# Shootout D26 (1794) vs. MagMods



## LuxLuthor (May 22, 2009)

Based upon higher than expected Lux readings in my destructive testing of the small D26 custom made for FiveMega, *Carley 1794 *bulb, I had revised the reported default lumen rating at 7V (3A) of 628L up to around 1,000L. However, as sami_voodoo pointed out that would push my boosted ratings above 50L/W which is questionable in and of itself.

I was hoping that people who had this light could have compared it to some other known Mag Mods, but I ended up getting a setup and did my own shootout, resulting in a more practical "guestimate" default lumen rating of 800L.

It is hard to do a shootout between a 1" MOP reflector in the D26, and more typical 2" Mag reflectors, but I did use MOP for those, and the stock SF-M6 reflector, MN21 (500L) bulb, and 6 x new SF-123a cells. There are some things that are only captured in beam shots, which are somewhat more representative of what your eyes see than any objective test (i.e. my destructive tests). 

There are light bulbs and reflectors that have different colors, different concentrations of hotspots, corona, and spill that would not be taken into account with measurements like my destructive testing does. I have always tried to emphasize that the destructive tables, while useful, should not be used as absolute Lux/Lumen ratings, but rather are good comparisons of how a bulb output compares to another with that platform.

I have labeled these shots, and took them at both 1.3sec & 4 sec., in addition to which there are the AW multi-level driver Low/Med/High images for the lights using that. I will post gifs in the next post which will make it easier to appreciate the comparisons.*Default*​

​
 *SF-M6 MN21 (500L), default reflector, & 6 x new SF123a cells 1.3 sec & 4 sec
**

 

*​* 
WA-1166 in FM Mag 1.5D with 4 x 14670 & AWR Hotdriver regulation 12.37V 1.3 sec & 4 sec
*

 

​* 
WA-1166 in FM Mag 1.5D with 4x14670 & AWR Hotdriver regulation 12.96V 1.3 sec & 4 sec
*

 

​* 
WA-1185 in FM Mag 3D with 3s3p 17500 1.3 sec & 4 sec*

 

​*WA-1331 in FM "700L" 1.5 MagD with 3 x 17670 @ 1.3 sec*.......................................... * @ 4 sec*

 

 

 .... 

 

 

​......* Carley 1794 Bulb with 2 x 18650 @ 1.3 sec*.................................................... *@ 4 sec*​

 

 

 ...*

 

 

 *​......* Carley 1499 Bulb with 2 x 18650 @ 1.3 sec*.................................................... *@ 4 sec*​

 

 

.....

 

 

​


----------



## LuxLuthor (May 22, 2009)

*First two gifs show the 1794 alternating between all lights tested at 1.3 sec & 4 sec
**

 

*​*
This third gif shows the four closest to each other at 1.3 sec. *

​*
This final gif shows why I believe the 1794 is between the Mag66 (12.37V) & 1331
*


​*As far as I am concerned, this is a pretty amazing performance for such a tiny light, and only using 2 x Li-Ion's, and it impressed me enough to stick it on my "Most Powerful Mag Mods" list in my sig, even though it's not a MagMod.* 

*Bottom line here...time to stock up on the CL-1794, by joining Nite's proposed group buy for these small bulbs here. Many thanks to FiveMega for making these lights, reflectors, and getting the custom Carley bulbs for us. I used the 2 x 18650 setup from Nite in this thread.*
​


----------



## LuxLuthor (May 23, 2009)

:mecry:*[Waaah]* Boy I was so proud of the quality of this shootout, and my layout formatting in this thread, labeling pictures real pretty, making gifs, etc. I'm crushed that no one has any comments. *[/Waaah]*:mecry:


----------



## QtrHorse (May 23, 2009)

Great work as usual.

Were just so used to your attention to detail and great reviews that it's just expected now.


----------



## BSBG (May 24, 2009)

Great work indeed Lux! Must be the holiday weekend keeping the traffic low :wave:.

