# JetBeam C-LE v2.0 review with comparison to previous versions: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS



## selfbuilt (Oct 7, 2007)

_This thread is a quick comparison of the various iterations of the Jetbeam C-LE. For a more detailed comparison to other 1AA lights, please see my current Multi-stage 1AA Review - Part III: Runtimes, beamshots & more!. Scroll down to a see a mini-review of the new clicky C-LE v2.0._

*The contenders*:

From left to right: DX X.V (early version of C-LE), Jetbeam C-LE v1, v1.2, and v2.0 






*Beamshots:*

On Hi with Duracell 2650mAh NiMH. 










*Method:* All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's FR.com method. My relative overall output numbers are typically similar to his, although generally a little lower. You can directly compare all my review graphs - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1m using a light meter. 

*Summary Chart for 2650mAh NiMH on Hi*






*Runtimes:* 
"Hi" mode on NiMH (Duracell 2650mAh)





Hi/Med/Lo modes on Alkaline Duracells













*C-LE v.2.0 Mini-review:*

*General observations:*

*PWM:* Both DX X.V and C-LE v1 use 73Hz PWM for lower modes, which is very noticeable, IMO. C-LE v1.2 & v2.0 both use 317Hz, which is not noticeable to me in everyday use.
*Memory:* C-LE v1.2 and v2.0 both have 2sec memory mode - light flashes to notify you last setting used will be retained
*Interface:* DX X.V, C-LE v1 and v1.2 all used a head twisty UI. The new C-LE v2.0 uses the a clicky switch (identical to one used on JB MkIIX series).










*Presentation*

The new C-LE v2.0 comes in a much nicer package ("Civilian Series" indeed :laughing.
Now includes authentication features, such as a holographic QC control seal on the box, and warranty card inside with model and serial number.
Package includes a couple of extra red o-rings and a wrist-strap. But like many, it is too small to fit around an adult wrist. This one features a built-in alligator clip to allow you to attach it to things - but it doesn't seem to work very well (I thought it was broken at first, but now realize it does work with some extra manual effort to open the clamp). No big loss, since I don't see myself using it anyway. 






*Build*

Thanks to the new tail switch, the light is little longer than previous versions, but can still tailstand.
The new reverse clicky tailcap is identical to the JB MkIIX series. You soft-press the switch to change modes, rather than rapidly twist the head. Note that the tail threads are anodized, so you can still use this light as twisty by twisting the tailcap instead of the head.
The tailcap has a slight exterior anodizing mismatch to the body on my sample, and the edges around the wrist strap attachment point are rather sharp.
The head is basically the same as the earlier v1.2, although no foam spacer is provided any longer (the spring in the tailcap applies more than sufficient pressure to prevent battery rattle).
The new v2.0 will work with v1.2 body tubes, but the v1.2 head will NOT make proper contact with the new v2.0 body tube. There seems to be a slight change in tolerances for contact.

*Output*

Since the new C-LE v2.0 uses the same head as the v1.2, I didn't expect major differences between these versions. Both my v1.2 and v2.0 head use Cree emitters with 4 bond wires instead of 3, raising the prospect that they have Q2 emitters instead of the earlier P4. 
In fact, *output on v2.0 was virtually identical to v1.2 in all modes with similar runtime*, athough runtime was increased in lower modes by 10-20% on v2.0.
The drop-off at the end of the runs seem less severe on the new v2.0 over v1.2, perserving at least a bit of a "moon mode" now. v2.0 also shows flashing of the emitter shortly before total shutdown. 
On Low, both C-LE v1.2/v2.0 have about twice the output of earlier versions. 
Memory mode on twisty v1.2 was prone to contact errors if the threads weren't kept clean. I haven't noticed any problems yet on clicky v2.0

*Conclusion:*

There is no point in upgrading to v2.0 from v1.2 if you are seeking higher output or runtime. Output was virtually identical, and runtime was only marginally increased, especially in lower modes.
Both v1.2 & v2.0 are a considerable upgrade over the earlier versions, since the newer lights come with a memory mode, much less noticeable PWM, thicker threads, and greater output on low.
Main advantage of v2.0 is the high quality reverse clicky switch, which makes switching modes more reliable than the v1.2. But it also makes the light marginally longer. A worthwhile revision, IMO. :thumbsup:
In the end, it simply comes down to your preference for clicky (v2.0) over twisty (v1.2). Note that you can still run v2.0 as a twisty, by twisting the tailcap with the clicky in the "on" position.

