. Looks horrible against my Nichia 219 and worse than my greenish SC52w. I don't want to settle for yet another sub-par beam just because I don't want to deal with the hassle of returning.



Same here, I had to return it. I wonder if this happened to more than we think and some people just don't notice it or their eyes can't see it? I noticed it right away without wall hunting.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 29, 2015)

HikingMano said:


> Ugh, just received my SC5w and it's got a noticeable purple tint right in the middle of the hotspot. I don't think it's an area of soft focus or whatever, it's definitely purple. Looks horrible against my Nichia 219 and worse than my greenish SC52w. I don't want to settle for yet another sub-par beam just because I don't want to deal with the hassle of returning.




Don't want the hassle of returning it? 

No problem! ... you should take one for the team and be the first in the world to try a 14500 in it!!!! If we're lucky it will output 1,000 lumens and be like a mini SC62 in output. If we're unlucky it will fry the driver and kill the light.

After you test it be sure to come back here and post your results!


----------



## jmoyat (May 29, 2015)

Just ordered a CS5w, thanks to this thread (not sure if it's a good or bad thing.. for me or my wallet )
At that price, I don't think I'll try to stick a 14500 in it!


----------



## snowlover91 (May 29, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Same here, I had to return it. I wonder if this happened to more than we think and some people just don't notice it or their eyes can't see it? I noticed it right away without wall hunting.



I used a DSLR camera and stopped the brightness down to different levels and used different white balance settings and wasn't able to detect it on my copy and I didn't see it with my eyes either. From what I can tell it sounds like there may be a first batch that had either LED issues or the LED was mounted/glued too high causing the purple tint. My guess would be a bad batch of LED's since some had this issue and others did not but I'm not really sure. I'm waiting for someone to try a 14500 battery


----------



## markr6 (May 29, 2015)

I ALMOST tried a 14500 since I was so pissed about the purple issue. But I resisted!

I did however just try 2xCR123 in my SC62w. No problems...yet!


----------



## HikingMano (May 29, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Same here, I had to return it. I wonder if this happened to more than we think and some people just don't notice it or their eyes can't see it? I noticed it right away without wall hunting.



I hit it on a white wall first because I was going straight to programming. So disappointing. 



Fireclaw18 said:


> Don't want the hassle of returning it?
> 
> No problem! ... you should take one for the team and be the first in the world to try a 14500 in it!!!![...]



Ha, no thanks 




snowlover91 said:


> I used a DSLR camera and stopped the brightness down to different levels and used different white balance settings and wasn't able to detect it on my copy and I didn't see it with my eyes either. From what I can tell it sounds like there may be a first batch that had either LED issues or the LED was mounted/glued too high causing the purple tint. My guess would be a bad batch of LED's since some had this issue and others did not but I'm not really sure. I'm waiting for someone to try a 14500 battery



Yeah, I'm sure some of us were just unlucky... again..... argh.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 29, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I ALMOST tried a 14500 since I was so pissed about the purple issue. But I resisted!
> 
> I did however just try 2xCR123 in my SC62w. No problems...yet!



Nooo! Drop the resistance... YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO BE THE FIRST TO TRY A 14500 in it!!!!!!:twothumbs


----------



## chuckhov (May 29, 2015)

DON'T DO IT!

-Chuck


----------



## gunga (May 30, 2015)

Just be happy with 500 lumens.


----------



## chuckhov (May 30, 2015)

Yeah!

Like the man said.

I know that you have bigger lights, so why risk destroying it?

-Chuck


----------



## Rastus9 (Jun 1, 2015)

Just got my SC5 and it has a slight purple tint to the beam. Most people who have had this issue have reported it to be in the centre spot. However, my centre spot is white ,but, the rest of the beam has this slight purple tint. Is this normal, has anybody else seen this?
thanks for your help.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 1, 2015)

One thing to keep in mind is that unlike prior Zebras, this one has a smooth reflector. This gives more throw than an orange peel reflector, but artifacts or rings in the beam pattern won't get smoothed out.

Personally, I'm quite impressed with my SC5w's beam pattern. Even though it has a smooth reflector there are no visible rings and the beam pattern is quite smooth and clean. It has the best pattern of any smooth reflector light I own. I think they did a great job with it.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 1, 2015)

Rastus9 said:


> Just got my SC5 and it has a slight purple tint to the beam. Most people who have had this issue have reported it to be in the centre spot. However, my centre spot is white ,but, the rest of the beam has this slight purple tint. Is this normal, has anybody else seen this?
> thanks for your help.



Cree LEDs are normally white in the hot spot, green in the corona, and purple in the spill. Some better than others, it's a bit of a gamble, but they all have it.


----------



## Lite_me (Jun 1, 2015)

Rastus9 said:


> Just got my SC5 and it has a slight purple tint to the beam. Most people who have had this issue have reported it to be in the centre spot. However, my centre spot is white ,but, the rest of the beam has this slight purple tint. Is this normal, has anybody else seen this?
> thanks for your help.



From what you're describing, it sound perfectly normal.


----------



## hatman (Jun 2, 2015)

The tint, beam and hot spot are so beautiful I can't wait to get out at night and walk the dog!

My two wonderful SC52ws are relegated to backup duty.


----------



## espresso (Jun 2, 2015)

How does SC5 turbo hold on half empty / near empty Eneloop? Does it still work? And how is turbo performance on non Eneloop NiMH batteries and perhaps high drain alkalines?
I already have a small 510lm PD22UE which runs on 16340 but one AA light would be really nice.


----------



## Al Thumbs (Jun 2, 2015)

Rastus9 said:


> Just got my SC5 and it has a slight purple tint to the beam. Most people who have had this issue have reported it to be in the centre spot. However, my centre spot is white ,but, the rest of the beam has this slight purple tint. Is this normal, has anybody else seen this?
> thanks for your help.



If your hot spot is white, do you notice the purple tint in the spill in real-world use? Is it only apparent on a test surface (i.e., a white wall)? I hope I am not stereotyping, but I have always assumed that when someone chooses a cool-white light over a warm or neutral light, that the user is more interested in maximum lumens and tint variations are less important.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 2, 2015)

espresso said:


> How does SC5 turbo hold on half empty / near empty Eneloop? Does it still work? And how is turbo performance on non Eneloop NiMH batteries and perhaps high drain alkalines?
> I already have a small 510lm PD22UE which runs on 16340 but one AA light would be really nice.



I didn't do much of a test on that for mine but I did take an Eneloop Pro that was about half empty (or half full depending on perspective haha) and the brightness seemed the same. Keep in mind this is from a visual standpoint so I'm sure if you tested it with equipment like selfbuilt does you may or may not see a decrease from a depleted cell. However I will say the 3 mins at turbo seems very well regulated and I can't notice a change in brightness and a depleted cell still gave similar results.


----------



## Rastus9 (Jun 2, 2015)

Thanks for the replies. It sounds like the purple tint in the spill is fairly normal. The center spot is very white, it is only in the spill. It is more noticeable when I compare it to my SC52. Would the smooth reflector also show more purple in the tint when compared to the orange peel reflector in the SC52? I can only see the purple against a white wall and probably not even tell when I am using the torch. I only thought it might be an issue when other people commented on the purple tint in the hot spot.
Thanks


----------



## karbon007 (Jun 2, 2015)

ugh...may have to get a 52 again then...


----------



## recDNA (Jun 2, 2015)

Is it possible to program turbo on first click?


----------



## Amelia (Jun 2, 2015)

recDNA said:


> Is it possible to program turbo on first click?



That's the way all Zebralights are set up - one fast click (from off...) goes to the highest mode.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 2, 2015)

Amelia said:


> That's the way all Zebralights are set up - one fast click (from off...) goes to the highest mode.



Not exactly. It goes to either the highest mode (H1), or a secondary mode you program in (H2a, H2b, etc). You choose which is the default.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 2, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Not exactly. It goes to either the highest mode (H1), or a secondary mode you program in (H2a, H2b, etc). You choose which is the default.



Correct. You need a fast double-click to switch back to turbo if you left the light in the lower of the 2 high modes. I often forget this - as I just leave my high mode in H1 all the time and never use H2, I just use M1/M2 for my next step down from "Turbo".


----------



## recDNA (Jun 2, 2015)

Thanks for the thorough explanation


----------



## andrea_iavarone (Jun 3, 2015)

I have the sc52w already. I would like to buy the sc5w. The sc52w runtime is tested with a eneloop by 2000mah. The runtime of new sc5, however, is tested with eneloop 2500mah (stepdown time excluded) That means the old sc52 has longer runtime with a eneloop pro, regarding the sc5.
That is the question: a eneloop pro (2500mah) it lasts longer with sc52w or sc5w?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 3, 2015)

andrea_iavarone said:


> I have the sc52w already. I would like to buy the sc5w. The sc52w runtime is tested with a eneloop by 2000mah. The runtime of new sc5, however, is tested with eneloop 2500mah (stepdown time excluded) That means the old sc52 has longer runtime with a eneloop pro, regarding the sc5.
> That is the question: a eneloop pro (2500mah) it lasts longer with sc52w or sc5w?



Have you actually measured the run-time on your SC52w? I have a couple of them, and their run-times vary by about 20% from each other. And neither of those run-times match up very well with the published specs. So, I don't think we can compare the published specs between the SC52 and SC5, because they're likely not accurate.

The only way to know the run-times for sure, is if people do several tests and publish them here. We can then take an average. I haven't seen any run times for the SC5, on any battery.


----------



## andrea_iavarone (Jun 3, 2015)

I've tested my sc52w in H1 and M1 2 weeks ago: whit eneloop 50 min in H1, 7 hours and 10 min in M1. 
Whit eneloop pro 62 min in H1, 7 hours and 52 min in M1.
All tests including stepdowns.
You think the sc5w could do better?
On the zebralight site, about sc5w say: Remaining battery power, about 10-20%, after step-down are not counted towards the runtimes


----------



## markr6 (Jun 3, 2015)

andrea_iavarone said:


> I've tested my sc52w in H1 and M1 2 weeks ago: whit eneloop 50 min in H1, 7 hours and 10 min in M1.
> Whit eneloop pro 62 min in H1, 7 hours and 52 min in M1.
> All tests including stepdowns.
> You think the sc5w could do better?
> From zebralight site, about sc5w say: Remaining battery power, about 10-20%, after step-down are not counted towards the runtimes



Thanks for that test info. I may try my SC52w to see if mine is close. If so, I'd rather have the slightly less runtime and better LSD from the regular Eneloop.


----------



## thedoc007 (Jun 3, 2015)

Al Thumbs said:


> If your hot spot is white, do you notice the purple tint in the spill in real-world use? Is it only apparent on a test surface (i.e., a white wall)? I hope I am not stereotyping, but I have always assumed that when someone chooses a cool-white light over a warm or neutral light, that the user is more interested in maximum lumens and tint variations are less important.



I wouldn't make that assumption. I don't chase lumens...I have dozens of lights, and know that a ten percent difference in output is pretty small. I simply PREFER cool white. Not because of the higher output...I just like the color better. The worst tints I have ever seen (horrible green) were neutral, too, so that is one more reason I usually pick cool. I would MUCH rather have a slightly blue or purplish tint than yellow or green.


----------



## ronniepudding (Jun 3, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> I simply PREFER cool white. Not because of the higher output...I just like the color better.



Apologies if this is slightly off topic, but I've recently come to appreciate that 1) cool white and 2) 'good tint' are not mutually exclusive. Just as neutral white doesn't have to be green or yellow, cool white doesn't have to be purple or blue.  

When people are posting here about ZL SC5 and SC52, they seem to be almost always talking about the 'W' version. I understand why the 'W' version is so popular these days... I have an H52W L2, and the tint is wonderful. Green tint used to be a common Zebralight issue in the past, but now it seems like with the latest version of the SC52W (and perhaps to some extent the SC5W?) there has been a big improvement in tint quality and consistency. I'm curious if the latest cool white versions are equally as wonderful, but I'm not finding much info on that subject. 

So, for those folks who prefer cool white and have a later model SC52 L2 or SC5, how has Zebralight been doing recently with their tints on the cooler end of the spectrum? Have ZL cool whites improved alongside their neutral siblings?


----------



## jmoyat (Jun 4, 2015)

Got my SC5w today and.... ooooh well, there are no words! Tint is perfect (for my tastes), and maybe because it's my first Zebra light, I find it amazing for a "production" light! I did switch the clip for McGizmo bead blasted, I think the shiny clip that came with the light did not fit the character of the light. My new clip does not fit well though, clip is too curvy - I got some work to do here...
Ok, pictures are worth a 1000 words:


----------



## Lite_me (Jun 4, 2015)

^^ Really nice shots there. Really dig the spider web. Thanks!


----------



## markr6 (Jun 4, 2015)

Lite_me said:


> ^^ Really nice shots there. Really dig the spider web. Thanks!



LOL the first thing that caught my eye...I just want to reach thru my monitor and knock it down!

Great looking clip on that!!


----------



## jds1 (Jun 4, 2015)

Nice photos Jmayot. Placing my order today! 

Jeff


----------



## hatman (Jun 4, 2015)

How does the clip not fit -- it looks great!


----------



## jmoyat (Jun 4, 2015)

McGizmo clip is curved, SC5 clip is flat.. It works but not a great fit


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 4, 2015)

Can't you just rough up the ZL clip?


----------



## jmoyat (Jun 4, 2015)

That's what I will end up doing, rough up the original clip. It's a nice shaped clip, works well but I find it too shiny and looks too bling bling next to the great matte finish of the light


----------



## easymac314 (Jun 4, 2015)

I have yet to own a zebralight and have been waiting to see what everyone's opinion of the sc5 was. I am deciding between the sc62, 52, and 5. My current edc light is a big old coast 3xAAA that is larger than all the above lights. I see lots of comments about the sc5 weight and size. Is the 1xAA lights that much nicer to carry than the sc62? (Granted any of the above is smaller then my current light.)


----------



## hatman (Jun 4, 2015)

Although I have several more expensive lights, the SC62w and the SC5w are my current favorites. I would not want to be without either.


----------



## 18650 (Jun 4, 2015)

easymac314 said:


> I have yet to own a zebralight and have been waiting to see what everyone's opinion of the sc5 was. I am deciding between the sc62, 52, and 5. My current edc light is a big old coast 3xAAA that is larger than all the above lights. I see lots of comments about the sc5 weight and size. Is the 1xAA lights that much nicer to carry than the sc62? (Granted any of the above is smaller then my current light.)


 If it's between those 3 and you're fine with lithium ion batteries, I'd go with the SC62. It'll blow you away. I find the larger SC62 easier to hold than the SC52 size and I don't have large hands.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 4, 2015)

easymac314 said:


> I have yet to own a zebralight and have been waiting to see what everyone's opinion of the sc5 was. I am deciding between the sc62, 52, and 5. My current edc light is a big old coast 3xAAA that is larger than all the above lights. I see lots of comments about the sc5 weight and size. Is the 1xAA lights that much nicer to carry than the sc62? (Granted any of the above is smaller then my current light.)



If you want to stick with AA lights I would recommend the SC5 to you as it'll give you roughly 500 lumens on turbo with eneloop or eneloop pro batteries while giving the flexibility of using regular AA batteries if needed. It also is a little heavier but I find this weight nicely distributed in the hand and the knurling is quite nice. If you want to go the lithium route or need more than 500 lumens or longer run times at 500+ lumens the higher capacity 18650 battery used in the SC62 would be a better option. I will say in my tests the SC5 had better throw than even the SC62 at almost double the brightness so that would be another consideration. Really both of them are great lights and you can't go wrong with either IMO.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 4, 2015)

easymac314 said:


> I have yet to own a zebralight and have been waiting to see what everyone's opinion of the sc5 was. I am deciding between the sc62, 52, and 5. My current edc light is a big old coast 3xAAA that is larger than all the above lights. I see lots of comments about the sc5 weight and size. Is the 1xAA lights that much nicer to carry than the sc62? (Granted any of the above is smaller then my current light.)