The 1794 is quite impressive, especially with the small reflector. I will have to get on Nite's list and run this in my FM 2C in place of the WA 1111 that currently resides there.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 24, 2009)

How is the heat with this lightweight beast?

Bill


----------



## cernobila (May 24, 2009)

BSBG said:


> Great work indeed Lux! Must be the holiday weekend keeping the traffic low :wave:.
> 
> The 1794 is quite impressive, especially with the small reflector. I will have to get on Nite's list and run this in my FM 2C in place of the WA 1111 that currently resides there.



Oddly enough the 1794 performs better than the 1111 in the D26 size reflector, considering that the 1111 is rated at 3.8A on 2x 18650 cells and the 1794 only 3.1A, yep one impressive bulb for sure.

Sorry Lux, some people are just taken for granted around here and as in this case,......great detailed work as always, always read your contributions and learn.


----------



## RichS (May 24, 2009)

:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs

Excellent shootout Lux, thanks for taking the time to compare these!! My biggest surprise from these shots is how well the Carley 1499 did compared to the 1794. If you look, it's pointed just slightly more to the left so it lights up less of the house, but to my eyes it puts out only about 20% less than the 1794. The great thing about the 1499 is that it's only pulling 1.85amps! 

The 1499 is a bulb that one can easily run on 2x18500s in a smaller host if desired, and still gives decent runtime. Also, I know people talk about the "batwing" shape in the beam, but it sure isn't evident in these pics.

Great info, thanks again!


----------



## LuxLuthor (May 24, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback everyone! 

I went back out after I was done, realizing I forgot to include the 1499 (because I have not yet done the destructive Lux tests on it), and didn't position or aim it in quite the same position. Part of the practical evaluation is using a series of lights testing and ranking their performance at various objects, then compare the next set.

It is hard to capture in photos the "live look" of lights with different reflectors, filament beam patterns & color, higher starting voltage with direct drive setups, etc. It is true that the 1499 has a more oval/batwing shape, but so do a number of WA bulbs. 

The heat is minimal on medium, but begins to get warm (not hot or uncomfortable to the touch) on high after a few minutes. There is certainly nothing wrong with using the 1499 if the feeler for 1794 falls through.


----------



## RichS (May 25, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I went back out after I was done, realizing I forgot to include the 1499 (because I have not yet done the destructive Lux tests on it), and didn't position or aim it in quite the same position...



That makes sense Lux - I wanted to make sure you know I was not meaning to be critical of the shootout, it was very well done as always. I was just pointing it out so folks didn't think the output was much less from the 1499 because the house was much less lit up.

IMHO, when looking at bulbs in this range that are used in more compact hosts, practicality and not the "wow" factor becomes a bigger issue to me. I definitely want the brightest option I can get in a compact size (especially when I have the flexibility of levels), but not at the expense of over-driving batteries or getting extremely low runtime. The 1499 seems like a great alternative because of it's very close running with the 1794 in terms of output and much lower draw. I'll still keep my 1794s around for fun, but I will probably keep the 1499s loaded as my default.


----------



## LuxLuthor (May 26, 2009)

I decided to reshoot the two CL-1794 & CL-1499 bulbs, making sure the light and camera positions are the same, and a set of whitewalls for what that's worth to try and show minor differences. You can tell a lot in the peripheral and hottest spot between these two. Same reflector. Note the close grass on the 1.3 second exposure picking up the brighter 1794, and the batwing effect of 1499 on white fence.
*CL1794 vs. CL1499 (Reshoot)*​

 

 

​


----------



## Patriot (May 26, 2009)

Just now saw this Lux. Awesome work as usual! The D26s have been very popular lately so this thread ought to make a splash as people become aware of it. 

I'm still studying it myself...so I'll comment on the set-up later.


Again, fantastic stuff. You're truly the "all formats" guy whether incan, led or hid. I think it's cool.