There you have it. If you want to see how this light fares against the competition, please see my Multi-stage AA review. :wave:


----------



## AFAustin (Oct 7, 2007)

Thanks, selfbuilt. Very nice review/comparison. :thumbsup:


----------



## Kilovolt (Oct 7, 2007)

Very well done, thanks.


----------



## JKL (Oct 7, 2007)

Thanks Selfbuilt , very interesting.:goodjob:


----------



## THE_dAY (Oct 7, 2007)

great review, thanks!


----------



## dtsoll (Oct 7, 2007)

Great job Selfbuilt, got one on order!! thanks for your efforts my friend!!! Doug


----------



## Flying Turtle (Oct 8, 2007)

Excellent review, as usual, selfbuilt. Thanks.

Geoff


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 8, 2007)

Selfbuilt, YOU DA MAAN!!!! Thank you for your Selfbuilt Selfless time involved in doing these wonderful, extremely helpful tests. If we gave out medals here, your CPF uniform would be dripping with them, General Selfbuilt, Sir, YesSir!


----------



## Calina (Oct 8, 2007)

Excellent travail !


Merci


----------



## LG&M (Oct 8, 2007)

Selfbulit thanks for the work you do for us.:thumbsup:


----------



## Stereodude (Oct 8, 2007)

Thanks for the review! Are any of the heads interchangeable between revisions? IE: can I put a rev 2.0 head on a 1.0 Jetbeam C-LE?


----------



## Anarchocap (Oct 8, 2007)

I received my C-LE v2.0 this weekend and I have to say I'm impressed with it given the price.

My plastic clip also did not work correctly. It would lock but not open without manual intervention. However, I don't care about it anyway, and I just removed it from the lanyard.

I was going to go with a Fenix something or other, but I decided to try Jetbeam out after I saw the company making strides in improving their product and quality.

In my honest opinion, its worth the money.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 9, 2007)

Wow, that generated a lot of interest! Glad you all enjoyed the review. 



Stereodude said:


> Thanks for the review! Are any of the heads interchangeable between revisions? IE: can I put a rev 2.0 head on a 1.0 Jetbeam C-LE?


v1 (and earlier DX version) have a different diameter thickness, and so are not compatible with v1.2/v2.0 heads. The new v2.0 head will work on a v1.2 body, but not the other way around (i.e. a v1.2 head will NOT work on new v2.0 body). There seems to be a slight difference in how the body makes contact with the head.



Anarchocap said:


> My plastic clip also did not work correctly. It would lock but not open without manual intervention. However, I don't care about it anyway, and I just removed it from the lanyard. ... In my honest opinion, its worth the money.


Actually, that's exactly the same issue with my clip. I dunno, maybe it is supposed to work like that? :thinking: In any case, not very trustworthy. But I agree with you that the light is very much worth the money - perfect for that budding flasholic on a budget.

BTW, one thing the package lacks is a belt pouch. If you want to pick one up, it fits perfectly into a Fenix L1T/L1D size pouch (widely available at all the Fenix vendors here). A cheaper option is the Ultrafire nylon pouch (like the one sold here), designed for C3. Note that the elastic is a bit looser on the Ultrafire pouches, so they don't fit the light as snuggly.


----------



## Gaffle (Oct 9, 2007)

These C-LE lights just look tough. I like that. Bring it on!!!

BTW, GJ Selfbuilt. I enjoy your reviews. Keep them coming.


----------



## swxb12 (Oct 9, 2007)

Gaffle said:


> These C-LE lights just look tough. I like that. Bring it on!!!
> 
> BTW, GJ Selfbuilt. I enjoy your reviews. Keep them coming.



