# Review: Manker E11 - AA/14500 XP-L



## Budda (Jun 22, 2016)

Manker was kind enough to supply me a E11 for the review.











Manker’s specs:
- Max lumens output: 400lm (Eneloop Pro Ni-Mh battery), 800lm (IMR 14500 li-ion)
- Circuit: Most efficiency constant current circuit, maximum runtime up to 266 hours 
- Material: Aircraft-grade aluminium body 
- Surface treatment: Premium Type III hard-anodized anti-abrasive finish 
- Clip: Titanium coated stainless steel clip. 
- Lens: Toughened ultra-clear glass lens with anti-reflective coating 
- Tail stand 
- Water proof: IPX-8 (2 meters under water) 
- Impact resistance: 2 meters 
- Size: length 82mm x diameter 20mm, Weight: 39g(without battery) 
- Brightness Levels:
Eneloop PRO: Moonlight 2lm 171hrs, Low 60lm 11hrs, Medium 200lm 2.2hrs, High 400lm 1.2hrs, Strobe 400lm, SOS 200 lm, Beacon 50lm (
IMR 14500: moonlight 10lm 44hrs, Low 100LM 12hrs, Medium 320lm 1.7hrs, High 800lm 0.4hrs, Strobe 800lm, SOS 300lm, Beacon 80lm 

Note that this sample will be tested with nimh only. Manker will supply me another sample with up to date driver that fully supports 14500 batteries, I’ll test it and I’ll update the review.

The E11 comes in a small cardboard box.
Inside the box: light, clip, spare o-rings, lanyard and manual.









There is knurling on the light, and the anodization is good.

















The E11 has a electronic switch at the head, while the tailcap is flat/recessed, with a lanyard hole. This design is similar to the one of the other Manker Quinlan lights, and allows tailstand.









The clip doubles also as anti-rolling device, and is the same for the T01.





In the small OP reflector there is an XP-L emitter, CW. The reflector is made of aluminium and is threated (it screws in the head).









The battery orientation is indicated under the switch. I find the switch to be a bit lighter, compared to the ones of the U11 and T01. It protrudes a bit.





The body has anodised threads, so you can physically lockout the light by untwisting the tailcap or the head of the light. At the head of the light there is a slightly raised golden positive pole. No physical protection against polarity inversion.









Some pics with other 1xAA lights that I own: the bigger brother T01 and the Thrunite T10, which I stole form my father (it’s one of his bedside light) for the pics.









UI
The E11 in practical terms is a simpler version of the Manker T01, without the program feature and with less modes.

From off, one short click turns the light on at the lowest level.
From off, a long click turns the light on at the last used level (low mode doesn’t count).
When the light is on, a double click gives you strobe mode.
A single click when the light is on advances in the next mode (low medium high turbo if you are in the constant output mode, strobe SOS beacon if you are in the flashing mode).

Output, Beamshots, Runtime.
Powering the E11 with a nimh and a 14500 battery will lead to different output and runtimes. 
To get the 800 lumens output you’ll need high quality IMR 14500. Regular 14500 may stop to work in the light because the PCB will kick in when many amps are required.
To get the 400 lumens output you’ll need high quality nimh batteries.
I tested the output using Panasonic Eneloop XX 2500 mAh, at room temperature.

Real world beamshots, around 30 meters at the most distant trees. The light is brighter compared to the pics with 4” exposure, but the next settings on my camera is 8”. With 8” they came overexposed, so here are the pics with 4” exposure.




The XP-L emitter makes a wide and smooth beam. With an AA nimh it illuminates brightly short distances, I’d say not more than 30 meters.

Runtime
Sampling rate is 2” for turbo mode, longer for the other tested levels.





Edit 10 July 2016
Efest 14500 IMR v2 700mAh, charged each time at 0.5A.



