----------



## RichS (May 26, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I decided to reshoot the two CL-1794 & CL-1499 bulbs, making sure the light and camera positions are the same, and a set of whitewalls for what that's worth to try and show minor differences. You can tell a lot in the peripheral and hottest spot between these two. Same reflector. Note the close grass on the 1.3 second exposure picking up the brighter 1794, and the batwing effect of 1499 on white fence.
> *CL1794 vs. CL1499 (Reshoot)*​
> 
> 
> ...


 
Wow - based on these new beamshots I can tell my earlier statement that there was only about a 20% difference between the lamps was off. Looking at these shots, I would say that the 1794 is easily 50-60% brighter than the 1499. So, the 1794 truly jumps into a different class than the 1499, which is still a great bulb for the size and draw.

Lux - thanks so much for taking the time to re-do these shots!! It makes it much easier to compare these two bulbs which I previously thought were much closer competitors. Now I must find a nice 2x18650 host configuration for this bulb. Someone mentioned he bored out his M3 head to take the FM MN bi-pin adapter, but I didn't think the 1794 fit into that adapter (it's a smaller bi-pin bulb). Maybe I'll just use the C2 head on a Leef body.

Thanks again Lux! :thumbsup:


----------



## Nite (May 27, 2009)

wow nice thread..

sweet shots Lux

glad to see my two donated bulbs confirmed what I suspected when I compared it to WA 1111 and WA 1185 in FMs G4 D26 Sunlight kit.


----------



## Patriot (May 30, 2009)

Bump, I wonder if people are seeing this thread?


----------



## nfetterly (Jun 4, 2009)

Nice work. It does depress me a little though - as the 1794 was my first real incan away from either the Surefire offerings, or what comes with Streamlight, etc..

I've been spoiled. Great bulb.


----------



## leukos (Jun 4, 2009)

Nice find. I should have bought a few of these back when FM had them available. I just wasn't convinced it could out perform the P91. I guess it outperforms it by 100%!


----------



## Patriot (Jun 4, 2009)

leukos said:


> Nice find. I should have bought a few of these back when FM had them available. I just wasn't convinced it could out perform the P91. I guess it outperforms it by 100%!



That's the same reason that I never purchased one but looking at it in retrospect it seems obvious that it would....oh, well.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 4, 2009)

This represents a case of poor marketing. LOL!


----------



## Jay T (Jun 5, 2009)

For those of you who feel bad about missing the 1794, well it gets worse. Did any of you notice the 22 watt axial bulb he was also selling, the one that first appeared in the FM super TL-3s? Did you wonder how this bulb would perform in a D26?

I ordered another reflector and some bulbs and they came today so I just loaded up a 6P with 2 fresh charged IMRs and a 9P with 3 fresh charged IMRs. The axial bulb draws 2 amps vs the 1794's 3 amp draw giving it a little longer run time. The axial bulb also doesn't seem to be driven as hard, it can't match the whiteness of the 1794.

For the bathroom ceiling bounce the light meter showed.
1794 56 lux
Axial 61 lux

Some simple indoor beam shots.
The camera was set to full manual and everything was locked. F8 1/4 sec ISO400, underexposed to show the difference without blowing out the highlights.

1794






Axial





Now for the bad news. I ordered 5 to do some testing and see if they were a good replacement for the 1794. The 5 I ordered must have been the last 5 because the thread now says "no more left"


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 6, 2009)

LOL! Oh well. Personally, I like the narrower spot with the 1794 in your pix.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 13, 2009)

Activating this older thread. Does the axial 22 watt bulb throw a rounder beam than the 1499? Referring to Jay T's post. Also, is this a special order bulb from Carley?

Asking these question cause I recently received a very nice FM 2X18650 TL3, and notice that the batwing H1499 could throw more if it could be focused better into a rounder spot, and yes I have read the posts explaining that a long time ago it was designed for the minimag.

edit. Whoops, 22 watter is a 11 volt bulb. No go.