My opinion: go for the SC62d. It's bright enough for everything I've ever needed a compact non-thrower for, and has a beautiful high-CRI tint. SC62w is very nice too... I'd take either one before I'd even consider an AA zebra. I've owned almost all the "SC" Zebralights except the SC5, which I'm really not interested in because of lacking 14500 support.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 4, 2015)

If the size and battery format of the SC62 is not an issue, it does pretty much everything better than the 52 or 5... the only downfall is that it gets a bit warm on H1... but H2 is fine for almost all needs. 

I recommend the SC62w.


----------



## thedoc007 (Jun 4, 2015)

easymac314 said:


> I have yet to own a zebralight and have been waiting to see what everyone's opinion of the sc5 was. I am deciding between the sc62, 52, and 5. My current edc light is a big old coast 3xAAA that is larger than all the above lights. I see lots of comments about the sc5 weight and size. Is the 1xAA lights that much nicer to carry than the sc62? (Granted any of the above is smaller then my current light.)



Don't forget about the SC600, either. A little brighter and a little more throw than the SC62w, and due to the larger size, it can manage the heat better. I also like the look of the SC600 MUCH better...the ribbing on the SC62 is just not to my taste, nor as comfortable in hand.

Either way, if you don't mind the size, go with the 18650-based lights. One 18650 is equivalent to four AA batteries...the 18650 is the pinnacle of battery tech right now, and per gram, or per volume, it blows any kind of AA out of the water. You'll get the option of much more brightness, vastly more runtime, and a built-in battery gauge that actually works.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 5, 2015)

Since he is currently deliberating between the 62 and 52/5... I am assuming size is somewhat of a concern... ruling out the 600. He also mention it being an EDC light and the 600 is way too big for that IMO.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 5, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> I will say in my tests the SC5 had better throw than even the SC62 at almost double the brightness so that would be another consideration. Really both of them are great lights and you can't go wrong with either IMO.



That is very hard to believe... but smooth reflectors can really change things. If it is true, then my concern is that the SC5's hotspot is too small and annoyingly concentrated compared to the spill. For this type of EDC light, I much prefer a non-defined hotspot that melts into the spill. That makes the beam way more useful since your eyes will adjust to the intense hotspot, making the spill light too perceptibly dim.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 5, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> Since he is currently deliberating between the 62 and 52/5... I am assuming size is somewhat of a concern... ruling out the 600. He also mention it being an EDC light and the 600 is way too big for that IMO.



For me, size is the most important thing in an EDC. I used to only carry AAA lights, but the size of the SC52 convinced me that a AA of its tiny size could be carried instead.

I'm not sure if the SC5 would be too big. Also, from what I've read, the clip of the SC5 could be a problem because it fits against a gnarled part of the body. The SC52's clip is tight, but it sits on a smooth part of the body so it's not a clothing-shredder.

SC62 would probably be too big for me to EDC most of the time. But it does sound like a great light.


----------



## thedoc007 (Jun 5, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> Since he is currently deliberating between the 62 and 52/5... I am assuming size is somewhat of a concern... ruling out the 600. He also mention it being an EDC light and the 600 is way too big for that IMO.



An SC600 Mk II L2 is my primary EDC - it isn't too large for me. It will still be smaller than the light he is currently using for EDC...so I don't think we can rule it out without hearing from easymac314. I'm not pushing anything...but I do think the SC600 should at least be part of the conversation. He may (like you) feel it is too large, but I would be remiss to not ensure he has at least considered it.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 5, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> For me, size is the most important thing in an EDC. I used to only carry AAA lights, but the size of the SC52 convinced me that a AA of its tiny size could be carried instead.
> 
> I'm not sure if the SC5 would be too big. Also, from what I've read, the clip of the SC5 could be a problem because it fits against a gnarled part of the body. The SC52's clip is tight, but it sits on a smooth part of the body so it's not a clothing-shredder.
> 
> SC62 would probably be too big for me to EDC most of the time. But it does sound like a great light.



The clip isn't much of a problem if a person swaps it out like I did mine, makes it perfect that way and the size for EDC isn't bad at all I'm a fairly small guy and couldn't really notice it was there for most EDC use. For an aa light it's probably one of the best you could get for under $100 for its combination of brightness, relatively small size and UI. 

The smooth reflector does make a big difference and it is also a little deeper than the SC62. The combination of it being slightly deeper and a smooth reflector is what gives it the better throw. My tests weren't very scientific in it but merely were as simple as pointing it at a distant tree and seeing which one illuminated it better. While the SC62w I had was about twice the lumens it also spreads the beam out quicker over long distances vs the SC5w. It's not a huge difference but it is noticeable. The hot spot isn't too focused though for EDC use.


----------



## hatman (Jun 5, 2015)

Amelia said:


> I've owned almost all the "SC" Zebralights except the SC5, which I'm really not interested in because of lacking 14500 support.



I was skeptical, too, until I tried the SC5w.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 5, 2015)

hatman said:


> I was skeptical, too, until I tried the SC5w.



I'm interested in what changed your mind. Aesthetics? Runtime? 5 Min. Turbo? Tint? Something else?
I've got such an investment in 14500 cells and lights that use them, it's hard for me to justify having 1 light that's "different" and won't take 14500...


----------



## markr6 (Jun 5, 2015)

It wasn't much of a 14500 vs AA for me. The SC52 just felt so much smaller even though it didn't look like much on paper. That slight reduction in body and weight on the 52 really makes a difference.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 5, 2015)

markr6 said:


> It wasn't much of a 14500 vs AA for me. The SC52 just felt so much smaller even though it didn't look like much on paper. That slight reduction in body and weight on the 52 really makes a difference.



I understand where you're coming from. When I did my recent comparison of the S200C2 and Predator Pro, one of the most surprising things I found had to do with size and perceived bulk. The Predator Pro is identical in size to the S200C2, with one minor difference - the Predator bezel is about 1/8" smaller diameter. This minor difference in one dimension made ALL the difference in pocketing the light, it just "seemed" like a smaller light even though the reality of it is that there's minimal difference between the two. I suspect there might be something similar happening between the SC52 and SC5.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 5, 2015)

Amelia said:


> I'm interested in what changed your mind. Aesthetics? Runtime? 5 Min. Turbo? Tint? Something else?
> I've got such an investment in 14500 cells and lights that use them, it's hard for me to justify having 1 light that's "different" and won't take 14500...



Since the SC5 has better specs with an Eneloop, than the SC52 has with a 14500, I don't really see your point.

If you're disputing the specs, then I can understand, but we'll have to wait for a real comparison review to know for sure. Hopefully selfbuilt will do one.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 5, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Since the SC5 has better specs with an Eneloop, than the SC52 has with a 14500, I don't really see your point.
> 
> If you're disputing the specs, then I can understand, but we'll have to wait for a real comparison review to know for sure. Hopefully selfbuilt will do one.



I'm not disputing the specs, I'm just not seeing the advantage for how I use these lights. 3 min. of turbo doesn't really excite me, I think the longest I've ever used the turbo mode on my SC52w is probably a minute or so... if that. According to the specs, if you compare lumen output and runtime between the 2 lights, it actually shows that the SC5 is slightly LESS efficient at using the Eneloops energy than the SC52 (when the lights are in non-turbo modes), which is another reason I'm not really excited to buy the SC5.

To each his/her own though... for many people that 3 min. of Turbo with an eneloop is a big deal and worth buying the light for, and I can't fault that. We all have our own way of using lights an our own particular set of requirements. Some people have zero interest in lights with moonlight mode, I run my lights in those modes probably half the time they're on!


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 5, 2015)

It's actually not 5 minutes of turbo but 3 mins, it is rated as 3 mins and my test gave 3 mins and 2 seconds before stepping down. From a visual standpoint it remained constant and not enough I could tell if it dimmed or not. Using a DSLR camera with fixed shutter speed and white balance I also found that partially depleted cells gave similar turbo levels whereas I've heard many report that the SC52 would quickly lose the brightness once the Eneloop was partially depleted. The new SC5 seems to remedy that from my tests by maintaining brightness much better even with depleted cells and this is probably due to the circuit being designed exclusively around AA batteries. This to me is a big advantage of the SC5 light over the SC52. 

Regarding the weight/size difference, some may not like the extra size and weight for EDC use and that's more of personal preference of what you like. I actually like a heavier light for EDC as it feels more sturdy and gives a more reassuring feeling that if I drop it it'll be okay. It also for me provides a better grip and I like the look better compared with the SC52. It's all a matter of personal preference with the small size/weight difference but I like the SC5 for EDC use as well as around the house. The ability to use common AA batteries for emergencies (hurricane prone region) is a big plus as well since any power outages I may have to resort to AA batteries.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 5, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> It's actually not 5 minutes of turbo but 3 mins, it is rated as 3 mins and my test gave 3 mins and 2 seconds before stepping down....



Thanks for catching that! Fixed.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 5, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Since the SC5 has better specs with an Eneloop, than the SC52 has with a 14500, I don't really see your point.
> 
> If you're disputing the specs, then I can understand, but we'll have to wait for a real comparison review to know for sure. Hopefully selfbuilt will do one.


Another charger and more batteries.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 5, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> It's actually not 5 minutes of turbo but 3 mins, it is rated as 3 mins and my test gave 3 mins and 2 seconds before stepping down. From a visual standpoint it remained constant and not enough I could tell if it dimmed or not. Using a DSLR camera with fixed shutter speed and white balance I also found that partially depleted cells gave similar turbo levels whereas I've heard many report that the SC52 would quickly lose the brightness once the Eneloop was partially depleted. The new SC5 seems to remedy that from my tests by maintaining brightness much better even with depleted cells and this is probably due to the circuit being designed exclusively around AA batteries. This to me is a big advantage of the SC5 light over the SC52.



That is a big improvement. Because, yes, the SC52 definitely isn't as bright with partially discharged Eneloops, compared to fresh Eneloops.

Does anyone have any tailcap current measurements of the SC5, to see how many amps it's using from an Eneloop? I get about 2.5 amps for the SC52, but only with a fresh Eneloop. It drops as the Eneloop depletes. Down to about 2 amps within a few minutes.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 5, 2015)

That's why 14500 better


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 5, 2015)

recDNA said:


> That's why 14500 better



Yes, it is in the SC52. But since the SC5 does even better with an Eneloop, I don't think lack of 14500 support is a reason to pass on the SC5.

The slight body size difference, maybe. Otherwise, it's a slam-dunk for the SC5 over the SC52.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 5, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Yes, it is in the SC52. But since the SC5 does even better with an Eneloop, I don't think lack of 14500 support is a reason to pass on the SC5.
> 
> The slight body size difference, maybe. Otherwise, it's a slam-dunk for the SC5 over the SC52.



Maybe... but there are some reservations.

1 - If you don't have many eneloops or charger(s) for them, but have plenty of 14500, then the SC52 makes more sense. This is my situation.
2 - The SC52 is smaller/lighter, as you brought up.
3 - Some of the "purple eye" tint reports have me concerned.
4 - The SC52 is more efficient at using Eneloop energy in terms of non-turbo runtimes, Zebralight's own specs show this.
5 - If every other AA light you own can use 14500 (my situation), then there is a chance (however slight...) that I might accidentally install a 14500 in the SC5. Char-broiled light.
6 - If I'm using one of my other AA lights (like the H52Fw) with 14500 along side the SC5, then I can't swap batteries if the SC5 runs out of juice and I'd rather run it than the headlamp. Battery interchangeability is very important to me when in the back country.

So, it's not entirely "cut and dried" as a slam-dunk for the SC5, in fact I'm still looking for a reason to buy one OTHER than the SC5's better appearance and heatsinking.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 5, 2015)

Amelia said:


> Maybe... but there are some reservations.
> 
> 1 - If you don't have many eneloops or charger(s) for them, but have plenty of 14500, then the SC52 makes more sense. This is my situation.
> 2 - The SC52 is smaller/lighter, as you brought up.
> ...




A few points:
a. We don't actually know what will happen if a 14500 is used in the SC5. Nobody's tried it. I even asked Zebralight if it would fry the light and they responded that they didn't know and haven't tested it.
b. One advantage of lithium-ion is the battery itself is substantially lighter than an Eneloop. Couple this with a lighter weight flashlight and the difference is quite noticeable.
c. On the other hand, the SC5 feels MUCH more secure in the hand than the SC52. Knurling makes a huge difference.
d. If you don't need the pocket clip, the SC5 is even better. Remove the clip and the light feels fantastic in the hand. In contrast, remove the clip on an SC52 and it feels awful.
e. SC5 should throw marginally further than then SC52 due to bigger smooth reflector. Minor point as neither light is a thrower though.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 5, 2015)

I figured a summary of the advantages of each light, the SC5 and the SC52 would be helpful in helping those interested in the two lights to see which one meets their needs better. I'll summarize only the advantages here based on my experience, what I've read and researched and the reports of others. 

SC52 Advantages

14500 support
Smaller body and lighter
Head has smooth spot for clip which is easier on clothing
Slightly better battery efficiency at medium and high
Lower moonlight mode
Cheaper

SC5 Advantages

3 minute turbo (1 min for SC52)
Maintains intensity better with depleted cells
Better throw
Superior tail cap spring design
Nice knurling/grip
Better moonlight efficiency


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 6, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> Maintains intensity better with depleted cells



This is actually the thing I like about this light most compared to my other Zebralights.

My SC52w, SC62w, and SC32w all lose access to high and turbo once the cell gets to around 3.8v or so. At that point, the light will start stepping down to medium almost immediately. This more than anything makes me not want to EDC any of these lights.

In contrast, my SC5w seems to maintain access to the full 3 minute turbo even on a depleted cell.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 6, 2015)

Agreed, it seemed to maintain the turbo much better and probably has to do with them dropping 14500 support so a circuit could be designed to achieve the efficiency needed to keep the turbo mode even with partially depleted batteries. I know several members who have the SC52 reported that after using an Eneloop a few times they either lost turbo or it significantly dimmed. My SC5w seems to maintain brightness even on an Eneloop Pro which was at about 50-60%.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 6, 2015)

As for efficiency advantages/disadvantages, I'll believe it when I see some actual run-time and lumen output tests. My own tests of SC52's show they deviate a lot from published specs.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Yes, it is in the SC52. But since the SC5 does even better with an Eneloop, I don't think lack of 14500 support is a reason to pass on the SC5.
> 
> The slight body size difference, maybe. Otherwise, it's a slam-dunk for the SC5 over the SC52.


I mentioned the reason earlier. I already have 14500 and chargers. I do not have eneloop and charger. I don't wish to embark on yet more clutter.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 6, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I mentioned the reason earlier. I already have 14500 and chargers. I do not have eneloop and charger. I don't wish to embark on yet more clutter.



If I were to go with only lithium-ion cells, I'd go for the SC62. You may as well get a light that runs off a proper lithium-ion battery, to give you a decent run time.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> If I were to go with only lithium-ion cells, I'd go for the SC62. You may as well get a light that runs off a proper lithium-ion battery, to give you a decent run time.



This is excellent advice - unless you ALSO want to be able to use cheap, widely available AA lithium primaries, eneloops, or (*gasp*) alkaleaks in your light. I love my SC62's to death, but if I was travelling into a third world country or somewhere remote and rural, I'd probably take a SC52 just for battery options. Thinking of going solar on the 18650's though... which of course would change everything.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 6, 2015)

Amelia said:


> This is excellent advice - unless you ALSO want to be able to use cheap, widely available AA lithium primaries, eneloops, or (*gasp*) alkaleaks in your light. I love my SC62's to death, but if I was travelling into a third world country or somewhere remote and rural, I'd probably take a SC52 just for battery options. Thinking of going solar on the 18650's though... which of course would change everything.



Going solar is another reason to prefer 14500s over Eneloops. Given the solar charging options available, it's just alot easier to charge Li-Ion with solar than NiMH - especially if you value being able to charge your cells in a timely manner. As for 14500 vs 18650, I wouldn't say that 18650s are necessarily ALWAYS the better choice. Not only are 18650 lights bigger and more awkward to pocket carry, but so is a box with two cells. And you may not even need the brightness or runtime if an 18650 light for your uses. In situations like this where you want to charge with solar, a 14500 light with a couple of extra cells and a super small amd lightweight Xtar MC0 charger might be just what you want.