My thoughts
The E11 a compact but powerful 1xAA light. The fit and finish are great. Getting more than 400 lumens by a single AA nimh battery is not so common, but for Manker seems a no-brainer. 
The regulation is great: only the needed stepdown after 3” of turbo mode, and after that it stay on at 300 lumens. The light will let you know that the battery is running low with short notice, just few minutes.
There are new AA lights being sold right now that have an output of less than 200 lumens on the brightest mode, while the E11 has double output.

I like direct access to low mode and a higher output mode. This light, as all the other Manker I tested, gives you accesso to a low mode and a mode higher than low (the last one you used). I’d like to see quick access to low, real turbo and maybe another level.
While the clip was fine on the T01 (since it rests in a recessed part of the light), here it protrudes too much and has a strange bend on the outside. This one is also too tight all the way to fit on thick clothes, like my jeans. I simply bent it at the end with pliers wrapped in clothes (for not leaving marks), and now it is more comfortable. I’d like that the bended part inside the loop of the clip to be more long, like on the U11.
Accessing to strobe mode is easy, maybe still a bit too much. I would decrease the delay for the light to consider two single click a double click, let’s say a 1/10 or 1/5 of a second. Manker has already done so compared to the U11 and the T01 models (it is more difficult to get into strobe accidentally), but I’ll decrease it even more. 

I leave mine on the turbo mode. So, when I need a low level, I turn it on with a short click and get 1 lumen; when I need more light, I turn it on with a long lick and I get the turbo mode.

The MSRP price of the light is very reasonable, 30$ when this review is written.

Thanks to: AntoLed (for lending me the Camera and the Luxmeter), P.P. (Beamshot location), Manker (sponsoring the batteries).

EDIT 28 June 2016
Lot of people worried about the tint.
Mine is not bad at all for a CW (for you cool white lovers this is a bit on the neutral white).
Here's compared to a Thrunite T10 with an XP-G Led with a CW tint.
The distance at the wall is same for both lights. I set them to a comparable brightness level (can't do miracles, yet).












I pushed further the camera, and I don't know why the colour for both lights changes. Use this pics only to see the differences in the beam appareance, not the tint.









The T10 is not known as a thrower. The E11 has a wider beam.

For you Candle guys, nothing really new is said in this video, but you can still admire the light moving in my hands while I delight you with my english.
[video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VitqyD-D8oM[/video]


----------



## UnderPar (Jun 22, 2016)

Wow! This light seems to be good. Thanks for sharing Budda! Great review!


----------



## cyclesport (Jun 22, 2016)

Thanks for the informative review Budda! Manker has burst on the scene w/some really interesting enthusiast lights, and the build quality seems above average comparatively speaking. Kinda wish they had a US dist./dealer (being in the US) since I've had the NW version of this light on order for approx 3 weeks through Amazon's source EDCgear and the USPS tracking link has yet to show anything...might be waiting another 3 or 4 weeks just to get one.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 24, 2016)

Meanie greenie! :green:

SC52w on left.....Manker E11 on right





As usual, the comparison makes it look better than by itself (actually somewhat white here), but still this one is really bad. Very unfortunate, since everything else about it is 100%. Actually it looks ok in this photo, but alien diarrhea green in person. Damn, stumped again!


----------



## ktsl (Jun 25, 2016)

Thanks for the great review! Would you mind enlarging the first minute of the run time plot? The output drops fast in there.
Also, how's run time with 14500?


----------



## Andreii (Jun 25, 2016)

Thank you Budda. Very good review. I have some questions. Is this flashlight waterproof and If i want to buy this flashlight but I am not Living in USA? Where can we buy this flashlight ?


----------



## Budda (Jun 25, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Meanie greenie! :green:
> As usual, the comparison makes it look better than by itself (actually somewhat white here), but still this one is really bad. Very unfortunate, since everything else about it is 100%. Actually it looks ok in this photo, but alien diarrhea green in person.
> Damn, stumped again!