The C-LE knurling feels great to touch. The light feels way heavier and the metal somehow feels tougher and higher quality than my Fenix, and many times tougher than my cheaper Fenix-lookalike DX lights.

Very high quality stuff for the dollar. Trying to justify buying a black one and becoming a JETBeam collector. If they come out with another Jet-U AAA I don't think I'll be able to hold back.


----------



## LED_Thrift (Oct 9, 2007)

Thanks for the great work Selfbuilt. I EDC my Jetbeam C-LE [v1] and love its small size and efficiency. The v2 only looks a bit longer, so I'll pick up a few [they make great gifts]. I only wish the low setting on the v2 was the same output as the v1 - it's already bright enough for a low.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Oct 10, 2007)

I'd also like to see a lower low in the v2.0. I really like my v1.0, but often will grab the Rexlight because its low is less than the C-LE while having a slightly higher high.

Geoff


----------



## Lite_me (Oct 10, 2007)

I have both the v1.2 and a 2.0. Love em'!


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 10, 2007)

I'll posting two new JetBeam C-LE v2.0 for sale today in the Marketplace if anyone is interested. Since this is not the place for selling, please check there.


----------



## Kid9P (Oct 10, 2007)

Would love to see a beamshot VS a Fenix L1D-CE.

Is the reflector smooth or stipple on the jet??


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 10, 2007)

Kid9P said:


> Would love to see a beamshot VS a Fenix L1D-CE.
> 
> Is the reflector smooth or stipple on the jet??


The reflector is textured on the v2.0, just like on all the previous versions. 

For a beamshot comparison of the v1.2 (which is the same head) to the Fenix L1D-CE, see my multi-stage AA round up.



Flying Turtle said:


> I'd also like to see a lower low in the v2.0. I really like my v1.0, but often will grab the Rexlight because its low is less than the C-LE while having a slightly higher high.





LED_Thrift said:


> I only wish the low setting on the v2 was the same output as the v1 - it's already bright enough for a low.



I hear you guys - that is one of the great things about the Rex 2.1, its nice and low low mode. But the v1.2/v2.0 is still lower than a bunch of other lights.


----------



## Stereodude (Oct 10, 2007)

selfbuilt said:


> v1 (and earlier DX version) have a different diameter thickness, and so are not compatible with v1.2/v2.0 heads. The new v2.0 head will work on a v1.2 body, but not the other way around (i.e. a v1.2 head will NOT work on new v2.0 body). There seems to be a slight difference in how the body makes contact with the head.


Thanks for answering. Interestingly Jetbeam says they are compatible. :thinking:


----------



## Trashman (Oct 11, 2007)

Is there any way to tell which version of the CL-E I've got? I know it's the one that was shipping a while back with the hidden beacon mode, which was supposed to signify that it was 14500 capable.


----------



## Stereodude (Oct 11, 2007)

Trashman said:


> Is there any way to tell which version of the CL-E I've got? I know it's the one that was shipping a while back with the hidden beacon mode, which was supposed to signify that it was 14500 capable.


I think that's a 1.0, but I haven't kept up on this enough to say for sure that newer ones didn't do the same.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 11, 2007)

Trashman said:


> Is there any way to tell which version of the CL-E I've got? I know it's the one that was shipping a while back with the hidden beacon mode, which was supposed to signify that it was 14500 capable.


Yes, that's a v1. The first batch of v1 from the group buys had a hidden beacon mode, and so would take 14500 (although not stably - many burnt out their lights after moderate use). Inadequate heatsinking was the a likely culprit there. Later shipping versions of v1 lack the beacon mode (and would burn out immediately on 14500). I don't believe a version change was ever noted. To make matters more confusing, the DX X.V seems to be an earlier beta-test version of the v1 head that lacks the beacon mode. 

v1.2 is easier to identify thanks to its memory mode, much higher PWM, and thicker diameter and threads.

As for the v1.2/v2.0 head compatibility, I notice someone else also reported here that the v1.2 head doesn't work on v2.0 body. Not sure why.