With all this said, probably the best Zebralight for the situation would be an SC32w. I actually like this light BETTER than the SC52. Not only does it have PID control rather than a timer stepdown on H1. But it actually seems to run longer for a given battery capacity on the other modes (maybe because it is optimized for lithium). Too bad there aren't any really good 16340s. It would be REALLY nice if Zebralight could make an extension tube for that light to allow the use of a 16340.


----------



## thedoc007 (Jun 6, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> It would be REALLY nice if Zebralight could make an extension tube for that light to allow the use of a 16340.



Do you mean a 16650, or a 18350? Either one would be a pretty major improvement over a 16340.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 6, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> Do you mean a 16650, or a 18350? Either one would be a pretty major improvement over a 16340.



Oops, I was thinking of an extension tube for a 14500. Given that a 14500 can be had with a real 800mAH (similar to an 18350), this would be a nice boost compared to a 16340. An 18350 won't work at all because the tube is too small in diameter. And a 16650 would be pointless since, with an extension tube, you would end up with a light no smaller than an SC62 (which you might as well go with at that point). But a 14500 would both significantly improve capacity AND keep the light fairly small.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 6, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Oops, I was thinking of an extension tube for a 14500. Given that a 14500 can be had with a real 800mAH (similar to an 18350), this would be a nice boost compared to a 16340. An 18350 won't work at all because the tube is too small in diameter. And a 16650 would be pointless since, with an extension tube, you would end up with a light no smaller than an SC62 (which you might as well go with at that point). But a 14500 would both significantly improve capacity AND keep the light fairly small.



I like that. 14500 extender tube for SC32. I'd buy one - and a SC32 to go with it! Not because I care for CR123 sized lights (I don't), but because of the PID.


----------



## Lite_me (Jun 6, 2015)

Amelia said:


> I like that. 14500 extender tube for SC32. I'd buy one - and a SC32 to go with it! Not because I care for CR123 sized lights (I don't), but because of the PID.


I know this is a bit OT for this thread, but I'd buy that extender too! And then, I might buy a second SC32w to go with it.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 7, 2015)

Amelia said:


> I like that. 14500 extender tube for SC32. I'd buy one - and a SC32 to go with it! Not because I care for CR123 sized lights (I don't), but because of the PID.



I'd buy another SC52w or SC5w if they added PID. I don't know why they use a step-down timer, given that they already have the PID tech in other lights.


----------



## Gazagoguli (Jun 7, 2015)

Can the zebralight sc5 take a rechargeable batteries or the 14500


----------



## kj2 (Jun 7, 2015)

Gazagoguli said:


> ...or the 14500


Max voltage is 2.0V, so.. No


----------



## JKolmo (Jun 7, 2015)

Uuuhhh, Eneloops are rechargeable, no?


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 7, 2015)

kj2 said:


> Max voltage is 2.0V, so.. No



No one has tried it yet with a 14500 so we don't know what will happen. More than likely it would fry the LED or the driver but it may or may not work, no one has been brave enough to try it yet! 

It it does use rechargeable batteries such as Eneloop or Eneloop Pro batteries. However lithium ion like the 14500 are not officially supported.


----------



## kj2 (Jun 7, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> No one has tried it yet with a 14500 so we don't know what will happen. More than likely it would fry the LED or the driver but it may or may not work, no one has been brave enough to try it yet!
> It it does use rechargeable batteries such as Eneloop or Eneloop Pro batteries. However lithium ion like the 14500 are not officially supported.


I know that. I read a thread before asking. Following manufacturers specs, it's not possible.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 7, 2015)

kj2 said:


> I know that. I read a thread before asking. Following manufacturers specs, it's not possible.



Following manufacturer specs the Zebralight SC600 can't take 6v and run on 2xCR123 ... but it actually works fine on that setup. The light functions normally and appears to take no damage.

Following manufcturer specs the Fenix LD01 can only be run on a 1.5v cell. But run it on a 3.7v 10440 and all modes work fine. Light output is substantially increased, but it does get hot fairly fast.

Same may be the case for the SC5. Following manufacturer specs the light isn't rated for more than 2v. But until someone tries it we won't know what will happen if it is run at higher voltage than that. Just because a manufacturer only rates a light for a certain voltage doesn't mean it can't take higher.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 7, 2015)

kj2 said:


> I know that. I read a thread before asking. Following manufacturers specs, it's not possible.



I just was observing that we don't know yet what will happen when a 14500 is used in this light. There are lots of lights that I've seen get fried by using higher voltage than rated for and then others that it seems to work fine in. Since no one has tried it with this light yet we can't say for sure what would happen. I know the popular Maratac AAA lights aren't rated for lithiums but many have reported success with them. I didn't mean any disrespect towards you and apologize if it was taken in that way, my point was only that we don't know what would happen with a 14500 so it's possible they may actually work even though this light isn't listed as supporting it.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 7, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> I just was observing that we don't know yet what will happen when a 14500 is used in this light. There are lots of lights that I've seen get fried by using higher voltage than rated for and then others that it seems to work fine in. Since no one has tried it with this light yet we can't say for sure what would happen. I know the popular Maratac AAA lights aren't rated for lithiums but many have reported success with them. I didn't mean any disrespect towards you and apologize if it was taken in that way, my point was only that we don't know what would happen with a 14500 so it's possible they may actually work even though this light isn't listed as supporting it.



Someone needs to try it, and finally put all this 14500 speculation to rest.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 7, 2015)

Send me your SC5 and I'll try it...


----------



## County (Jun 8, 2015)

I wonder if we could expect to see H5/H5w headlamp versions of this light. If so, would love to see a higher mid power setting, like 150-200 lumens. On the SC5w for example there is a HUGE difference between M1 and H2. 0.9 hours runtime on a headlamp on H2 is a little too short to be useful while camping for example, and while 8 hours on M1 is nice, 45 lumens is kind of low.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 8, 2015)

County said:


> I wonder if we could expect to see H5/H5w headlamp versions of this light. If so, would love to see a higher mid power setting, like 150-200 lumens. On the SC5w for example there is a HUGE difference between M1 and H2. 0.9 hours runtime on a headlamp on H2 is a little too short to be useful while camping for example, and while 8 hours on M1 is nice, 45 lumens is kind of low.



Yeah, I need the 108lm often but at 3hrs that's not going to cut it. Now I use my H600 exclusively and don't need a spare cell at all, or 2, or 3, or 4...


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 8, 2015)

County said:


> I wonder if we could expect to see H5/H5w headlamp versions of this light. If so, would love to see a higher mid power setting, like 150-200 lumens. On the SC5w for example there is a HUGE difference between M1 and H2. 0.9 hours runtime on a headlamp on H2 is a little too short to be useful while camping for example, and while 8 hours on M1 is nice, 45 lumens is kind of low.



You can program in any of three different H2 levels. The H2 107 lumen level gives you 3.5 hours, not 0.9 hours.

I don't find 45 lumens is too low for a headlamp. At close range (for working on something), it's plenty bright enough. For night use, it gives a good amount of general light, without much blinding glare from nearby objects. If you need to see farther away, you're going to use a handheld light with more throw.


----------



## County (Jun 8, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> You can program in any of three different H2 levels. The H2 107 lumen level gives you 3.5 hours, not 0.9 hours.
> 
> I don't find 45 lumens is too low for a headlamp. At close range (for working on something), it's plenty bright enough. For night use, it gives a good amount of general light, without much blinding glare from nearby objects. If you need to see farther away, you're going to use a handheld light with more throw.



THANK YOU! I completely missed that there are two levels of H2. 107 lumens at 3.5 hours is a great option. Now, am just hoping the headlamp version of this light comes to be!!!


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 9, 2015)

As an update to this one user has reportedly tested the M2 19 lumen mode and measured 16 hours with regulation before dropping down to the low mode. This was with a standard 2000mah Eneloop and is pretty impressive considering it's rated for 16.5 hours with a 2500mah Eneloop Pro. Of course there will be sample variation but this is the first legit observation I've seen posted thus far. 

Link to thread


----------



## Burgess (Jun 10, 2015)

That was * ME * !




Glad you find that information useful.


Yesterday, I once again ran that SAME TEST,
with a different white Sanyo Eneloop (2000 mAH),
this cell is also at least 7 years old.


Gave me 16.1 Hours, in Perfect Regulation !

Very Impressive, indeed !

Wanted to see if that first test-run 
was perhaps a FLUKE . . . .

Nope ! Not at All !


BTW --
I test for " perfect regulation "
by using my Sekonic DC-308 photography hand-held light meter.
Accurate to within 1/10th of an f/stop !


Also did a Run-Time test at High-2 ( 107 Lumens ),
using one of those same white Sanyo Eneloop batteries.
( 2000 mAH , and at least 7 years old )

Gave me 3.2 Hours, in Perfect Regulation.

Then dropped to Medium-1 mode for 1 minute

Then dropped to Low-1 mode for More Than 2 Hours !
( i fell asleep then )

I am very happy with this performance !
:thumbsup:


Wanna' hear one more ? ? ?




Did a Run-Time test on Medium-1 mode.
(Factory rates this at 45 Lumens)

This time I used an Energizer Ultimate Lithium (L91) battery.
Expiration date was 2025.

Lasted 12.5 Hours, in Perfect Regulation !

Then dropped to Low-1 mode,
and ran for at Least an HOUR !

( once again, I fell asleep at that point . . . . )

:sleepy:


I'm very happy with this flashlight !
So far, anyway . . . .

:twothumbs
_


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 10, 2015)

Thanks for posting some more runtime tests! Those are the first ones I've seen for this light and they're very impressive, right up there with spec but impressive since it's a 7 year old Eneloop! Do you have any Eneloop pro batteries you could test it with for runtime? Or the highest mode also? Some people reported problems with the initial copies having a purple tint in the center of the beam did your copy have any of these issues? I find this to be one of the nicest AA lights out there right now. It's built well, solid, potted, gets 500 lumens on a single Eneloop or Eneloop pro and has decent throw.


----------



## Big_Sam (Jun 10, 2015)

I've just ordered an SC5w, so I hope to do a video review and comparison to my SC52w L2. 

Can't wait to try it!


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 10, 2015)

Big_Sam said:


> I've just ordered an SC5w, so I hope to do a video review and comparison to my SC52w L2.
> 
> Can't wait to try it!



Great we will be looking forward to the results of it!


----------



## regulator (Jun 10, 2015)

Great stuff Burgess. Thanks for the useful run times.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 10, 2015)

Burgess said:


> BTW --
> I test for " perfect regulation "
> 
> Wanna' hear one more ? ? ?
> ...



How about putting an alkaleak in there?


----------



## Burgess (Jun 11, 2015)

Okay . . . . .


Just finished testing a Duracell Quantum alkaline battery.
( dated 2023 )


On Medium-2 ( 19 Lumens ) mode,
it lasted 21.5 Hours , in perfect regulation !


Then dropped to Low-1 mode ( 3 Lumens )


How nice that it doesn't simply DIE ,
and leave you totally in the DARK !

 

Not gonna' continue this test TOO much longer,
since alkaline cells have sometimes been known to Leak !

But it lasted more than 30 additional minutes,
before I ended the run.


This was 5 Hours longer than my white Sanyo Eneloops !

:twothumbs

A very suitable performer, if you don't have
any more GOOD batteries !
< wink >


Very Impressed with this flashlight !


----------



## Burgess (Jun 11, 2015)

Oh, and to answer a couple questions . . . .


-- I do not have any Eneloop Pro batteries in AA size



-- I can describe my flashlight beam as * SUPERB * !
:kiss:


More flood than throw, of course.
Which is just fine for my needs.


Glad I got the W model , for the neutral tint.

This is becoming one of my favorite flashlights !


_


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 12, 2015)

Here's a tip:

If you don't actually use the pocket clip, remove it and use the light without it.

The SC52, 62 and 32 all feel uncomfortable with the clip removed. In those lights the clip mount protrudes and has sharp corners. Also the area under the clip is quite smooth. Leaving the clip installed actually helps increase the grip.

In contrast the SC5 feels *fantastic*without the clip. The area under the clip is fully knurled and with the clip removed, grip is MUCH improved. So much so that it feels a lot like the old Zebralight SC80, another fully knurled light. The clip mount is flush enough the corners don't really dig into my hands. Also it tends to naturally fall between my fingers so I don't notice it, and it helps to keep the light rightside up when used as a bedside light. 

Removing the clip and its screws has another added benefit: it makes the SC5 slightly lighter, which is good for a pocket EDC light.


----------



## HikingMano (Jun 12, 2015)

HikingMano said:


> Ugh, just received my SC5w and it's got a noticeable purple tint right in the center of the hotspot. I don't think it's an area of soft focus or whatever, it's definitely purple. Looks horrible against my Nichia 219 and worse than my greenish SC52w. I don't want to settle for yet another sub-par beam just because I don't want to deal with the hassle of returning.



Just wanted to update: I received my SC5w exchange today, and the tint and beam are excellent . So, it looks like I just got a lemon the first time around. 

What levels are folks liking for their lights? I think I'm going with 107 for H2, stock settings for the rest.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 12, 2015)

Has anyone directly compared the SC52w-L2 and the SC5w tints? I really like my SC52w-L2 neutral white, it's very much on the warm side of neutral. 3800K according to my camera, though I suspect that estimate is a bit low. But I have other neutral whites that are quite a bit cooler, which I don't like as much.

Is Zebralight still using the warmer neutrals in the SC5w?


----------



## markr6 (Jun 12, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Is Zebralight still using the warmer neutrals in the SC5w?



I think they're using whatever they can get. I've had everything from ~3800K-5000K, green, yellow, purple, perfect. It's a lotto and has nothing to do with timeframe or model (within reason; year ago I'm sure the neutrals were not as nice in general)

My SC52w L2 and SC5w were both very nice, but the purple dot turned me away.


----------



## cyclesport (Jun 12, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Is Zebralight still using the warmer neutrals in the SC5w?



My SC5w is the coolest tinted "w" ZL I have rec'vd' thus far from over 6-7 previous ZL stated warm (XM-L2 4400k) lights. _It's slightly cooler than all my other/various XM-L2 5000k lights!_ Lack of undesirable artifacts, weird colors, and all other anomaly's is very good though.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 12, 2015)

cyclesport said:


> My SC5w is the coolest tinted "w" ZL I have rec'vd' thus far from over 6-7 previous ZL stated warm (XM-L2 4400k) lights. _It's slightly cooler than all my other/various XM-L2 5000k lights!_ Lack of undesirable artifacts, weird colors, and all other anomaly's is very good though.



Sounds like my old SC600wII L2. I wish they were all like this!


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 12, 2015)

Mine was around 4600k in the SC5w I received, the best tint in my collection. Colors pop even more than any of my other neutral emitters like the SC62w as well as the Nichia lights I have, but again it may be more of a luck thing. They do seem to be improving the tint and consistency with newer lights from what I've seen.


----------



## 18650 (Jun 12, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Has anyone directly compared the SC52w-L2 and the SC5w tints? I really like my SC52w-L2 neutral white, it's very much on the warm side of neutral. 3800K according to my camera, though I suspect that estimate is a bit low. But I have other neutral whites that are quite a bit cooler, which I don't like as much. Is Zebralight still using the warmer neutrals in the SC5w?


 But you've said in the other thread 3500-5500K looks white to you so what does it matter? I wonder if 4400K given by ZL in specs is just an average across all units, after all Cree calls 3700-5000K neutral and 4400K is right about in the middle of that.


----------



## cyclesport (Jun 12, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Sounds like my old SC600wII L2. I wish they were all like this!



Yeah...despite that it's slightly cooler than I'd prefer, I'm very impressed at how smooth and homogenous the beam quality itself is though, especially for a smooth reflector light!


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 12, 2015)

18650 said:


> But you've said in the other thread 3500-5500K looks white to you so what does it matter?



It makes a difference in how colours look to me. I like the way reds and oranges are more vibrant under warm lights. 5500K looks white, but colours around me look a bit washed out and pale (except blues).

Anyway, my current SC52w is warmer than my Nichia 219A, and I really like it that way. Sounds like the SC5w is cooler than the 219A, perhaps even cooler than the 219B, though a bit of a lottery.