Ouch. Mine is fine.
I'd advise you to change your emitter (in all manker lights is very easy) to one with a tint of your choice. I usually go for warm white.



ktsl said:


> Thanks for the great review! Would you mind enlarging the first minute of the run time plot? The output drops fast in there.
> Also, how's run time with 14500?


Thanks. No testing with 14500, yet.
No problem, here is 10 minuts closeup.








Andreii said:


> Thank you Budda. Very good review. I have some questions. Is this flashlight waterproof and If i want to buy this flashlight but I am not Living in USA? Where can we buy this flashlight ?


Thanks. Both the ebay and the amazon Manker Shop are located in China and will ship from there.
I have not tested the waterproof capability of the light. All I can say is that it has big o-rings everywhere.


----------



## Budda (Jun 25, 2016)




----------



## ktsl (Jun 25, 2016)

Thank you again for the plot! I really appreciate that.


----------



## Streamer (Jun 26, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Meanie greenie! :green:
> 
> SC52w on left.....Manker E11 on right
> 
> ...



Good God, is that a Manker Cool White Emitter puking GREEN? E11 Neutral White emitter has to be better than that.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Streamer said:


> Good God, is that a Manker Cool White Emitter puking GREEN? E11 Neutral White emitter has to be better than that.



Oh I forgot there were two flavors. I have the NW version. I now wish I went with the cool white. A decent cool white is always better than a dirty green neutral. I'm putting this in my car/EDC pouch which will probably never get used.


----------



## Bdm82 (Jun 27, 2016)

I'll have to post a beam shot, but my e11 nw doesn't look green at all. My m3xs-ut... now that looks green!


----------



## Swedpat (Jun 27, 2016)

Thanks for the review and runtime graph. This is definitely another interesting single AA light.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Bdm82 said:


> I'll have to post a beam shot, but my e11 nw doesn't look green at all. My m3xs-ut... now that looks green!



I'm tempted to try another then


----------



## Streamer (Jun 27, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Oh I forgot there were two flavors. I have the NW version. I now wish I went with the cool white. A decent cool white is always better than a dirty green neutral. I'm putting this in my car/EDC pouch which will probably never get used.



You can fix that tint with a piece of the LEE salmon-colored photo film sample kit. I did so on a greenish EagTac S-4 tint and now is very accetable tint. It was a CPF member who first posted about this technique. EZ install on the Manker because of the EZ screw-off bezel.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Streamer said:


> You can fix that tint with a piece of the LEE salmon-colored photo film sample kit. I did so on a greenish EagTac S-4 tint and now is very accetable tint. It was a CPF member who first posted about this technique. EZ install on the Manker because of the EZ screw-off bezel.



I have a big roll of the pink -1/4 green film, but I gave up on that. It's just too sloppy and not the result I wanted. It definitely helps though.


----------



## Budda (Jun 28, 2016)

Lot of people worried about the tint.
Mine is not bad at all for a CW (for you cool white lovers this is a bit on the neutral white).
Here's compared to a Thrunite T10 with an XP-G Led with a CW tint.
The distance at the wall is same for both lights. I set them to a comparable brightness level (can't do miracles, yet).










I pushed further the camera, and I don't know why the colour for both lights changes. Use this pics only to see the differences in the beam appareance, not the tint.










The T10 is not known as a thrower. The E11 has a wider beam.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 28, 2016)

I wish I went with the CW  (yes, probably the first time in my life I said that)


----------



## Bdm82 (Jun 28, 2016)

Let's see if this works, being my first image embedding.

I realize it's not great beamshots as the spills overlap and it was hastily done in my garage against a dirty door, but I thought it'd be an easy illustration to line up multiple lights to see how the tints compare.

Thorefire TA13 (budget zoomie, CW), Manker E11 NW, Olight M3XS-UT (dedome), Nitecore EC4SW (NW).

The Thorefire is quite blue. The Olight is quite green. The Nitecore is a good neutral. The Manker has a very faint yellow/green. Honestly the Manker would seem neutral if it weren't for the Nitecore as reference.