Bill


----------



## koti (Feb 3, 2010)

Hi Luxluthor, great job with the post, Im shocked by the amount of time You put into this 
I have a question which Im sure You will be able to answer;
For the past year, I've been using:
- FM 1794 bulb in a 
- 2 x Lion 18650 FM body with the MOP reflector (Im lucky I bought 6 or 7 of the bulbs back in 2008 
Recently Ive decided its time for something even brighter (I have an empty 9p body lying around) so I ordered the following:

-WA1185 socket with installed WA1185 bulb + MOP reflector from FM
- 3x IMR 16300 from AW
- 4 spare WA1185 bulbs

My question is:
Did I do something stupid and the WA1185 will NOT be brighter then my current strongest light running 1794 ?
If yes I will be crushed since Ive ordered and payed for all the stuff already...please tell me I will see a difference ?


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 3, 2010)

I like the D26 size more:thumbsup:

I would run the WA1185 in a D26 bezel with 3 IMR 18650 cells for a true 1000 plus OTF:devil:


Great review and I everytime I see your reviews I am in shock as to how awesome you make those pictures and labels.

Thanks,
bigC


----------



## koti (Feb 3, 2010)

Isn't the D26 reflector the same size as a 6P reflector? 
Won't I get the same brightnes running a WA1185 with 3 x 16340 as with running it with 3x 18650 ? 
Correct me if Im wrong as Im not an expert but the brightness should be the same ? The runtime will be shorter ofcourse. Unless the D26 has a larger reflector that is...




bigchelis said:


> I like the D26 size more:thumbsup:
> 
> I would run the WA1185 in a D26 bezel with 3 IMR 18650 cells for a true 1000 plus OTF:devil:
> 
> ...


----------



## RichS (Feb 3, 2010)

koti said:


> My question is:
> Did I do something stupid and the WA1185 will NOT be brighter then my current strongest light running 1794 ?
> If yes I will be crushed since Ive ordered and payed for all the stuff already...please tell me I will see a difference ?


No, you did nothing stupid - yes, the 1185 will be visibly brighter than the 1794. I have both, and I would say the 1185 seems twice as bright. I'm running the 1185 on 3x'C' li-ions, so the small IMR cells may sag a bit more than those. But this is probably a good thing, as any larger IMR cells would most likely instaflash the 1185. I have a couple of comparison shots of the 1794 and 1185 here (albeit in different hosts). BTW - you're looking at about 7 minutes of runtime with the 1185 and 3x IMR 16340s.



koti said:


> Isn't the D26 reflector the same size as a 6P reflector?
> Won't I get the same brightnes running a WA1185 with 3 x 16340 as with running it with 3x 18650 ?
> Correct me if Im wrong as Im not an expert but the brightness should be the same ? The runtime will be shorter ofcourse. Unless the D26 has a larger reflector that is...


 
Yes - the D26 reflector is the same size as a 6P reflector. I would say that 3 IMR cells should hold the voltage just about as well as 3x li-ion cells. If they sag a little more than the 18650s, it won't be by much.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 4, 2010)

Koti, sorry didn't see your question until just now, and it looks like the others answered it. If you can get the voltage delivered in the optimal range, the 1185 is clearly a brighter bulb, and MOP should smooth out the filament artifacts seen on SMO. 

Two things I would expand upon. As Rich pointed out the IMR 16340 cells are somewhat limited in their mAh stored power, so as long as you don't mind a relatively short run time, it's fine. Secondly, the various IMR cells have to be examined as far as how well they hold a particular voltage at a given amp draw rate. I don't know if AW has 3A & 5A performance run graphs at his sales site (if not, you can ask him), but looking at these charts from my tests give you a good idea what is the optimal voltage delivered for each bulb (Vbulb).

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/bulbs/1185.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/bulbs/1794-Final.jpg

Remember, my charts are from testing with virtually no resistance, and your light will have some resistance which will lower the Vbulb from what you have as Vbattery.