----------



## Burgess (Jun 13, 2015)

HikingMano said:


> What levels are folks liking for their lights?
> I think I'm going with 107 for H2, stock settings for the rest.




That is Exactly what I've chosen !


Great Minds Think Alike !

:twothumbs
_


----------



## Big_Sam (Jun 13, 2015)

Just received my SC5, very impressed with output, crazy for 1xAA!! 






Quite chunky compared to the SC52, but now I've got it, I don't think it is comparable and it certainly will not replace it.

I will do a video comparison soon.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 13, 2015)

Burgess said:


> Not gonna' continue this test TOO much longer,
> since alkaline cells have sometimes been known to Leak !



Thanks for doing the test. Much appreciated for the risk you took.

Didn't happen to measure the final voltage of the battery did you? An alkaleak can really last at low drainage. Does it even run at max with an alkaline?


----------



## Burgess (Jun 13, 2015)

Did not check final battery voltage.


Did not try any other brightness modes --

only Medium-2 (19 Lumens)



Yes, I know what you mean with Alkalines
having a LONG tailing-off mode !


----------



## Big_Sam (Jun 13, 2015)

Mr Floppy said:


> Does it even run at max with an alkaline?



Doesn't run well, tried it and flickers and dips with a GP ultra.


----------



## Big_Sam (Jun 13, 2015)

Done with my phone to see when the stepdown occurs. In real life, the drop is not too major.

Does get warm though!


----------



## StudFreeman (Jun 16, 2015)

To everyone who's said their SC5w has great tint: how is uniformity between spot and spill?
It sounds like a great light but I can't stand how domed XM-L2/XP-L emitters have that separation when used in a reflector.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 16, 2015)

StudFreeman said:


> To everyone who's said their SC5w has great tint: how is uniformity between spot and spill?
> It sounds like a great light but I can't stand how domed XM-L2/XP-L emitters have that separation when used in a reflector.



I've noticed that about all my XM-L2 lights - pretty major tint shift from hot spot to spill, pure yellow-white in the center to typically orangish or greenish corona to typically light lavender tinted spill. I've never seen tint uniformity throughout the beam with XM-L2. Is it the dome? Or is there some other emitter characteristic that causes this?


----------



## Big_Sam (Jun 16, 2015)

This one seems good, the tint is fairly consistent, perhaps a slight purple dot in the centre, but i prefer to use my lights outside rather than shine them at walls so it looks fine to me.

Not as warm as my SC52w, but probably better colours. 

I like it for outdoor use, but the SC52w spill is better for indoors. 

I would say, its a good light, but apart from the turbo 500L the SC52w is better, the clip is not great, far too tight and rips your pocket as it does not have the flat spot like the SC52w.

The size is good for holding, I find it a little big for my trouser pocket.

It's a great light for folk like me who don't use lilion at the moment. 

I would recommend it overall due to the effect off a single AA


----------



## gbelleh (Jun 16, 2015)

I now have an SC5w on the way, along with a replacement SC62. I've been happily carrying an SC52 for the last couple years. Not sure if either will replace the 52, but looking forward to getting them.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 17, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> If I were to go with only lithium-ion cells, I'd go for the SC62. You may as well get a light that runs off a proper lithium-ion battery, to give you a decent run time.


That is now my plan. Waiting for illumn to get in more 62w. It may be less expensive than direct from zebralight.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 17, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> Do you mean a 16650, or a 18350? Either one would be a pretty major improvement over a 16340.


17500 is nice too.


----------



## kj2 (Jun 18, 2015)

Came in the mail today


----------



## Swede74 (Jun 18, 2015)

Congrats! Great pics - now I want one more than ever


----------



## kj2 (Jun 18, 2015)

Swede74 said:


> Congrats! Great pics - now I want one more than ever


Thanks 
It feels solid and the threads are soooooo smooth  Switch gives good feedback. I like ZL got rid of the soft touch switch.


----------



## StudFreeman (Jun 18, 2015)

kj2, can you describe how the tint is across the beam?


----------



## kj2 (Jun 18, 2015)

StudFreeman said:


> kj2, can you describe how the tint is across the beam?


I've the cool white version: hotspot: pure white. Corona: little bit greenish. Spill: white purple-ish.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 18, 2015)

kj2 said:


> I've the cool white version: hotspot: pure white. Corona: little bit greenish. Spill: white purple-ish.



In otherwords, typical XM-L2 tint.


----------



## kj2 (Jun 18, 2015)

Amelia said:


> In otherwords, typical XM-L2 tint.



Yup


----------



## jak (Jun 18, 2015)

A brief update on my SC5. I finally got around to shipping it back due to the bit-o-purple. Shipped it on Monday, got replacement on Wednesday. I think Zebralight is stepping up their customer service -they even _called _me to confirm the shipping address.

Anyway, the new light is a dream boat. Impeccable tint, solid as can be, I'm pleased. I posted a tint pic in an update on the very first entry of this thread.


----------



## HikingMano (Jun 19, 2015)

Burgess said:


> That is Exactly what I've chosen !



Had it out backpacking most of this past week, worked well!


----------



## amaretto (Jun 19, 2015)

*SC5w / SC62w / Thrunite Neutron 2A nw*













*comparison (powered by 1 eneloop), both lights on highest level*







--------------------------------------------------------------








--------------------------------------------------------------


















Output with Eneloop XX and the white Eneloops is equal.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 19, 2015)

^ Nice tint on that SC5w if the photo isn't lying. I would have kept mine if it looked like that. Too bad


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 19, 2015)

amaretto said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you kindly explain this graph?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 19, 2015)

Mr Floppy said:


> Can you kindly explain this graph?



Yes, it would be interesting to know what that second graph depicts. It looks like he kept the light on full turbo (no step-down), perhaps by turning it off-and-on every 3 minutes? That drop after 14 minutes looks like heat finally built up to a point where the LED efficiency started to drop significantly. It would be interesting to see the same graph, but with rest-periods in between each 3-minute turbo session, to see how long the battery lasts. Or... perhaps that's what he did? It does say "accumulated", so perhaps that is with rests. Does it make sense an Eneloop would only last 15 minutes at full turbo?


----------



## markr6 (Jun 19, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Does it make sense an Eneloop would only last 15 minutes at full turbo?



To about 60% output? Possibly. May not sound very impressive, but we have to remember it's simply an AA cell.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 19, 2015)

markr6 said:


> To about 60% output? Possibly. May not sound very impressive, but we have to remember it's simply an AA cell.



That could be it, then. I guess it's not surprising, given the high current needed for 500 lumens. The SC52 at only 280 lumens probably drops almost to 60% output after 15 minutes, so the SC5 is a big improvement in that regard.


----------



## hammerknocker (Jun 19, 2015)

Just got my SC5w in and it is perfect! Out of the 5 Zebralights I've owned, this has the best button yet. It's only slightly better than my H600Fw MKII, but even that one blows the others out the water(H52w L2, SC600w MKII L2, SC52 L2).

The tint is perfect for me, as it's very close in tint to the only Nichia light I own(D25AAA). 

I love the knurling too!

I was already a big time Zebra fan boy, but this light is just what I wanted. And it looks like this will be the light that convinces my brother to finally buy a Zebralight.


----------



## amaretto (Jun 19, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> It looks like he kept the light on full turbo (no step-down), perhaps by turning it off-and-on every 3 minutes? That drop after 14 minutes looks like heat finally built up to a point where the LED efficiency started to drop significantly. It would be interesting to see the same graph, but with rest-periods in between each 3-minute turbo session, to see how long the battery lasts. Or... perhaps that's what he did? It does say "accumulated", so perhaps that is with rests. Does it make sense an Eneloop would only last 15 minutes at full turbo?


Exactly, i kept it on turbo by turning it off-and-on every 3 minutes. No rests.
The SC5 is built like a tank, it is heavier than SC62 with 18650. Heat is no problem. The reason why the runtime is only a quarter of an hour is because of the limited capacity of the eneloops. On turbo i measured with different multimeters and short thick wires that the SC5 draws almost 6 amps and above from an eneloop.

I compared Thrunite Neutron 2A (2014) neutral white and the SC5 in ceiling bounce. Thrunite 411 and SC5 505 lumens. So the SC5 is (imho) the new king in town in output with one single eneloop.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 19, 2015)

amaretto said:


> . On turbo i measured with different multimeters and short thick wires that the SC5 draws almost 6 amps and above from an eneloop.
> 
> I compared Thrunite Neutron 2A (2014) neutral white and the SC5 in ceiling bounce. Thrunite 411 and SC5 505 lumens. So the SC5 is (imho) the new king in town in output with one single eneloop.



Wow. Almost 6 amps! That is insane. If anything, that is the new benchmark in terms of current draw for a single NiMH light


----------



## kj2 (Jun 20, 2015)

6A!? Wauw!  I know my big Fenix TK70 draws 9A, but 6A from a AA-battery. That's very high.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 20, 2015)

I was guessing 5A, but 6A is impressive. Definitely pushing the boundaries of what you can do with a NiMH cell!


----------



## markr6 (Jun 20, 2015)

It will be interesting to see how these eneloops hold up long term if pushed this hard on a regular basis.

Damn you guys are making he want to try again on the SC5w!! If I play the lottery enough, I'll eventually win right?


----------



## StudFreeman (Jun 20, 2015)

Thanks for the info guys! This light sounds great to me despite it using the XM-L2 and reflector. Yeah I'm that picky about tint. I might actually give it a whirl.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 20, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Damn you guys are making he want to try again on the SC5w!! If I play the lottery enough, I'll eventually win right?



I don't have the budget or in a permanent house at the moment but I really want this now. Would mean I can use my elite 2000 batteries for something.


----------



## gbelleh (Jun 22, 2015)

I just got my SC5w today, and wow! This is my first "w" Zebralight. I've had 2 SC600s, 2SC51s, and an SC52, all cool white. I've never really been too concerned about tint, as long as it wasn't ridiculously blue or green, etc. But this SC5w's tint is amazing next to my other Zebralights. The build quality seems to be great, and the switch is nice and crisp. The output on an Eneloop Pro is pretty incredible too. On turbo, it even appears brighter than my SC52 on a 14500. The knurling is nice, and I like the proportions and overall look of it. The pocket clip grips well, but not too tight. I really like this light! It would be an easy choice for it to replace my old faithful SC52, except I also got an equally awesome SC62w today too. I don't think I can go back to cool white Zebralights at this point.


----------



## Burgess (Jun 22, 2015)

By the way . . . .


Today I received (from Amazon) a Fenix AOD-S Diffuser Tip.


It is a PERFECT FIT for my new ZebraLight SC5w flashlight !

Just as I was Hoping !

:thumbsup:



Sadly --

Does NOT fit my new Fenix MC11 angle-head 1xAA flashlight.

:sigh:
_


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 22, 2015)

Burgess said:


> By the way . . . .
> 
> 
> Today I received (from Amazon) a Fenix AOD-S Diffuser Tip.
> ...



Also, the AOD-S WON'T fit the Zebralight SC32/52/62 lights (too big) or the SC600 (too small).


----------



## markr6 (Jun 23, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Also, the AOD-S WON'T fit the Zebralight SC32/52/62 lights (too big) or the SC600 (too small).



"Silicon Rubber Light Cover Diffusers 20-24mm" on Banggood looks like it may be a nice option, for many lights.


----------



## uofaengr (Jun 24, 2015)

I picked up an SC52w a few weeks ago and was blown away by it. Somehow I wasn't aware of the newer SC5w so I got nervous when I thought I'd bought the "old" model instead of the new one. After looking at some of these reviews, I'm glad I got the 52. I run mine on 14500s and loving it. Great tint too. 

I saw someone mentioned the 14500 having more versatility in regards to "wilderness charging". I was curious what that means exactly. I'm charging with a Nitecore D4 that handles my eneloops and Li-ions.


----------



## Amelia (Jun 24, 2015)

uofaengr said:


> I picked up an SC52w a few weeks ago and was blown away by it. Somehow I wasn't aware of the newer SC5w so I got nervous when I thought I'd bought the "old" model instead of the new one. After looking at some of these reviews, I'm glad I got the 52. I run mine on 14500s and loving it. Great tint too.
> 
> I saw someone mentioned the 14500 having more versatility in regards to "wilderness charging". I was curious what that means exactly. I'm charging with a Nitecore D4 that handles my eneloops and Li-ions.



It is harder to find a good portable solar powered Eneloop charger that works correctly (terminates charge properly) than it is to find a 14500 LiIon charger that does the same. For that reason, I prefer LiIon over Eneloops for my lights intended for back-country use.

BTW, I also have the SC52w (and a pair of SC52d), and I agree with you - I'm glad I have them instead of the SC5w. I've thought a lot about maybe buying an SC5w, but at this point I'm giving it a pass... it just doesn't bring anything to the table that the SC52 lights don't already have, other than 500Lum on Eneloops, a feature I would probably never use (as I really don't use eneloops that much, and don't own many). Plus, the SC5 is heavier and bulkier, something that does NOT appeal to me from a hiking/camping viewpoint.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 24, 2015)

Also, as I have posted several times... the biggest reason I am not "upgrading" my SC52w is that there is no way to avoid a burst/stepdown with the SC5. With the SC52, you can avoid stepdown by using AA (albeit at lower output) OR get a burst mode with stepdown by using 14500.

A burst mode that suddenly steps down after a few minutes might be fine for some uses, but is not practical for others... If your eyes are adjusted to the burst output, the stepdown output can be jarring (and disappointing).


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 24, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> Also, as I have posted several times... the biggest reason I am not "upgrading" my SC52w is that there is no way to avoid a burst/stepdown with the SC5. With the SC52, you can avoid stepdown by using AA (albeit at lower output) OR get a burst mode with stepdown by using 14500.
> 
> A burst mode that suddenly steps down after a few minutes might be fine for some uses, but is not practical for others... If your eyes are adjusted to the burst output, the stepdown output can be jarring (and disappointing).



Can't you avoid the stepdown on the SC5 simply by running it in H2? That's still 325 lumens.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 24, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Can't you avoid the stepdown on the SC5 simply by running it in H2? That's still 325 lumens.



Of course you can.

I don't really understand holygeez's reasoning.


----------



## chuckhov (Jun 24, 2015)

"jarring (and disappointing)"

Jarring? - I would think anything But that.

Disappointing? - Yeah, that looks more like it

Thanks,
-Chuck


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 24, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Can't you avoid the stepdown on the SC5 simply by running it in H2? That's still 325 lumens.



Yeah... and then you lose any modes between 325 and 48 lumens...


----------



## Burgess (Jun 24, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> A burst mode that suddenly steps down after a few minutes might be fine
> for some uses, but is not practical for others...
> 
> If your eyes are adjusted to the burst output,
> the stepdown output can be jarring (and disappointing).





I can assure you, from my own experience with an SC5w,

the stepdown from 500 Lumens to 304 Lumens 

is certainly NOT jarring at all !


In fact, I would describe it as *Barely Noticeable* !


< Just Sayin' >


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 25, 2015)

Burgess, that makes me wonder if your light is actually achieving the 500 lumen burst... Or you must be using the light in a different environment than I typically do... I find the SC52w stepdown from the rated 500 to 280 to be very noticeable... but acceptable since the 500 option is an option gained from using a 14500 and I can avoid it using AA... and either way I have the option of going to 108lm for 3 hours.

If the drop from 500 to 300 is "barely noticeable", what's the point of including the burst mode at all? If true (and I'm not saying it is) then the biggest advantage over the SC52 is non-existent...


----------



## hatman (Jun 25, 2015)

The drop from 500 burst most certainly IS noticeable.

And, as much as I like my SC5w, I'm disappointed in how quickly the eneloops run out of juice on turbo.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jun 25, 2015)

I used my SC5w by having the H2 mode set at 187 lumens. When I do the click to turn it on to high I always would have it at the 187 lumen setting. With runtimes close to 2 hours I found this setting to be the main "high" setting I used as it struck a nice balance between being bright for most tasks but not too bright while giving solid runtimes. The few times I needed more light I could just double click to the 500 lumen burst then back down to my primary high mode. This way I had a nice balance between having burst when I needed it while using the 187 lumen mode for most tasks. 