Maybe I'm not as picky as others about the green, maybe mine isn't as bad as yours, maybe the Olight is so green that the Manker looks anti-green (that's a thing, right?) to me. Whatever the case, I really don't have a problem with my E11 NW.


----------



## Budda (Jul 9, 2016)

Using Efest 14500 IMR v2 700mAh, charged each time at 0.5A.

























Also, dumb video


----------



## scs (Jul 16, 2016)

Received mine yesterday, in NW.

The machining is good, head to tail. Tail threads had been lubed and were smooth out the box. Head threads had not been lubed, and were a bit rough as a result. Knurling is surprisingly adequate. It would be even better if the bezel had knurling as well.

Switch feel is positive, though it doesn't have a very substantial feel. Durability remains to be seen.

The head can't be unscrewed from the body like the reviewed sample, threadlocked perhaps.

The lens sits on a thick o-ring, which in turn sits on and around a groove on the top of the reflector. Very good compression seal for waterproofing and extra shock absorption to protect the lens from a drop. O-ring seals at bottom of bezel and tail are snug as well. Well done.

Emitter is slightly off-centered, but doesn't seem to affect the beam much. The reflector actually screws into the head, so it ends up positioning the centering ring, rather than the other way around. The hotspot is nice and wide, but the spill beam lacks uniformity. There's a noticeable darker band in the middle of it. Not too noticeable beyond 20 feet.

Supposed to be 3D tint, but not to my eyes. Seems a bit on the cool side in fact. Visually, CRI is a bit on the low side as well for a NW.

Inside the head: the long leads are not trimmed but coiled up in a flat S-bend. The solder job is nowhere near as clean as the reviewed sample. I'm quite positive that the leads will snap off from a drop, but for now, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is bright! I'm impressed by that.

If the solder job was better, I'd think the $30 is well worth it. As it is, I feel like it should be a $20 light retail.

On my regular Eneloop, less than a year old and with fewer than 20 cycles, max (400 lumens) was only 20% higher than high (200 lumens) by lux measurements. I'm not aware that Eneloop Pro can provide more power than the regular Eneloop.


----------



## davidt1 (Jul 17, 2016)

I am in the market for a small (about 3 inches long) AA light with a side switch. I had high hopes for this light. While it's over 3 inches long, it has some of the things I am looking for: side switch, floody beam, and a deep clip. 

I hope Manker does not abandon this design. You have the right idea. It just needs better execution and marketing. Makes sure it appeals to a large market. Do like Klarus does with their Mi7. 

Make a light with snazzy colors like red, blue, pink, vanilla, etc. Throw in Camo for the tacticool crowd too. 

Sprinkle your ads with words like military grade, SEAL approved, SWAT designed, battle tested, etc. I bet the EDCF crowd would line up to buy one.

I forgot to add : jack the price up and have your dealer do a secret CPF discount.

Anyway, I can't wait for the next version of this light.


----------



## Budda (Jul 17, 2016)

scs said:


> On my regular Eneloop, less than a year old and with fewer than 20 cycles, max (400 lumens) was only 20% higher than high (200 lumens) by lux measurements. I'm not aware that Eneloop Pro can provide more power than the regular Eneloop.


I have tested on old duracell staycharged. I think I got them 6 years ago, so they should be the second or third last eneloop generation... at best. 
Between them, and the Eneloop PRO my luxmeter saw big changes. I don't have regular eneloop to compare.


----------



## kreisl (Jul 17, 2016)

kreisl said:


> why does the light need a tail cap ?
> 
> the klarus Mi7 does not need a tail cap either.



ditto


----------



## Mkduffer (Jul 17, 2016)

Nice review. Thanks for sharing.

Personally, I'm disappointed that the low mode with 14500 is as high as it is. I'm considering this vs. the Klarus Mi7. I like the extra non-blinky mode in the Manker and the pocket clip, but I also like the battery check, electronic lockout and modes of the Klarus better, although I wish they had left out SOS in favor of another level. Also like that the non-high modes on the Klarus are consistent regardless of battery type.