----------



## Lite_me (Oct 11, 2007)

I find, ,,
the 1.2 head will work on the 2.0, sometimes, depending on the battery type. Mine, will not thread down far enough to make good contact all the time. Others, may have different threading samples allowing there's to thread further. Even though it may work, it doesn't look right and the o-ring is ineffective.

As far as the 2.0 head on the 1.2 goes, mine will thread on ok,(it tends to want to gall up though and gets real tight) but there's still end play in the battery so it won't light. If a proper spacer was added to the base, and the foam cushion to the head, so the battery didn't rattle, and the threading was made to word ok, so you can twist on&off, it would probably work then. It's not worth all that in my opinion. What's the sense. They both work great as they are.


----------



## matrixshaman (Oct 12, 2007)

I got my v2.0 yesterday - thanks to lightning fast ship from BugOutGearUSA. And thanks to Flavio for making a last minute change in color for me. Unfortunately Jetbeam is holding true to it's lack of quality control from my own experience. This is my 3rd Jetbeam and everyone has had some issue with poor quality. The light seems to work fine and for a non-flashaholic might have been fine. But it has a major amount of glue that appears right on the top of the LED dome and about 1/2 of the head has glue showing on the outside where apparently the front half of the head is glued to the back part. I also guess I had expected it to be a bit brighter for a newer Cree light but most of my other same size Cree lights are brighter. That's not to say I don't like it as they really do have the feel/knurling and size on these to a level that is excellent and very appealing. Price is nice too and the tail switch a very nice addition. I really like the UI on these too. I will also say I can't tell that the glue on the LED does anything negative to the beam pattern. The LED also appears to not be mounted flat (tilted). It looks like there is a lot of glue holding the LED to the reflector too which tells me these are not readily upgradable. So for me it's probably a keeper for now or a gift down the road for a non-flashaholic.
One other noteworthy thing - A Firefly II (and probably I and III) head fits very nicely in the v2 body. So just add a AA Lithium-Ion 3.6 volt battery and you've got a tailswitching Firefly!


----------



## Lite_me (Oct 12, 2007)

Hmmm... I got my v2.0 light from BugOutGear also. Quick service. 

But my v2.0 is clearly brighter than my 1.2. It doesn't "blow it away" but you can see it. I don't know if I have an underachieving 1.2 or an overachieving 2.0. :thinking: I ordered a 2d 2.0 for a friend, and once we get that going, I'll have a chance to compare it to my two. I'm curious, but it's understandable if no one else is. If there's anything noteworthy, I'll report back. 

I had no quality issues with my 2.0 to speak of. I prefer the look and feel to a Fenix.

I'm happy with the brightness of the my 1.2, that was never an issue, it's just that there is a noticeable difference between my two. Seems more than what selfbuilt shows in his review. Most likely just a sample to sample thing.


----------



## StandardBattery (Oct 12, 2007)

I really like the quality and color of the finish (I have Natural). I also like how it tail stands very well. As others have noted the split ring notch though in the tail is surprisingly sharp. I think someone forgot some machining there. I would try to touch it up, but I don't want to ruin the finish. The light output is so so; not too impressive but very useful, unfortunately I can't locate my RR 1A right now for a side-by-side.

The UI though really is bugging me. With the Fenix lights since you always start at the same mode you don't have to cycle through the special strobe and SOS modes unless you miss your desired mode during cycling (rare). I wish there was a special click sequence to get the special modes, or they just weren't there.

The mode memory on the Jet is quite nice if you primarily use it in 1 mode. Otherwise you will often have to cycle through the special modes to get it to the mode you want. I really don't like this. Is there any trick to get it to return to the bottom (med) from low or high? 

As a single mode light, I like it. Otherwise I say I prefer the interface on the P1D or the L2T.

Even as a single mode light though, that rear switch is pretty easy to hit and change the mode.

I'm thinking about these as gifts, because of the nice quality and AA battery, but that interface... I need to let someone who is not familar with these things try it and see what they say.


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 23, 2007)

If anyone is interested, I have a brand new Jetbeam CL-E version 2 for sale at the marketplace at what I think is the lowest price with shipping in the U.S. that you'll find.

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=170591

cheers!


----------