----------



## koti (Feb 4, 2010)

Not being sure if I will like the WA1185 in comparison with the FM1794 I bought and extension tube for my current 2 x 18650 setup to turn into 3 x IMR 18650 powering an FM1909 which Im sure will be visibly brighter then both the 1794 & WA1185 
My wife would kill me if she knew how much money Im spending on my lights. I need to stop buying lights for a while...my last 4 days worth of shopping is as follows :

$50 Petzl Zipka head lamp
$50,50 Solarforce L2p host for nailbender SST-50
$65 Z59 + 6P bezel
$80 SST-50 from nailbender
$23,50 2x IMR 18650 from AW
$39,50 3x IMR 16340 plus charger from AW
$14 1x IMR 18650 from AW
$38 for socket/reflector MOP with installed WA1185 
$24 for 4 spare WA1185 bulbs
$8 Internatinal Shipping
Total $392,50

$48 for socket/reflector MOP with installed FM1909
$32 for 2 spare FM1909 bulbs
$36 for the 68mm extension tube
$8 Internatinal Shipping
Total $124

over 500 bucks, sick...please dont even think about telling me I should get something more


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 4, 2010)

I think you're good for now.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Apr 2, 2010)

Sounds like the 1794 bulbs that Nite was having re-done have passed Carley's QA, and should be arriving in the next two weeks. Good to remind people of the performance of this awsome little bulb.


----------



## naked2 (Jun 11, 2010)

Lux, do you have a comparison between the D26 socket/reflector with 1794 and the Sunlight socket/reflector with 1111? According to your bulb charts, @8.2V (which should be easily be produced by 2x IMR 16340, at least at turn-on) 1111= 1135 lumens, which will flash the 1794.

Although @7.8V (on your chart), the 1794 @1067 lumens *does* beat the 1111 @984 lumens, the 1111 beats it at turn-on with 2x fully-charged IMRs; I'd like to see these two set-ups in a side-by-side shootout! :devil:

Thanks, Tony lovecpf


----------



## Nite (Jun 11, 2010)

the big load on two little IMR 16340 in FMs new 2x16340 with C head with either of these bulbs makes 8.4 volts unrealistic. These bulbs will run at at least one full volt less, under load.

This is why the 1794 was custom made. To run off two Li-ion cells.

Its brighter at these realistic voltages during the entire run. Like at 7.0 - 7.4 volts.

Also last I checked the G4 Sunlight was sold out. and only has one reflector.

while the 1.5mm socket reflector is still available and has 4 different reflector options.

Also the 1794 Now also fits FMs E series turbo head as there is room for the halogen point.

As far as I know there are no E series options for the 1111

IM just saying. IMHO the 1794 is a better performer then the 1111 at any voltage. after a few hours the xenon 1111 will blacken but the 1794 wont due to its halogen.

The FM1794 fits in more sockets and has more options.


----------



## ProofTech (Jun 11, 2010)

Nite said:


> after a few hours the xenon 1111 will blacken but the 1794 wont due to its halogen.



Actually, the fill gas in a WA1111 bulb is Halogen-Krypton. Because I sell these bulbs, please do not take my word for it. You can look up this information on Welch Allyn’s own website. And they do not blacken after a few hours of use. However, I do not have proof of this second point, only personal experience.


----------



## Nite (Jun 11, 2010)

ProofTech said:


> Actually, the fill gas in a WA1111 bulb is Halogen-Krypton. Because I sell these bulbs, please do not take my word for it. You can look up this information on Welch Allyn’s own website. And they do not blacken after a few hours of use. However, I do not have proof of this second point, only personal experience.



thats Awesome! I had no idea that it was Halogen Krypton. The halogen in bulbs causes the metal filament to redeposit itself on the filament, and not the glass.

I like the 1111 when used with larger sized cells like AW 18500 or AW 18650.