Although I do not have the SC52 one thing I'll add is that those who do have noticed that the new SC5 holds regulation much better on depleted Eneloop cells than the SC52 did. This is a big factor because if you use Eneloops frequently as the main power source then the SC5 provides the better advantage by keeping higher output for longer while also giving the 500 lumen burst when needed. If you use the 14500 in the SC52 lights then you get only 1 minute of turbo vs 3 while having the same "problem" of losing everything in between. The only real advantage of using the 14500 batteries at this point would be for those who have a lot of them and/or easier wilderness charging. Otherwise you get a shorter turbo in the SC52 and a light that loses brightness quicker on depleted Eneloops. For me and my uses I prefer both the convenience of using only one battery type as well as the better regulation and longer turbo offered by the SC5w. With one battery I get the convenience of 14500 brightness at 3 minutes while having my primary mode at 187 lumens with about 2 hours of runtime and better regulation at this brightness. For me this is a winning combination and ZL hit a home run with this light.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 25, 2015)

Amelia said:


> It is harder to find a good portable solar powered Eneloop charger that works correctly (terminates charge properly) than it is to find a 14500 LiIon charger that does the same. For that reason, I prefer LiIon over Eneloops for my lights intended for back-country use.



Charging rate is another problem with wilderness charging of NiMH batteries. Most USB NiMH chargers charge at around .5A. That's four hours in good sunshine just to charge ONE AA battery (or EACH battery). But the same .5A (maximum recommended charge rate for a typical 14500) puts about the same amount of energy in a 14500 in less than two hours. You can also get one amp chargers (like the MC1 Plus) that can actually charge an 18650 faster than a typical USB AA charger will charge a AA.

Another issue with the charging of NiMH is the sometimes intermittent nature of sunlight. If you have the solar panel on your pack, for instance, output will vary with the direction you are walking, shading from trees, etc. Since Li-Ion terminates at a specific voltage, termination is not affected by intermittent power. But the intermittent nature of input power to a NiMH charger using solar power can cause it to miss the -dV termination point.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 25, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Charging rate is another problem with wilderness charging of NiMH batteries. Most USB NiMH chargers charge at around .5A



I don't think I have found a good usb charger, other than the ultra smart charger. Not good for directly hooking up to a panel (not that I have one) but it does a complete charge of single regular eneloops from a ML102 and a scavenged 2600 mah cell


----------



## markr6 (Jun 25, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> Yeah... and then you lose any modes between 325 and 48 lumens...



I think that is the biggest issue for me. 535lm, 325lm, 200lm, 115lm...all nice modes but you can only use two easily.

If you don't want to kill the battery, skip the 535lm. That basically leaves you with *two highest modes at 323lm and 48lm*. I don't like that. Since 325lm only runs for NOT EVEN one hour, the 200lm at 1.8hr would be more practical. So program 200lm. Now you have 535lm battery killer, 200lm, then 48lm. OK, but not ideal.

It would be nice to be able to bypass the turbo somehow and use 323lm, 200lm or 115lm, then down to M1 at 48lm. Of course this isn't possible, so one just need to decide if it's the right light for them. I personally want to like it, but all I really use anymore are 18650 lights so I don't need to worry about runtime at all.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 25, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I think that is the biggest issue for me. 535lm, 325lm, 200lm, 115lm...all nice modes but you can only use two easily.
> 
> If you don't want to kill the battery, skip the 535lm. That basically leaves you with *two highest modes at 323lm and 48lm*. I don't like that. Since 325lm only runs for NOT EVEN one hour, the 200lm at 1.8hr would be more practical. So program 200lm. Now you have 535lm battery killer, 200lm, then 48lm. OK, but not ideal.



That's a mode spacing of 4x between M1 and H2. Pretty much ideal, IMO. I personally like about 5x brightness difference between the main modes. Throw in the lowest M2 mode, as well as L1 and the brightest L2 mode, and it's great.



> It would be nice to be able to bypass the turbo somehow and use 323lm, 200lm or 115lm, then down to M1 at 48lm. Of course this isn't possible, so one just need to decide if it's the right light for them. I personally want to like it, but all I really use anymore are 18650 lights so I don't need to worry about runtime at all.



Yeah, I've always wished that Zebralight's programming would allow me to choose any of the 10+ modes to fit in each of the 6 slots. It would be more complex to set up, but would allow me more flexibility.

Sometimes what I do is carry two Zebralights, each set up slightly differently so I can have all the modes I want. Yeah, definitely not ideal!


----------



## markr6 (Jun 25, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> That's a mode spacing of 4x between M1 and H2. Pretty much ideal, IMO. I personally like about 5x brightness difference between the main modes. Throw in the lowest M2 mode, as well as L1 and the brightest L2 mode, and it's great.



But considering runtimes, you're looking at .9hr and 8.5hr. I would really want to compromise with something in between. I guess if I were to buy one again, I would use 535 and 200 for high modes carry a spare battery and call it a day.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 25, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Yeah, I've always wished that Zebralight's programming would allow me to choose any of the 10+ modes to fit in each of the 6 slots. It would be more complex to set up, but would allow me more flexibility.



That was discussed I recall. Not sure where that is at.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 25, 2015)

markr6 said:


> But considering runtimes, you're looking at .9hr and 8.5hr. I would really want to compromise with something in between. I guess if I were to buy one again, I would use 535 and 200 for high modes carry a spare battery and call it a day.



Right, I was referring to using the 200 lumen mode, which gives 1.8 hours (not 0.9 hrs). Around 1.5-2 hours is a reasonable run-time for a high mode.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 25, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Right, I was referring to using the 200 lumen mode, which gives 1.8 hours (not 0.9 hrs). Around 1.5-2 hours is a reasonable run-time for a high mode.



Yes, but that was my point. You can't have both. It's 535lm + something else. Do you really need two high modes other than 535ln though? I guess not. Just wishing!


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 25, 2015)

Mr Floppy said:


> I don't think I have found a good usb charger, other than the ultra smart charger. Not good for directly hooking up to a panel (not that I have one) but it does a complete charge of single regular eneloops from a ML102 and a scavenged 2600 mah cell



So far, the best USB charger for NiMH I have found is the Xtar VC series. These seem to terminate better, at least in good constant sun. And they can charge at a faster 1A (which still won't charge an Eneloop as fast as .5A will charge a UR14500p). The BIG issue with these chargers is size - neither can really be considered compact. And the VC4 is quite large to be carrying around. But if this isn't an issue, these chargers are probably the best out there for charging NiMH AA batteries with a small solar panel. The VC4 will even charge D cells if need be (provided you are either just topping off or have LOTS of time).


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 29, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Yes, but that was my point. You can't have both. It's 535lm + something else. Do you really need two high modes other than 535ln though? I guess not. Just wishing!



I generally run my Olight S20 on the 100 lumen mode and seems fine for most things I do (but then my AAA key chain light runs at 30 lumen normally and seems fine for everything too). Can't this light run on 100...and double click for 500?


----------



## Burgess (Jun 30, 2015)

I just posted in the other ZL SC5 thread,

something which may be useful to a few of you . . . . . 



http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...bralight-SC5&p=4681393&viewfull=1#post4681393


lovecpf
_


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 30, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> If you use the 14500 in the SC52 lights then you get only 1 minute of turbo vs 3 while having the same "problem" of losing everything in between.



The stupid thing about this is that this problem shouldn't exist on either light. Zebralight has a GREAT PID thermal control system that should be used on BOTH of these lights. If the SC32 can have PID control (which rarely kicks in, even on H1), then why should the SC5 and SC52 have to be stuck with timer stepdowns?


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 30, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> If the SC32 can have PID control (which rarely kicks in, even on H1), then why should the SC5 and SC52 have to be stuck with timer stepdowns?



The higher voltage of the battery in the sc32 may mean less current through the driver. 6A from a NiMH would get hot quickly. I imagine it could still use PID but will wait to see selfbuilts test with out a fan.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 30, 2015)

Jmayot said:


> Got my SC5w today and.... ooooh well, there are no words! Tint is perfect (for my tastes), and maybe because it's my first Zebra light, I find it amazing for a "production" light! I did switch the clip for McGizmo bead blasted, I think the shiny clip that came with the light did not fit the character of the light. My new clip does not fit well though, clip is too curvy - I got some work to do here...
> Ok, pictures are worth a 1000 words:



Nice set of pictures! Although fatter than the SC52 I do like the look much better. Never cared for the ribbed look.


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 3, 2015)

I Owned more than 6 ZL, I stopped buying with a SC51: I was very happy with her and used a few years with satisfaction.
Now I've seen specs of SC5 and red about her in forum, so I decided to upgrade also for the good looking (IMHO obviuosly).

Now I have a new SC5w






I'm very happy from all the points of view: a lot of light in a beautiful body, not so big for me, also moonlight modes that are very low and with good spacing. It seems strong enough to take everywhere you need, AA is a great way to go for me (using Eneloop Pro) and until now no negative points.
Good job ZL


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 3, 2015)

Got mine yesterday and happy as well...


----------



## uofaengr (Jul 5, 2015)

I've been starting to look at this light more recently after I'd already determined my SC52w is good enough on 14500s. However, I'm considering picking up a SC5w and selling the SC52w so I can do away with 14500s altogether. I normally EDC a L11C so I always have a spare Eneloop in my pocket in a delrin capsule. The capsule will not fit 14500s if I choose to carry my SC52w but still have the spare Eneloop if I need it, just without giving me turbo mode. I'm really impressed with the performance of this light on standard AA though. Maybe rendering 14500 obsolete? Good enough reason to make the switch?


----------



## thedoc007 (Jul 5, 2015)

uofaengr said:


> Maybe rendering 14500 obsolete? Good enough reason to make the switch?



Definitely not. The 14500 was always a niche player...but it still allows MUCH higher output. There is already a stock light out that does 900 lumens on a 14500, and there is no reason it couldn't be pushed higher by a modder...try that on a humble AA, and you will be disappointed in the result. It is also less efficient to have to step up the voltage, and the harder you drive it, the more the conversion losses add up.

For practical reasons, the Eneloop is enough. But the 14500 is definitely not obsolete.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 5, 2015)

Doubt the 14500 is truly obsolete lol. If companies designed a light ONLY to run on 14500's it might be possible to reach a 1000 lumen and have good run times on lower levels, perhaps using some other type of LED emitter other than an XM. 

Been clicking away on the light and so far the switch has worked flawlessly.


----------



## uofaengr (Jul 5, 2015)

Lol I did kinda steal the obsolete comment from Selfbuilt's review on this light. What is the stock 14500 900 lumen light? I'd be interested in taking a look at that as well.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 5, 2015)

uofaengr said:


> Lol I did kinda steal the obsolete comment from Selfbuilt's review on this light. What is the stock 14500 900 lumen light? I'd be interested in taking a look at that as well.



Think both the Nitecore EA11 and the Thrunite Neutron AA reach up around 900.


----------



## uofaengr (Jul 5, 2015)

Badbeams3 said:


> Think both the Nitecore EA11 and the Thrunite Neutron AA reach up around 900.


Totally forgot about the Neutron. I was looking at that one heavily till I got TN12 fever. I'm always needing to justify everything to myself so a Neutron would be a very good reason to justify keeping my 14500s lol. I need to cool it for awhile after getting my TN12 so maybe between now and Christmas or so they'll make a couple design changes on the Neutron that I'd prefer. Don't care much for the EA11 since I don't already have IMRs.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 5, 2015)

Seems to me that 14500 is obsolete. If you need a small 1000 lumen light, you're going to want to use an 18650. The 14500 will deplete in almost no time.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 5, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Seems to me that 14500 is obsolete. If you need a small 1000 lumen light, you're going to want to use an 18650. The 14500 will deplete in almost no time.



Always a market for small, insanely bright lights. If only to amaze and impress people. Bragging rights perhaps. Even if they only can muster it for a short time...does not have to make sense. Hell, my old Olight S20 can put out 550 lumens and do it for a lot longer. Fit's in my pocket very well as it is slim from end to end. But it does not amaze people as much as the shorter SC5. Does not have the same level of WOWness to it. If a 1000+ lumen AA size light running a 14500 can be had, they will buy it, just cause WOW.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jul 5, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Seems to me that 14500 is obsolete. If you need a small 1000 lumen light, you're going to want to use an 18650. The 14500 will deplete in almost no time.



Plus you're pulling around 3C instead of 1C. So the 14500 will need to be more specialised


----------



## thedoc007 (Jul 5, 2015)

Mr Floppy said:


> Plus you're pulling around 3C instead of 1C. So the 14500 will need to be more specialised



By that argument, sticking with AA makes LESS sense. A 14500 in the SC5 would be discharged at or a little over 1C, whereas an Eneloop pulls more like 2.5-3C at max output. Saying you need a certain type does not in ANY way suggest obsolescence. It is always good to match cells to your demands, regardless of which chemistry you choose.

Again, I understand the rationale for sticking with AA, but 14500 is simply more capable for some situations.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jul 5, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> By that argument, sticking with AA makes LESS sense.



that was in regards to the comment that 18650 makes the 14500 obsolete.

For NiMH, it is crazy I agree. 3C used to be a specialised NiMH but the way the market availability of eneloops, it makes it much more attainable. What is the maximum discharge rating for eneloops?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 5, 2015)

I have been playing a lot with it since I got it. Actually used it for something worthwhile too...for a minute or two last night (trouble with the A/C unit outside). The battery still flashes 4X. So i'm impressed by the run time albeit I only bump it to high for a moment or two every so often for kicks...has a lot of play/run time on the 100, 50 and 20 lumen settings. I really love the beam quality and seems to work well on the lower levels on account of it's floody nature.

I think this light would be a big hit with people...but so many already have, and love, their SC52's. And this one does not add that much more for them. Bit brighter and I think it looks better. Slightly better run time too. But I can see where if I already had a SC52 I might not want to part with $70 for the small gain. But if folks don't already have a SC52, this is a great little light.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 6, 2015)

Badbeams3 said:


> Doubt the 14500 is truly obsolete lol. If companies designed a light ONLY to run on 14500's it might be possible to reach a 1000 lumen and have good run times on lower levels, perhaps using some other type of LED emitter other than an XM.



I think that a 14500 only light would be a GREAT idea. Not necessarily for 1000 lumens. But for good runtime at lower levels. When I got my SC32w, it was a real eye opener compared to my SC52w. Not only does the SC32w have PID control rather than that stupid timer. But runtimes are ALOT better on the SC32w than the SC52w. Yes, brightness is a little lower in corresponding modes than the SC52. But the SC32w runs ALOT longer at a similar level of brightness - even taking into account the fact that the capacity of 16340s are ALOT lower than 14500s. This tells me that, when you don't have to build a light to handle both NiMH AND Li-Ion, you can really optimize it for Li-Ion. Zebralight should either make a 14500 only light, or make an extension tube so that the SC32w can be used with a 14500.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jul 6, 2015)

I see what you're saying... I run a 14500 in several of my favorite lights... but I would never be interested in a 14500-only light since one of the biggest benefits of 14500 (vs CR123 or even 18650) is being able to use AA in a pinch... which can be found anywhere. I guess if the light had amazing levels and runtimes... but if I need that, I'll just have to bring an 18650 light.


The SC5 would make more sense to me if it could take AA/14500 and CR123... like the old SC80.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 6, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> By that argument, sticking with AA makes LESS sense. A 14500 in the SC5 would be discharged at or a little over 1C, whereas an Eneloop pulls more like 2.5-3C at max output. Saying you need a certain type does not in ANY way suggest obsolescence. It is always good to match cells to your demands, regardless of which chemistry you choose.



Are there 14500 brands that can safely deliver the current needed for a 1000 lumen light?

If so, what would the heat-sinking on the light need to be? Could a SC5 or SC52 sized light even handle that much power without overheating in less than a minute?




Badbeams3 said:


> I think this light would be a big hit with people...but so many already have, and love, their SC52's. And this one does not add that much more for them. Bit brighter and I think it looks better. Slightly better run time too. But I can see where if I already had a SC52 I might not want to part with $70 for the small gain. But if folks don't already have a SC52, this is a great little light.