Is there any visible PWM?

Are the head and tail threaded identically? I'm wondering if it's possible to reverse the body (and hence the clip), allowing for a head-up carry?

Mahalo!


----------



## scs (Jul 18, 2016)

Check with seller to confirm whether head is removable as Budda's review sample. Mine is not removable. Maybe that's reason for the tail cap?

No visible PWM on any mode.

Beam shape is somewhat rectangular with really rounded corners and curved sides. Shape of the XPL perhaps?

NW tint leaves much to be desired. There's noticeable green in it at 2 lower levels, though not as bad as photos above. And again, CRI appears quite low for a NW.


----------



## scs (Jul 18, 2016)

I'm guessing the MI7 does have a tail cap: body and tail not a single piece. They're just glued together. It would facilitate fabrication and assembly.


----------



## kreisl (Jul 18, 2016)

scs said:


> I'm guessing the MI7 does have a tail cap: body and tail not a single piece. They're just glued together.



You're wrong.

Wrong guess.

You can check the Mi7 reviews and photos.


----------



## scs (Jul 18, 2016)

kreisl said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> Wrong guess.
> 
> You can check the Mi7 reviews and photos.



Checked it.
Can't see either way.
If it's one piece, is the tail spring attached with adhesive or solder? There's little to no room down that monolithic body tube to work around.


----------



## kreisl (Jul 18, 2016)

btw it is not uncommon to build a compact AA flashlight with head and body and no separate tail. most AAA flashlights are also built like that. the tail spring does not need attachment with adhesive or solder. you just press fit the base of the spring coil into the body.

i got the word from Mi7 owners. the body is just 1 piece. there is no tail or tail cap.

there you have it. now we're both happy. :nana:


----------



## scs (Jul 18, 2016)

kreisl said:


> btw it is not uncommon to build a compact AA flashlight with head and body and no separate tail. most AAA flashlights are also built like that. the tail spring does not need attachment with adhesive or solder. you just press fit the base of the spring coil into the body.
> 
> i got the word from Mi7 owners. the body is just 1 piece. there is no tail or tail cap.
> 
> there you have it. now we're both happy. :nana:



I'm aware of the construction of AA and AAA lights.
Thanks for confirming.
The press fit spring is an elegant design.


----------



## Budda (Jul 18, 2016)

Mkduffer said:


> Is there any visible PWM?
> Are the head and tail threaded identically? I'm wondering if it's possible to reverse the body (and hence the clip), allowing for a head-up carry?



No visible PWM
I removed the head and installed the tailcap on the head threads. I could not mount the head at the tailcap because the mounted clip blocks the head from twisting. My guess is that you could remove the clip and screw the head in place, and reinstall the clip each time you want to reverse the clip orientation.


----------



## kreisl (Jul 18, 2016)

Budda said:


> My guess is that you could


Why guess?

You could remove the clip and then tell us if the *head *and *tail *can be reversed on the *body*, without losing any electronic functionality, yes or no.

You simply test it. Then there is no more guessing.


----------



## Budda (Jul 19, 2016)

It will be a guess, until I test it.


----------



## kreisl (Jul 19, 2016)

Don't test it.

I let you win.

You have won.


----------



## Budda (Aug 28, 2016)

Manker always asked me to test and compare the Mi7 to the E11. Last week I received and tested a Klarus Mi7. Here I compare the plots. Keep in mind that the Manker E11 was tested with a Efest 14500 IMR V2 700mAh V2 and the Klarus Mi7 with a Efest 14500 IMR 650mAh (the latest model from Efest). A difference of 50 mAh should translate around a 13% difference in runtime.