When using IMR cells, in the 16340 size I prefer FM1794, but sometimes I set it up with two AW18650 26P for super long runtime.


----------



## Nite (Jun 11, 2010)

Cool

the 1.5mm FM 1794 uses only 3 amps, and at 7.2 volts puts out 871 Lumens (according to LuxLuthors testing and Fivemegas designs) 

while the 4mm WA 1111 At 7.2 Volts: produces 789 Lumens, draws 3.8 Amps
(according to your sales thread.)

*Less Light for more power*, at a larger size, and lower price.

I own and use both bulbs, they are great both of them.

In fact I will be ordering some WA 1111 sometime in the future.

thanks for the link. Good to know of two reliable sources for WA1111 and 1185, wow the 1185 is inexpensive!
I use the 1185 in a FM G4 Sunlight Socket with his C Head deep turbo head.
My brightest light next to the FM 1909 at 2,300 Lumens. IMR only.


----------



## ProofTech (Jun 13, 2010)

Wow, I didn’t realize those 1794 bulbs were so efficient. I probably looked up LuxLuthor’s tests on that bulb before the lumen rating was revised. It looks a lot better with the new figures.


----------



## naked2 (Jun 13, 2010)

*edited*


----------



## daimleramg (Jun 13, 2010)

I have a D26 module with a FM 1794 bulb and also have FM's D26 Sunlight with WA 1111's I run them in FM's 2x26500 host, his Deep C turbo head and AW's softstart. I do prefer the WA1111 bulb over the 1794, for some reason the WA1111 is just a bit more satisfying.


----------



## Nite (Jun 13, 2010)

ProofTech said:


> Wow, I didn’t realize those 1794 bulbs were so efficient. I probably looked up LuxLuthor’s tests on that bulb before the lumen rating was revised. It looks a lot better with the new figures.



I so totally agree. :thumbsup:


Question:
Anyone know offhand: How many watts is the WA 1111? The FM1794 is 21 watts at its default voltage.

I had no idea the Amperage was actually lower on the FM1794 compared to other larger bulbs even though it was rated higher in lumens at default voltage.



daimleramg said:


> I have a D26 module with a FM 1794 bulb and also have FM's D26 Sunlight with WA 1111's I run them in FM's 2x26500 host, his Deep C turbo head and AW's softstart. I do prefer the WA1111 bulb over the 1794, for some reason the WA1111 is just a bit more satisfying.



I use the 1185 with 3x18500 with FM host and FM extension with the same turbo head you mentioned for throw and heat dissipation. 

I love the 1111 in My FM 2x18500 with two AW 18500. The 1111 that was installed by FM in the MOP G4 Sunlight socket is perfectly focused and has an amazing hot spot. Thats my favorite 1111 setup, in that form factor.

In This new Fivemega 2x16340 Host, the FM1794 is my favorite bulb in that setup, in that host, and form factor.

Either of those two setups are more than what's needed for self defense.

I also like the FM 1794 on two AW18650 2600P and an HS reflector for great halogen flood when walking my dog.

I guess that makes the WA-1111 and the FM1794 My two most favorite and most often used bulbs!

I only sell the FM-1794, and others, because its the only source for them; and I wanted some, felt others did too. (and I think its the greatest 1.5mm bulb ever made.)

If no one was selling the 1185 and 1111 I guess I would have to carry them also, thank goodness there's already two ample sources for those on CPF and CPFM.

Don't forget thank lux as without him this discussion wouldn't even be possible. 

we should all thank Fivemega for making the only Sockets that hold both 1.5mm and 4mm bulbs in SF hosts.


----------



## Nite (Jun 14, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> I have always tried to emphasize that the destructive tables, while useful, should not be used as absolute Lux/Lumen ratings, but rather are good comparisons of how a bulb output compares to another with that platform.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 14, 2010)

naked2... please read this post and take careful note. You are also strongly advised to reacquaint yourself with the contents of Rule 4.


----------