I already have a couple of SC52's, but I was suckered in to ordering the SC5w. I don't have any 14500 batteries, so doubling the output seems worth it to me. I suppose it would be cheaper to buy some 14500s and use them in my SC52's, but it seems the heat-sinking is much better on the SC5. A minute at 500 lumens on the SC52 seems pretty short. 3 minutes on the SC5 is more usable.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 6, 2015)

The wait for your SC5w is going to seem like forever lol it always is that way with a new light it seems! I think you will enjoy it though, the feel of the light in the hand is great and well balanced. Heat sinking is much better and the 3 mins of turbo vs only 1 of the SC52 is another big advantage. The knurling on the SC5 is quite nice and it's a great EDC light as well. One reason I prefer using lights designed for Eneloops is the fact that they're far more stable than lithium ion, you don't really have to worry about over discharge and things like that. Some prefer the 14500 for easier solar charging if stranded in the woods but that's not a big deal to me. If I'm going hiking I'm not taking a small light anyway I'll take an 18650 light as my main light and then have something like this as a backup, the extra capacity and size of the 18650 are worth it and in a situation where a person gets stranded or can't recharge batteries you could use an 18650 light on the lower levels and get several weeks of battery life. I'm glad to finally see Selfbuilts review and it seems he was very impressed with what Zebralight did!


----------



## thedoc007 (Jul 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Are there 14500 brands that can safely deliver the current needed for a 1000 lumen light?
> 
> If so, what would the heat-sinking on the light need to be? Could a SC5 or SC52 sized light even handle that much power without overheating in less than a minute?



Yes, there are. Efest sells some good high-drain small cells. I have an Efest IMR 10440 that produces several hundred lumens in a direct drive setup...if that tiny cell can do it, I see no reason why a 14500 couldn't. Any quality IMR 14500 should be up to the job.

If the light is small, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about heatsinking. Yeah, it will heat up fast. My 10440 light gets quite warm within 20 seconds, and unbearably hot in well under a minute. But with the option of multiple modes, or if you simply want something that is ridiculously bright for the size, an IMR 14500 will absolutely blow an Eneloop AA out of the water.

I did say in an earlier post that Eneloops are adequate (and quite possibly better) for more practical applications. But a lot of people are well past the point where practicality is the only (or even the main) demand. This is an enthusiast forum!


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 6, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> If the light is small, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about heatsinking. Yeah, it will heat up fast. My 10440 light gets quite warm within 20 seconds, and unbearably hot in well under a minute. But with the option of multiple modes, or if you simply want something that is ridiculously bright for the size, an IMR 14500 will absolutely blow an Eneloop AA out of the water.



Hmmm, a 1000 lumen 14500-based light might be fun to use for a bit. But if it can only provide 20 seconds on maximum before overheating, it's really not practical. I probably wouldn't get one, but I'd definitely be interested in seeing the reviews if it's ever produced.

My feeling is that we'll eventually get to 1000 lumens with the same heat produced now by 500 lumens, using more efficient LEDs and drivers. That would make a 14500 light more practical. If we're at about 50% efficiency now, then we only have to get to 75% efficiency and we half the amount of waste heat. That would let us drive a SC52-sized light at 1000 lumens, like we do now at 500 lumens.

I don't know if we can improve the efficiency that much, but there might be a chance. We're already pretty efficient with the XM-L2, XPL, etc., but there's definitely still room for improvement.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 6, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> Yes, there are. Efest sells some good high-drain small cells. I have an Efest IMR 10440 that produces several hundred lumens in a direct drive setup...if that tiny cell can do it, I see no reason why a 14500 couldn't. Any quality IMR 14500 should be up to the job.
> 
> If the light is small, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about heatsinking. Yeah, it will heat up fast. My 10440 light gets quite warm within 20 seconds, and unbearably hot in well under a minute. But with the option of multiple modes, or if you simply want something that is ridiculously bright for the size, an IMR 14500 will absolutely blow an Eneloop AA out of the water.
> 
> I did say in an earlier post that Eneloops are adequate (and quite possibly better) for more practical applications. But a lot of people are well past the point where practicality is the only (or even the main) demand. This is an enthusiast forum!



It would be far more useful and practical to have a SC62 type light that would actually have PID and output nearly 1000 lumens with decent runtime, over an hour at least and far longer run times on 300 and 600 lumen levels. I consider 14500 a "tweener" battery since it doesn't have nearly the capacity of an 18650 while newer lights light the SC5 can get levels equal to a 14500 light without having to switch batteries. I personally only have one 14500 battery and its used for a laser build I have and that's about it, the rest of my lights are with cr123, 18650 or eneloop. To each his own though!


----------



## WarRaven (Jul 6, 2015)

Doesn't the EA11 hit 900 lumens off that same battery?
It does, it puts out 900 on 3.7 and 150 on 1.5v.
30 minutes on high for the 3.7, and 45 on 1.5v
Quite the output difference but,

That's not too shabby at all from one of these Tweener cells.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jul 6, 2015)

Exactly... if manufacturers decide to design lights around the 14500, we could see some impressive results... Nitecore is probably using the EA11 to sell some li-ion chargers, but good for them.

I would LOVE a replacement for my Quark Neutral Tactical AA/14500... same size, deep-arry clip, momentary switch, neutral tint, and good balance of throw/flood... that is designed around the 14500 and pushes close to 1,000 lumens... I use this type of light for momentary quick bursts to check on things, so 30 minutes of runtime is plenty before a battery change.

My Zebralight's are great for most uses... but sometimes I really like the format and switch on the Quark.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 6, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> The wait for your SC5w is going to seem like forever lol it always is that way with a new light it seems!



Yeah, got my shipping notice today, but I have to wait for it from China, unlike those in the US that get it locally. 
Got a couple more lights from the US on the way, so hopefully they will make the wait for the SC5w easier. I think that will be it, for me, until Christmas.




holygeez03 said:


> I would LOVE a replacement for my Quark Neutral Tactical AA/14500... same size, deep-arry clip, momentary switch, neutral tint, and good balance of throw/flood... that is designed around the 14500 and pushes close to 1,000 lumens... I use this type of light for momentary quick bursts to check on things, so 30 minutes of runtime is plenty before a battery change.



Probably not likely. 4sevens is not doing a great job (yet) on the Quark reboot. And, they've never been known for pushing the limits on output in their lights. I think their 10-year warranty makes them a little hesitant about overheating. Oh, and don't get me started about their lack of neutral whites over the past couple of years. They've clearly made a decision that cool white is the way to go.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 6, 2015)

WarRaven said:


> Doesn't the EA11 hit 900 lumens off that same battery?
> It does, it puts out 900 on 3.7 and 150 on 1.5v.
> 30 minutes on high for the 3.7, and 45 on 1.5v
> Quite the output difference but,
> ...



All the runtime tests I've read from our forum members get 10-15 mins max before the cell shuts off due to the voltage protection in either the light or cell. Sure it's impressive to get 900 lumens but if it's only going to give me 10-15 mins runtime that's not very practical. Now if Zebralight designed a 14500 focused light they could probably get better run times as their circuitry seems to be more efficient than Nitecore. However if I'm carrying a light the size of the SC5w or the Nitecore EA11 I might as well carry the SC62 that will give me 1-1.5 hours of runtime along with far better efficiency at lower levels providing weeks of use. Just my personal preference but I don't see much benefit anymore to a 14500 with Eneloops being successfully used and slightly larger lights like the SC62 vastly outperforming a 14500 battery. Even the rcr123 batteries in a light like the SC32 give performance equal to a 14500 in brightness but much better run times.


----------



## WarRaven (Jul 6, 2015)

Idk, I can appreciate short really high run times.
Rather have capability then not.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 6, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> However if I'm carrying a light the size of the SC5w or the Nitecore EA11 I might as well carry the SC62 that will give me 1-1.5 hours of runtime along with far better efficiency at lower levels providing weeks of use.



Yes, if you need long runtimes and high output, then an 18650 light is the way to go. But if you just need moderate-high output, and don't care about runtime on maximum, then the SC5 works well. It's smaller. That's why I think 14500 is obsolete: at extreme brightness, it just doesn't have enough runtime. And an Eneloop can now do just as well (certainly with the Zebralights). Overheating would also be too much of an issue above 500 lumens, with very small AA-sized lights.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Oh, and don't get me started about their lack of neutral whites over the past couple of years. They've clearly made a decision that cool white is the way to go.



Foursevens seems to have a 'canned' response to any inquiries regarding neutral emitters:

""Neutral" is not always the best. You'll get up to 30% less light for the same power and the actual color tint will still vary and almost always doesn't fit everyones preferences. A few years ago we tried to accommodate and made a small batch of neutral, warm, and high cri limited editions - it took years to sell. The demand for boutique tinted LED's just isn't there. Doesn't mean we won't do it in the future but we won't be making a bunch and floating inventory for years and get tons more complaints that that specific tint isn't according to someone's taste. And it's just not a good efficient use for LED's."

Given everything they say here, including the outright lies about people NOT wanting neutral emitters and loss of brightness (along with the fact that they don't even sell an MT-G2 light), it looks like they just don't WANT to sell lights with neutral emitters. So they therefore just put down the whole idea of neutral emitters as 'stupid'. This is one company that WON'T get my dollar.



snowlover91 said:


> Just my personal preference but I don't see much benefit anymore to a 14500 with Eneloops being successfully used and slightly larger lights like the SC62 vastly outperforming a 14500 battery. Even the rcr123 batteries in a light like the SC32 give performance equal to a 14500 in brightness but much better run times.



Keep in mind that the SC32w achieves 'more with less' because it's a lithium only light. By being optimized for lithium, it doesn't have to try to work with both 1.2 and 3.7 volts. It can therefore be optimized for good performance on Li-Ion batteries. THAT'S why you get almost half an hour on 446 lumens and over an hour on 245 lumens, while the SC52 struggles to get an hour at 280 lumens with a higher capacity battery. But that's not the fault of the 14500. That's because of the compromise in the design of the SC52.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 6, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Foursevens seems to have a 'canned' response to any inquiries regarding neutral emitters:
> 
> ""Neutral" is not always the best. You'll get up to 30% less light for the same power and the actual color tint will still vary and almost always doesn't fit everyones preferences. A few years ago we tried to accommodate and made a small batch of neutral, warm, and high cri limited editions - it took years to sell. The demand for boutique tinted LED's just isn't there. Doesn't mean we won't do it in the future but we won't be making a bunch and floating inventory for years and get tons more complaints that that specific tint isn't according to someone's taste. And it's just not a good efficient use for LED's."
> 
> Given everything they say here, including the outright lies about people NOT wanting neutral emitters and loss of brightness (along with the fact that they don't even sell an MT-G2 light), it looks like they just don't WANT to sell lights with neutral emitters. So they therefore just put down the whole idea of neutral emitters as 'stupid'. This is one company that WON'T get my dollar.



Given some of the tint snobs posting about Zebralight's tints, I can sort of understand that concern they have. The other points are either wrong or red herrings. They just never tried seriously to sell neutral/warm lights. They made it way more difficult than their standard cool whites. Oh, and I have a few 4sevens cool-white lights, and they all have green coronas and purple spills (XML, XPG, and XPE), so cool-white isn't any better in that regard.




> Keep in mind that the SC32w achieves 'more with less' because it's a lithium only light. By being optimized for lithium, it doesn't have to try to work with both 1.2 and 3.7 volts. It can therefore be optimized for good performance on Li-Ion batteries. THAT'S why you get almost half an hour on 446 lumens and over an hour on 245 lumens, while the SC52 struggles to get an hour at 280 lumens with a higher capacity battery. But that's not the fault of the 14500. That's because of the compromise in the design of the SC52.



That makes sense, but then why doesn't the SC5 have better efficiency than the SC52? Selfbuilt's output curves shows the SC52 actually beats the SC5 on some modes (medium). Though, the SC5 does seem slightly better on the high modes. Perhaps targetting one battery chemistry works best on high output.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Given some of the tint snobs posting about Zebralight's tints, I can sort of understand that concern they have. The other points are either wrong or red herrings. They just never tried seriously to sell neutral/warm lights. They made it way more difficult than their standard cool whites. Oh, and I have a few 4sevens cool-white lights, and they all have green coronas and purple spills (XML, XPG, and XPE), so cool-white isn't any better in that regard.



The only logical reason I can think of as to why Foursevens is SO against neutral emitters is that they will bring tint snobs out of the woodwork, and result in more returns. They kind of even suggest that this was a problem. I think that they decided to become a 'cool white only' company because they figured that it would eliminate such customers, and encourage sales only to those who don't care about tint (thus eliminating tint-related returns). Regardless, this is still a stupid tactic. And trying to suggest that neutral tints are a stupid idea right off the bat just makes them come across as arrogant.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 6, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> The only logical reason I can think of as to why Foursevens is SO against neutral emitters is that they will bring tint snobs out of the woodwork, and result in more returns. They kind of even suggest that this was a problem. I think that they decided to become a 'cool white only' company because they figured that it would eliminate such customers, and encourage sales only to those who don't care about tint (thus eliminating tint-related returns). Regardless, this is still a stupid tactic. And trying to suggest that neutral tints are a stupid idea right off the bat just makes them come across as arrogant.



They could just implement a policy of no returns for bad tints (or pay a restocking fee). Illum states that in their policy. I guess returns for poor tints can become a problem if you allow returns for any reason, but that's no reason to refuse to make them. I actually like Illum's policy of no returns, because I don't want to get someone else's returned light with a bad tint. I'll play a fair tint lottery, not one rigged against me.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> They could just implement a policy of no returns for bad tints (or pay a restocking fee). Illum states that in their policy. I guess returns for poor tints can become a problem if you allow returns for any reason, but that's no reason to refuse to make them. I actually like Illum's policy of no returns, because I don't want to get someone else's returned light with a bad tint. I'll play a fair tint lottery, not one rigged against me.



Good point. They could also do what Zebralight did, and step things up as far as tint quality. You KNOW that reducing returns was probably a big reason behind the drastically improved tints from Zebralight. Also, Fourseven's response speaks of bad experiences a 'couple of years ago'. One thing I have noticed is that tints (and tint consistency) in general have improved ALOT in the last year or two.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Yes, if you need long runtimes and high output, then an 18650 light is the way to go. But if you just need moderate-high output, and don't care about runtime on maximum, then the SC5 works well. It's smaller. That's why I think 14500 is obsolete: at extreme brightness, it just doesn't have enough runtime. And an Eneloop can now do just as well (certainly with the Zebralights). Overheating would also be too much of an issue above 500 lumens, with very small AA-sized lights.



Thats exactly my point, I think what Selfbuilt was referencing and my point as well is just that. If a person needs medium to high output up to 600 lumens then the SC5 light with Eneloop is just as good as a 14500 light, same brightness and decent runtime. If the 14500 is pushed much beyond 500-600 lumens then with current technology it has extremely limited runtimes even with lights optimized to use them like the Nitecore EA11 and at that point an 18650 light is much more practical. 

To sum it up I really don't see an advantage to 14500 anymore outside of easier charging with solar panels. Otherwise for less than 600 lumens the SC5 models are tough to beat and if you need more than that it's better to go with an 18650 light which can give 900-1000 lumens for more than 10 mins. Regarding the SC32, I find that my rcr123 batteries have 600-650mah while my 14500 have between 700-750. For me the best three cells are rcr for compact lights, Eneloops for slightly larger lights up to 550 lumens and then 18650 for anything brighter. In my opinion and use these three give me the best options for EDC, hiking and around the house/general utility.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 6, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> Thats exactly my point, I think what Selfbuilt was referencing and my point as well is just that. If a person needs medium to high output up to 600 lumens then the SC5 light with Eneloop is just as good as a 14500 light, same brightness and decent runtime. If the 14500 is pushed much beyond 500-600 lumens then with current technology it has extremely limited runtimes even with lights optimized to use them like the Nitecore EA11 and at that point an 18650 light is much more practical.
> 
> To sum it up I really don't see an advantage to 14500 anymore outside of easier charging with solar panels. Otherwise for less than 600 lumens the SC5 models are tough to beat and if you need more than that it's better to go with an 18650 light which can give 900-1000 lumens for more than 10 mins. Regarding the SC32, I find that my rcr123 batteries have 600-650mah while my 14500 have between 700-750. For me the best three cells are rcr for compact lights, Eneloops for slightly larger lights up to 550 lumens and then 18650 for anything brighter. In my opinion and use these three give me the best options for EDC, hiking and around the house/general utility.