----------



## CelticCross74 (Aug 28, 2016)

I really like Manker I really do. But the mode layout and switching for me gives it the UI of a Rubiks Cube. This is one of those lights that would be far easier to use with a two stage switch like on the MH20


----------



## Budda (Aug 28, 2016)

I also suggested manker a double stage switch like the one of the MH20.
In their latest light they however still adopted a single stage switch but with rapid access to low, turbo and last used mode. This is fine for me.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Aug 28, 2016)

Yours is an excellent review, made especially valuable because of the many follow-up posts.

Thanks for all the hard work.


----------



## Budda (Aug 28, 2016)

Thanks for the feedback.
It is always appreciated.


----------



## Wendee (Aug 28, 2016)

Budda said:


> Manker always asked me to test and compare the Mi7 to the E11. [...]



Is this standard practice? Do other manufacturers make requests like this to reviewers (in general)? Maybe it's done all the time and I just didn't know.


----------



## Budda (Aug 28, 2016)

I don't know anything about this general practice.
I posted the review of the E11 on BLF and shortly afterwards the Mi7 came out. Many BLF members started make comparison comparing my testing results to the Klarus Specs.
So they told me if I could make a comparison to show BLF people who were interested the difference, and I did.
Also, I have not mentioned the Mi7 in this thread, but even here people came up with comments about the Mi7. So I thought this could be interesting.


----------



## Wendee (Aug 28, 2016)

Ok but that's a slippery slope. In my personal opinion, a manufacturer should have no (none, zero) input into what_ is _or _isn't _published in a review, so that it can remain unbiased and impartial. If a member requests such a thing (if they don't want to have to read both reviews, to see both charts) that's different. Anyways, I was just surprised to read that a manufacturer would actually make such a request. Maybe I'm just too picky. 

Thanks for another great review though. I always enjoy your reviews.


----------



## Lex Icon (Aug 28, 2016)

Wendee said:


> Ok but that's a slippery slope. In my personal opinion, a manufacturer should have no (none, zero) input into what_ is _or _isn't _published in a review, so that it can remain unbiased and impartial. If a member requests such a thing (if they don't want to have to read both reviews, to see both charts) that's different. Anyways, I was just surprised to read that a manufacturer would actually make such a request. Maybe I'm just too picky.
> 
> Thanks for another great review though. I always enjoy your reviews.


An even greater concern could be reviews of samples provided/selected by the manufacturer, especially when they have a somewhat 'spotty' reputation for QA/QC.


----------



## Budda (Aug 28, 2016)

IMHO it would be impartial if they asked me what I prefer.
I put togher data, a couple of runtime graph. Data are not partial, they are the most partial thing that exist. That's why I make most of my reviews based on them.



Lex Icon said:


> An even greater concern could be reviews of samples provided/selected by the manufacturer, especially when they have a somewhat 'spotty' reputation for QA/QC.


Many reviewers get their sample from the makers. And what can I do about it, exept making it the first thing you read in my review?


----------



## Lex Icon (Aug 28, 2016)

Budda said:


> IMHO it would be impartial if they asked me what I prefer.
> I put togher data, a couple of runtime graph. Data are not partial, they are the most partial thing that exist. That's why I make most of my reviews based on them.
> 
> 
> Many reviewers get their sample from the makers. And what can I do about it, exept making it the first thing you read in my review?


I agree.
Reviewers, specifically Selfbuilt, who also receives samples, sometimes pre-production, are the port of entry for most of us. Personally I see nothing wrong with suggestions or samples provided by builders. Selfbuilt's comparisons are what I find most useful, regardless of who suggested them. My point was that samples could be more slippery than suggestions. I would happily review free samples if given the opportunity.


----------



## Budda (Aug 28, 2016)

Lex Icon said:


> My point was that samples could be more slippery than suggestions.


I missed your point and I 100% agree with you.


----------



## Wendee (Aug 28, 2016)

Lex Icon said:


> [...] Selfbuilt's comparisons are what I find most useful, regardless of who suggested them. [...]