On the other hand, having to use a boost driver with a single AA doesn't make for a very efficient light. Not only that, but drawing high current from a AA further reduces available energy by reducing voltage and capacity. So even though a Sanyo UR14500p has roughly the same energy as an Eneloop 2400, the UR14500p has more USABLE energy in a single cell light, particularly at higher brightness levels. In other words, a 500 lumen light will run longer AND cooler than a 1xAA light at the same brightness level.

As far as RCR vs 14500, RCR COULD be a viable substitute for a 14500. I emphasize 'could' because there currently aren't any good 16340s. I actually REALLY like my SC32w. But without a good battery to feed it, it will always be somewhat hobbled. Now if I could have the same great light that could accept a 14500, that would be another story.

By the way, a 14500 isn't just easier to charge with a solar panel. It's also easier to charge in a car with a cigarette lighter or in an office. There just really aren't any good, compact AA chargers out there that can charge a NiMH AA in a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 7, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> On the other hand, having to use a boost driver with a single AA doesn't make for a very efficient light. Not only that, but drawing high current from a AA further reduces available energy by reducing voltage and capacity. So even though a Sanyo UR14500p has roughly the same energy as an Eneloop 2400, the UR14500p has more USABLE energy in a single cell light, particularly at higher brightness levels. In other words, a 500 lumen light will run longer AND cooler than a 1xAA light at the same brightness level.
> 
> As far as RCR vs 14500, RCR COULD be a viable substitute for a 14500. I emphasize 'could' because there currently aren't any good 16340s. I actually REALLY like my SC32w. But without a good battery to feed it, it will always be somewhat hobbled. Now if I could have the same great light that could accept a 14500, that would be another story.
> 
> By the way, a 14500 isn't just easier to charge with a solar panel. It's also easier to charge in a car with a cigarette lighter or in an office. There just really aren't any good, compact AA chargers out there that can charge a NiMH AA in a reasonable amount of time.



Certainly using Eneloops is less efficient especially at the higher levels it is being driven at. However my main point was not regarding efficiency but light output. The 14500 in a SC52 vs Eneloop in SC5 give roughly similar output and runtime. Outside of the charging aspect being easier for 14500 batteries, the SC5 with Eneloops has every other advantage. You don't have to switch batteries, you get 3 mins of turbo vs 1, better/stable chemistry of NIMH and better cost efficiency as well. Selfbuilts review showed that output and runtime on the high modes of these two lights are nearly identical thus why he declared the 14500 "obsolete." Don't get me wrong the 14500 is a good battery but the only real advantage it has going for it now is the easier charging. Here is the runtime graphic he posted comparing the two models:






For RCR batteries I've found the Olight to be fairly decent, measured capacity in the 600-650mah range with new cells. I haven't had them long enough to test durability over time but they seem good thus far, the Nitecore cells are also pretty good measuring 575-615mah for me.


----------



## thedoc007 (Jul 7, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> Outside of the charging aspect being easier for 14500 batteries, the SC5 with Eneloops has every other advantage. You don't have to switch batteries, you get 3 mins of turbo vs 1, better/stable chemistry of NIMH and better cost efficiency as well. Selfbuilts review showed that output and runtime on the high modes of these two lights are nearly identical thus why he declared the 14500 "obsolete." Don't get me wrong the 14500 is a good battery but the only real advantage it has going for it now is the easier charging. Here is the runtime graphic he posted comparing the two models:



This is awfully misleading...you are comparing two different lights, not the battery or cell. The SC52 has been around for years...I'm sure if they gave it an overhaul, especially if they designed it for 14500 from the beginning, you might have a significantly different result.

14500 has higher energy density per gram, a much higher potential total power capability, it is easier to charge quickly, it matches better voltage-wise with the most common LEDs (meaning better efficiency and less heat), and it is much easier to get an accurate state of charge reading. If NONE of those points matter to me, that is fine...and certainly an AA would be a better choice for you. But calling it obsolete is at the very least an exaggeration, and for some it may be downright silly.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 7, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> This is awfully misleading...you are comparing two different lights, not the battery or cell. The SC52 has been around for years...I'm sure if they gave it an overhaul, especially if they designed it for 14500 from the beginning, you might have a significantly different result.
> 
> 14500 has higher energy density per gram, a much higher potential total power capability, it is easier to charge quickly, it matches better voltage-wise with the most common LEDs (meaning better efficiency and less heat), and it is much easier to get an accurate state of charge reading. If NONE of those points matter to me, that is fine...and certainly an AA would be a better choice for you. But calling it obsolete is at the very least an exaggeration, and for some it may be downright silly.



*FWIW I did not call it obsolete, I said Selfbuilt did in his review.* Sure it's possible the 14500 could be better if used in a newer light designed for it, but my point still stands. The SC5 running Eneloops is as bright as any 14500 light out there, except the Nitecore EA11, and has good run times at these levels. The Nitecore EA11 illustrates the upper limit of what 14500 can do and at 800-900 lumens you get short runtime so of 10-15mins max and inefficient lower level run times. *Again my point was that for all intents and purposes the SC5 on Eneloops can do everything a 14500 light can do, with similar run times.* If a person needs more than 600 lumens they need to be looking at 18650 lights and not 14500 lights as the technology just isn't there to get a 14500 light with good runtime and more than 600 lumens. It is a limit both of the cell itself as well as current LED technology and circuitry. 

Again I did not call the 14500 obsolete but referenced Selfbuilt who does. Whether you agree or not he is one of the most respected forum members and his point is the same as mine. You no longer need 14500 batteries to get 500+ lumens it can be achieved with Eneloops with similar results in both output and runtime as the graph linked above illustrates. Were the SC52 designed for 14500 exclusively it would likely be quite similar to the SC32 in performance with similar run times and 500-600 lumens on high. 

From a real world use perspective I again see little benefit to a 14500 light outside of easier charging. That certainly is true and for those who are on the go or using solar panels that's great, but that is the only practical benefit (and maybe voltage check). Outside of this runtime and brightness are going to be similar and 14500 is no longer needed to achieve 500+ lumens from an AA sized battery.


----------



## WarRaven (Jul 7, 2015)

Odd to think RCR is cool an 14500 is a dying breed, shouldn't that be the other way around if it held water. Seeing as how they are near identical in performance but one is a decade older.
Selfbuilt saying it (14500) maybe going obsolete I can understand, he was praising this ZL lights achievement an abilities no?


I see a lot more 400- 500 lumen lights using that RCR then NiMH, not saying anything but that there is a market for them still true enough. I like and still use them daily.

I also think 14500 might become more popular with lights that feature in built charging, like S15R, true it does not hold a candle to these ZL above but is a step in a direction I'm guessing others will follow soon.
Also pushing the curve using the 14500 once they can get it with the light out there.

I believe this ZL an it's ability to drive a NiMH like that is the odd one at this point still. A win non the less, but not many other on one cell can. 
Praises.
Though, other cells will live on.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 7, 2015)

Interesting points WarRaven, it is odd because rcr at one point many would overlook. Recent advances in technology are probably part of the growing popularity as they can put out over 400 lumens easily with decent run times. I remember in the Nitecore PD days they got 180-250 lumens on one, 5-7 years later we have about double the brightness. The built in charging of 14500 lights will probably be limited and weaker than ones without it mainly due to legal issues. Companies will be extra careful knowing the dangers of lithium ion if things go wrong and they surely don't want a lawsuit lol. 

I think you'll see one of two trends with 14500 lights. Either more companies will try to compete with the SC5 and focus on low voltage high lumen lights or you'll see the continued lumen craze with more 14500 lights trying to break 1000 lumens like Nitecore. Which way it goes I have no idea lol. I will say getting 500+ lumens from an Eneloop is pretty impressive by Zebralight and I must say my copy has the best neutral tint (SC5w) of any of my lights.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jul 7, 2015)

WarRaven said:


> Odd to think RCR is cool an 14500 is a dying breed, shouldn't that be the other way around if it held water. Seeing as how they are near identical in performance but one is a decade older.



Rcr123a had some foothold here due to the point and click cameras. I have some cells and chargers for a Kodak still. Gone are those days though. Cr123a batteries are rare and cost a lot. 14500 are even rarer although thanks to vapers, they can be seen in some shops but are really expensive. It was always hard to get cylindrical lithium ion batteries here. I have been harvesting them from laptops for a while now or reaching out online for them but there is always the worry about them being delivered. 

At some point, economics will decide whether 14500 lights are worth designing.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 7, 2015)

WarRaven said:


> Odd to think RCR is cool an 14500 is a dying breed, shouldn't that be the other way around if it held water. Seeing as how they are near identical in performance but one is a decade older.



The thing is, the two are NOT identical as far as performance. By far, the 14500 is the better performer here. Not because there is something inherently bad about the 16340. But rather, it seems like more effort has been put into the 16340 to make it a better battery. This is especially apparent when we consider that a quality, Japanese made 14500 is available (Sanyo UR14500p). But all 16340s are cheaper Chinese cells. If we could have something comparable to the UR14500p in a 16340, then that would make the 16340 a MUCH more respectable battery.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 7, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> They could also do what Zebralight did, and step things up as far as tint quality. You KNOW that reducing returns was probably a big reason behind the drastically improved tints from Zebralight.



:thumbsup: Yup, that's the ideal way a company should respond to it. Giving up on neutral tints is a cop-out.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jul 7, 2015)

There are other threads complaining about neutral tint policies of manufacturers... at least one that I started. This thread is for discussion about the the SC5/SC5w right?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 7, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> There are other threads complaining about neutral tint policies of manufacturers... at least one that I started. This thread is for discussion about the the SC5/SC5w right?



Discussing how Zebralight is handling tint quality in the SC5w seems perfectly suited to this thread. Okay, discussing how others are not doing it correctly is a little bit OT, but comparing approaches of different companies doesn't seem to far off-base.


----------



## gkbain (Jul 8, 2015)

History will tell if the 14500 is extinct. The SC5 on an Elenloop Pro is one amazing light as well as the SC52 on a 14500. IMHO I believe they are for different purposes.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2015)

gkbain said:


> History will tell if the 14500 is extinct. The SC5 on an Elenloop Pro is one amazing light as well as the SC52 on a 14500. IMHO I believe they are for different purposes.



Yes. Exactly! For my purposes, 14500 is still a better fit.

"The 14500 is dead! Long live the 14500!" - Amelia


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 8, 2015)

Looking at the lower mode between these two lights we see the 14500 runs at a lower kumen level till it slams into a wall and suffers an instant death.

The Eneloop pro powered light runs at a higher lumen level...and does it for nearly 1/3 longer. Finally it drops down, but not out. Rather, it continues to putter along allowing you to find your way for much longer...in a life and death situation...lost in a deep cave (for an example that will never happen) the SC5 gives you a chance. The SC52 on 14500...no hope. But it is smaller.

I choose slightly larger with hope, over slightly smaller with instant death.


----------



## RedForest UK (Jul 8, 2015)

Bear in mind that with the 14500 you can just let it rest for a few seconds and turn it back on in the lowest level if you really need more light. But you will risk more deeply discharging the cell. Also, the old 750mah AW cell that selfbuilt uses is not the highest capacity available right now and I think is also quite old itself, I would think that a new UR14500p could add a bit to those runtime graphs.

I can of course also see the appeal of just running eneloops, and am very interested in this new zebra. I was worried the smooth reflector may lead to an imperfect beam but reports seem to be of very few/no artefacts and consistently centred LEDs so maybe that's not too much of an issue afterall. 

One of the factors that li-ion will always have over ni-mh though is weight. It's not really a big deal, but I've got used to the weight of my SC52w with 14500, and whenever I put an eneloop in it does seem quite noticably heavier. I'm sure I'd readjust in time, but for EDC in a pocket that bit of extra weight may be worth consideration for some.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jul 8, 2015)

RedForest UK said:


> Bear in mind that with the 14500 you can just let it rest for a few seconds and turn it back on in the lowest level if you really need more light. But you will risk more deeply discharging the cell. Also, the old 750mah AW cell that selfbuilt uses is not the highest capacity available right now and I think is also quite old itself, I would think that a new UR14500p could add a bit to those runtime graphs.



Definitely! Even brand new, the AW is not the greatest thing around. The UR14500p is a MUCH better cell. But if the AW is old, all bets are off.


----------



## recDNA (Jul 8, 2015)

Wow, Eneloop pro are expensive!


----------



## recDNA (Jul 8, 2015)

Has anybody actually checked the output of the sc5w?


----------



## uofaengr (Jul 8, 2015)

Would love to see video comparing the beam with the smooth reflector of the SC5w and OP reflector of the SC52w. I really love the consistent beam and spill of the 52. Been highly debating getting the 5w, but feel like the beam profile might be a lot different?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 8, 2015)

recDNA said:


> Has anybody actually checked the output of the sc5w?



Not that I have seen. So I (and most?) are just going off the factory ratings (500).


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 8, 2015)

uofaengr said:


> Would love to see video comparing the beam with the smooth reflector of the SC5w and OP reflector of the SC52w. I really love the consistent beam and spill of the 52. Been highly debating getting the 5w, but feel like the beam profile might be a lot different?



Yea, would like to see some side by side video too. We know the SC5 hot spot is narrower by 2 degrees (10 VS 12). That I don't like. But others might prefer the slightly increased throw.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 8, 2015)

Badbeams3 said:


> Yea, would like to see some side by side video too. We know the SC5 hot spot is narrower by 2 degrees (10 VS 12). That I don't like. But others might prefer the slightly increased throw.



Selfbuilt lists the lux of the SC5 at 4750, and the SC52 at 2050. Since the SC5 has twice the lumens, if the beam profile was the same the lux would only be about 4000. So, it has a bit more of the throwy beam that the SC52, but not a huge amout. 4750 lux is certainly not a thrower, especially at 500 lumens. It's still a very floody light.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 8, 2015)

recDNA said:


> Has anybody actually checked the output of the sc5w?



Selfbuilt measured 575 lumens in his test. Keep in mind his numbers don't claim exact accuracy but the output is relative and consistent across all of his tests. Quite impressive IMO.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 9, 2015)

Badbeams3 said:


> Yea, would like to see some side by side video too. We know the SC5 hot spot is narrower by 2 degrees (10 VS 12). That I don't like. But others might prefer the slightly increased throw.



I don't have a video, but here's a quick wall shot at about 5'. I really don't recall noticing more throw from the SC5w when testing it at longer distances.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I don't have a video, but here's a quick wall shot at about 5'. I really don't recall noticing more throw from the SC5w when testing it at longer distances.



Thanks! Pretty much look the same to me regarding size of hot spot....tint looks the same too...


----------



## markr6 (Jul 9, 2015)

Badbeams3 said:


> Thanks! Pretty much look the same to me regarding size of hot spot....tint looks the same too...



Yeah the tints were close, very nice. I returned the SC5w because of the purple in the center (can't really see in photo). I'm picky, but it was bad even for "normal" people  This thread wants me to try another though!


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Yeah the tints were close, very nice. I returned the SC5w because of the purple in the center (can't really see in photo). I'm picky, but it was bad even for "normal" people  This thread wants me to try another though!



Think you have said that several times now...why don't you call and have them check out the tint for you before shipping one. They used to do that for me. Probably would do that for you since your a *connoisseur of fine tints. Brightguy still shows them in stock. Ask for Greg...I think that's his name.

*http://www.brightguy.com/ZebraLight/Zebralight+SC5w+Flashlight


----------



## markr6 (Jul 9, 2015)

Badbeams3 said:


> Think you have said that several times now...why don't you call and have them check out the tint for you before shipping one. They used to do that for me. Probably would do that for you since your a *connoisseur of fine tints. Brightguy still shows them in stock. Ask for Greg...I think that's his name.
> 
> *http://www.brightguy.com/ZebraLight/Zebralight+SC5w+Flashlight



I may try again. I specifically asked ZL to check before my initial order but apparently they did not.

I play the tint lottery, fine. I don't accept defective emitters with purple crap in the middle producing an eyeball looking back at me :green:


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I may try again. I specifically asked ZL to check before my initial order but apparently they did not.
> 
> I play the tint lottery, fine. I don't accept defective emitters with purple crap in the middle producing an eyeball looking back at me :green:


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I don't have a video, but here's a quick wall shot at about 5'. I really don't recall noticing more throw from the SC5w when testing it at longer distances.



Nice! :twothumbs


----------



## recDNA (Jul 9, 2015)

Sc5 vs sc5w would also be a very helpful white wall comparison. I'm torn between a little better throw and output vs a better tint. It might take a manual slr to take an accurate picture but I'll be thrilled even to see a phone picture comparing them.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jul 9, 2015)

As has been stated around here many times... the 7% total lumen loss is negligible when comparing cool vs neutral... _most _people agree that the increase in color rendering information more than makes up for the lumens.

If you actually prefer cool white tints, by all means go for it.

Otherwise, there is really no reason not to go for neutral.


----------



## recDNA (Jul 9, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> For those who asked for comparisons between the SC62w and the SC5w here are a few beamshot pics as well as a comparison between the two lights showing how similar they are in size. One thing I will mention is that even though the beam shots don't picture it very well, my SC5w has probably the best tint out of all my lights and is comparable with my Nichia 219 but slightly better to me. Also the better throw of the SC5 is apparent both in the pics and in real life, it isn't a tremendous difference but the hotspot is much more focused and less diffuse. All pictures were taken on the medium setting which is 45 lumens for the SC5w and 65 for the SC62w.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A comparison of H1 would help me more. Another great comparison would be max on sc32w vs max on sc5w. Is the sc5w noticeably brighter?


----------



## uofaengr (Jul 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I don't have a video, but here's a quick wall shot at about 5'. I really don't recall noticing more throw from the SC5w when testing it at longer distances.


Hmm not too much difference. What mode is this on? I wonder why they went with the smooth reflector then for the SC5. For up close and personal work like I commonly use my lights for, a well defined hotspot is not my favorite. This shows up a lot in my bigger lights on low like the TN12 and the Fury.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 9, 2015)

uofaengr said:


> Hmm not too much difference. What mode is this on? I wonder why they went with the smooth reflector then for the SC5. For up close and personal work like I commonly use my lights for, a well defined hotspot is not my favorite. This shows up a lot in my bigger lights on low like the TN12 and the Fury.



I really don't remember, but I'm guessing I used H1 since that was an easy comparison with same lumens.


----------



## recDNA (Jul 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I really don't remember, but I'm guessing I used H1 since that was an easy comparison with same lumens.


Ya but we want to see the difference of lume s on H1 of each


----------



## markr6 (Jul 9, 2015)

recDNA said:


> Ya but we want to see the difference of lume s on H1 of each



I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both 500lm on H1. You mean the 280lm vs 304lm?


----------



## recDNA (Jul 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both 500lm on H1. You mean the 280lm vs 304lm?


They say both are 500 max doesn't mean they ARE the same on max.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 9, 2015)

recDNA said:


> They say both are 500 max doesn't mean they ARE the same on max.



Got it. Sorry, I didn't have have equipment to measure this other than the constantly aging eyes! They looked the same to me.


----------



## snowlover91 (Jul 9, 2015)

recDNA said:


> They say both are 500 max doesn't mean they ARE the same on max.



Selfbuilt measured 540 lumens on the SC52 with 14500 and 575 lumens from the SC5. Not much of a difference but definitely a little bit brighter.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Aug 19, 2015)

Hm... just noticed my little-used SC5w seems to have declined.

When I first got it on Eneloop Pro, it was easily as bright as my SC52w on 14500.

But now, it's far dimmer. I'd be surprised if it's outputting more than 50 lumens at max turbo even on a fresh Eneloop Pro... not good considering it's mostly just been sitting on a desk while I EDC other lights. Sounds like its time to send it back for warranty repair.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Aug 20, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Hm... just noticed my little-used SC5w seems to have declined.
> 
> When I first got it on Eneloop Pro, it was easily as bright as my SC52w on 14500.
> 
> But now, it's far dimmer. I'd be surprised if it's outputting more than 50 lumens at max turbo even on a fresh Eneloop Pro... not good considering it's mostly just been sitting on a desk while I EDC other lights. Sounds like its time to send it back for warranty repair.



Have you tried it with a different battery you know is good? If so, yeah, the driver sounds like it's broken.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 20, 2015)

SC5/w OP (Orange Peel) version now available for pre-order. Shipping Sept. 4!!


----------



## snowlover91 (Aug 20, 2015)

markr6 said:


> SC5/w OP (Orange Peel) version now available for pre-order. Shipping Sept. 4!!



How many did you preorder?


----------



## markr6 (Aug 20, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> How many did you preorder?



HAHA you know what, I actually had 2 in my cart! But $140 for two AA flashlights just didn't seem right! I figured I would try one, then immediately order another if I really like it, hoping to get "matching" tints.

Specs still say 80° spill, 10° spot. So either they didn't update that part, or specs are so close it wasn't worth measuring. OP may have just evened the beam ever so slightly; that's my hope!


----------



## snowlover91 (Aug 20, 2015)

Ha I knew it! Here's to hoping you get a great copy with excellent tint, I know my copy is excellent and even makes my Nichia look bad which is pretty impressive. Now to see what the SC5fd will look like when they ship it..


----------



## SubLGT (Aug 22, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Definitely! Even brand new, the AW is not the greatest thing around. The UR14500p is a MUCH better cell. But if the AW is old, all bets are off.



The "problem" with the Sanyo UR14500P is that it is only a 1A cell. Put a 2A load on it, and there is a significant reduction in voltage and capacity. This is clearly shown in HKJ's test of the cell. Of course, if your flashlight only pulls a max of 1A, then there is no problem.


----------



## henry1960 (Aug 22, 2015)

markr6 said:


> HAHA you know what, I actually had 2 in my cart! But $140 for two AA flashlights just didn't seem right! I figured I would try one, then immediately order another if I really like it, hoping to get "matching" tints.
> 
> Specs still say 80° spill, 10° spot. So either they didn't update that part, or specs are so close it wasn't worth measuring. OP may have just evened the beam ever so slightly; that's my hope!



Just Ordered Me One!!


----------



## reppans (Aug 22, 2015)

SubLGT said:


> The "problem" with the Sanyo UR14500P is that it is only a 1A cell. Put a 2A load on it, and there is a significant reduction in voltage and capacity. This is clearly shown in HKJ's test of the cell. Of course, if your flashlight only pulls a max of 1A, then there is no problem.



All ICRs do the same with this Sanyo still yielding the best curves - it can handle 2A. An IMR is technically better for >1.5A draws, but then you take a big capacity hit. I think the big problem with this cell is that it is "big" (long) and won't fit in some lights - and some folks that forced it (screwed it down), have broken the circuit board on their light.


----------



## SubLGT (Aug 22, 2015)

reppans said:


> All ICRs do the same with this Sanyo still yielding the best curves - it can handle 2A. An IMR is technically better for >1.5A draws, but then you take a big capacity hit. I think the big problem with this cell is that it is "big" (long) and won't fit in some lights - and some folks that forced it (screwed it down), have broken the circuit board on their light.



It is supposedly 49.3mm long. Is the spec wrong?
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...R14500P-800mAh-(Red)&highlight=Sanyo+UR14500P

The protected button top Keeppower 14500 840mAh, which is built around the Sanyo, is 52.7mm long. I can see how that might not fit in some flashlights.


----------



## reppans (Aug 22, 2015)

SubLGT said:


> It is supposedly 49.3mm long. Is the spec wrong?
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...R14500P-800mAh-(Red)&highlight=Sanyo+UR14500P
> 
> The protected button top Keeppower 14500 840mAh, which is built around the Sanyo, is 52.7mm long. I can see how that might not fit in some flashlights.



haha... Yes, I was looking at the KP version. Did you also notice on HKJs comparator, the red sample you link performs substantially worse at 2A and 3A (and now I see why you commented on 1A+). HKJ does mention at the end that this red sample cell was in storage for some time - perhaps that's the difference.

http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonSmallcomparator.php


----------



## SubLGT (Aug 22, 2015)

There is another 2A test of the Sanyo here: http://www.dampfakkus.de/akkutest.php?id=20

The Sanyo came from a source different than HKJ"s

It still had unimpressive performance, being slightly worse than the protected Nitecore 14500 750mAh battery.


----------



## insanefred (Aug 22, 2015)

reppans said:


> All ICRs do the same with this Sanyo still yielding the best curves - it can handle 2A. An IMR is technically better for >1.5A draws, but then you take a big capacity hit. I think the big problem with this cell is that it is "big" (long) and won't fit in some lights - and some folks that forced it (screwed it down), have broken the circuit board on their light.





SubLGT said:


> It is supposedly 49.3mm long. Is the spec wrong?
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...R14500P-800mAh-(Red)&highlight=Sanyo+UR14500P
> 
> The protected button top Keeppower 14500 840mAh, which is built around the Sanyo, is 52.7mm long. I can see how that might not fit in some flashlights.





reppans said:


> haha... Yes, I was looking at the KP version. Did you also notice on HKJs comparator, the red sample you link performs substantially worse at 2A and 3A (and now I see why you commented on 1A+). HKJ does mention at the end that this red sample cell was in storage for some time - perhaps that's the difference.
> 
> http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonSmallcomparator.php





SubLGT said:


> There is another 2A test of the Sanyo here: http://www.dampfakkus.de/akkutest.php?id=20
> 
> The Sanyo came from a source different than HKJ"s
> 
> It still had unimpressive performance, being slightly worse than the protected Nitecore 14500 750mAh battery.




I pretty sure this is the wrong thread for this guys. Last time I checked, the sc5 series can't even use 3.7v battery. 

*Back on topic:

*


I just pre-ordered my SC5fd!


----------



## PandaLight (Aug 22, 2015)

Posted this question on the other SC5 thread but, has anyone tried it with a 14500 yet?


----------



## ankhbr (Aug 27, 2015)

Hi guys.

Is any of you using a holster for your SC5 light? If so, which one?

Thanks


----------



## markr6 (Aug 27, 2015)

ankhbr said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> Is any of you using a holster for your SC5 light? If so, which one?
> 
> Thanks



Here is the SC600 in Jetbeam 12x3.3cm holster. Cheap $$







It's really jammed in there. The SC62 is a better fit, so I think the SC5 would be OK. Probably still larger than necessary, so I'm interested in other ideas!


----------



## Burgess (Aug 28, 2015)

Perfect Holster for my ZebraLight SC5w --


http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...bralight-SC5&p=4681393&viewfull=1#post4681393


----------



## pisar (Oct 1, 2015)

PandaLight said:


> Posted this question on the other SC5 thread but, has anyone tried it with a 14500 yet?



Yes i tried it and nothing happened (it wasn't working with 14500).


----------



## UnderPar (Oct 1, 2015)

SC5 is designed for AA battery and its maximum operating voltage is only up to 2VDC. 14500 li-ion battery has a nominal voltage of 3.7VDC. So there. Check out their website for specs. Hth


----------



## recDNA (Oct 4, 2015)

The sc5w uses xm-l2. The new mk iii headlamps use 83-85 cri xm-l2. Is the sc5w also 83-85 CRI now?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Oct 4, 2015)

recDNA said:


> The sc5w uses xm-l2. The new mk iii headlamps use 83-85 cri xm-l2. Is the sc5w also 83-85 CRI now?



I don't think so. You need to go for the SC5Fd or SC5Fc to get 83-85 CRI. Neutral white XML2 is typically 75 CRI. Cool white is 65 CRI.


----------



## Uprightman (Oct 16, 2015)

I've been looking around to an answer on this an I can't seem to find one. Will the SC5 run, and hit max output, on a regular Eneloop? Or does it need to use Eneloop pros? I've been thinking about getting a new light, and I would really rather be able to stick to regular Eneloops.


----------



## snowlover91 (Oct 16, 2015)

Uprightman said:


> I've been looking around to an answer on this an I can't seem to find one. Will the SC5 run, and hit max output, on a regular Eneloop? Or does it need to use Eneloop pros? I've been thinking about getting a new light, and I would really rather be able to stick to regular Eneloops.



Yep it will on regular Eneloops as well. Runtime may be a little less but you'll still get the ~500 lumens.


----------



## Uprightman (Oct 16, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> Yep it will on regular Eneloops as well. Runtime may be a little less but you'll still get the ~500 lumens.


Is the difference enough that it's worth spending the scratch on the other eneloops? I'm thinking as long as I stay up on charging it's a non issue.


----------



## snowlover91 (Oct 17, 2015)

Uprightman said:


> Is the difference enough that it's worth spending the scratch on the other eneloops? I'm thinking as long as I stay up on charging it's a non issue.



One of our forum members did some tests between the two, I can't remember who it was but there was a 10-15% increase in runtime especially noticeable at the medium and lower output settings. It wasn't as big a difference on the highest two modes but if you plan on getting a few extra hours of runtime at the lower medium and moonlight modes you may want to invest in a pack. You can also get the ion core Duracell batteries which are the Eneloop Pro batteries just rebranded. 

I use the pro batteries in mine just to maximize runtime but really on a day to day basis I don't notice the difference too much. Where you'll need it is if you're out hiking, camping, etc and will be using it continuously for hours at a time. In this case the Eneloop Pro capacity will offer a big benefit. Otherwise for EDC use I say stick with your Eneloops. Hope this helps!


----------



## Uprightman (Oct 17, 2015)

snowlover91 said:


> One of our forum members did some tests between the two, I can't remember who it was but there was a 10-15% increase in runtime especially noticeable at the medium and lower output settings. It wasn't as big a difference on the highest two modes but if you plan on getting a few extra hours of runtime at the lower medium and moonlight modes you may want to invest in a pack. You can also get the ion core Duracell batteries which are the Eneloop Pro batteries just rebranded.
> 
> I use the pro batteries in mine just to maximize runtime but really on a day to day basis I don't notice the difference too much. Where you'll need it is if you're out hiking, camping, etc and will be using it continuously for hours at a time. In this case the Eneloop Pro capacity will offer a big benefit. Otherwise for EDC use I say stick with your Eneloops. Hope this helps!


Thank you, that was super helpful!


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Oct 17, 2015)

If you're interested, here are my runtime tests of the SC5w on a regular Eneloop:

High 1 : (measured at 21min, using rests between each 2-3min run)
High 2a : (measured at 42-43min)
High 2b : (measured at 97-98min)
High 2c : (measured at 3h 30min)
Medium 1: (measured at 6h 30min)

Note that if you use High1, it will step-down to High2a after 3 minutes, and you'll get a run-time close to 35 minutes. My test was to see how much total run-time you would get if you ran it on High1 all the time.

And yes, you get full output on a regular Eneloop, you just lose some runtime compared to a Pro.

Also, note that my tests were stopped as soon as the light started to dim. You'd still get much longer runs, but at a lower output due to the depleted battery.


----------



## Burgess (Oct 17, 2015)

Wondering if perhaps anyone

has measured Current Drain at the various levels ? ? ?


( would be interesting to know . . . . )

lovecpf


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Oct 18, 2015)

Burgess said:


> Wondering if perhaps anyone
> 
> has measured Current Drain at the various levels ? ? ?



Yes, in addition to my above run-times on the higher modes, here are the current measurements on the lower modes (which you can use to estimate run-time):

Medium 2b : 0.04A
Low 1 : 13.7mA
Low 2a : 6.2mA
Low 2b : 2.0mA
Low 2c : 0.78mA
Off : 2.4uA

I also did current measurements on the higher modes, but I don't trust those results, because I think my DMM is introducing extra resistance in the electrical path which affects results at the higher currents. I'm pretty confident in these lower results, though.


----------



## Burgess (Oct 18, 2015)

Thank you !


:twothumbs
_


----------



## azero80 (Jul 29, 2016)

[FONT=&quot]I recently acquired a Zebralight SC5w (Neutral White, single [/FONT]*AA*[FONT=&quot]) and it's now my favorite light.... Runs about $70 but well worth the price if you ask me (excellent build quality, customizable output modes, awesome beam profile and tint)...[/FONT]


----------