Selfbuilt's reviews are what lead me to find CPF. What do you mean buy "regardless of who suggested them" when talking about his comparison charts? Do you think manufacturers "suggest" to Selfbuilt what to include/exclude from his review of their product? Do you think he would modify his review to add/remove content based on their "suggestion"? I really hope not. I'd love to hear what he thinks on this topic because I really am curious about this.

I think Manker requesting this review be modified, in any way, was just wrong. They shouldn't be influencing reviewers or requesting special favours. Now I wonder how many other companies do this as well. It had never even crossed my mind before today.

They could have done the comparison test themselves and posted the results, they _do_ know how and they have a thread dedicated to this light where they could have posted it.


----------



## Budda (Aug 28, 2016)

Wendee said:


> They could have done the comparison test themselves and posted the results, they _do_ know how and they have a thread dedicated to this light where they could have posted it.



And surely enough _nobody _would have tought that they may be in a conflict of interest and be impartial...


----------



## Wendee (Aug 28, 2016)

Budda said:


> And surely enough _nobody _would have tought that they may be in a conflict of interest and be impartial...



This is my point, exactly. That's why they asked you to do it. Pretty shady. This is why companies should not 'suggest' reviewers add or remove any content from reviews. If they do, consider it a big red flag. IMO, it's just as much a conflict of interest for them to ask the reviewer to do something that would look bad for them to do themselves. This is my personal opinion. If others have a different opinion, that's fine too. I still think what this company did was sneaky and wrong.


----------



## Aggressor (Sep 3, 2016)

Wendee said:


> I still think what this company did was sneaky and wrong.



Asking to run tests against direct market competitor is bad? Assuming the tests are done objectively by independent reviewer? What is wrong with that? Had they told him NOT to run tests against a particular competitor - that would be bad.

For anyone who is in the market for this type of light, that comparison graph is great help. I personally was leaning toward Manker E11, but then I found out Klarus Mi7 is much cheaper (in real life, not MSRP), so I am on the fence again...


----------



## Bdm82 (Sep 3, 2016)

I agree as well. I see no problem. 

If one of the manufacturers publishes their own comparo, we wouldn't trust it. 

But if budda (a respected cpf reviewer) is does his own review (and neither manufacturer tells him what he can or can't say), I see no problem where the recommendation came from. It's not like they asked him to compare apples and oranges, or versus an old version of one. 

Heck, often times manufacturers don't want certain comparisons done because they think their product will be evaluated for something it wasn't designed for. Here, the manufacturer acknowledged a lot of people will be looking at these two (similar size, output, etc) lights to be compared for their real world needs, and facilitated that happening.


----------



## Wendee (Sep 3, 2016)

Well, I stand by my initial comments given the feeling I have about this subject. 

As you said, the manufacturer simply "facilitated that happening" (the content they _repeatedly_ asked the reviewer to publish, in what's suppose to be an independent CPF review). I still say it's a slippery slope. What else do they "facilitate" being published (or _not_ published) in a review? Where is the line drawn? 

Most major manufacturers have accounts on CPF and they create threads about their lights, before they're even available for sale. They can publish (or not publish) whatever data they like, so there's *no *reason for them to be asking for favours from reviewers.

In the end, I do respect other people's opinions even if I don't feel the same way. This would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed on everything, wouldn't it? Now off I go see what new flashlights are out there.


----------



## Budda (Sep 3, 2016)

I made the above plot for BLF, where in the Manker review there were MANY members speculating on how the Klarus ANSI runtme would compare to the Manker (where the complete runtime plot was made available by me).
You want to buy one light that is tested, but another on paper looks better (because ANSI IMHO is made to make lights performance look better)... 
Having the data for both lights wouldn't hurt, I suppose. Then, of course you can spend the money on the light that you like more for design, interface, color, price, availability, accessories, weight... a 100 of different reasons. But knowledge never hurts the customer: 
it's better to say: that light performed better, but this one I like more; rather than: I thought this one performed better!

I have not run again a single thing. I just put all the data I already have from the tests in one plot.
I have even said that there is a small advantage in the plot for the Manker given by the different battery.

I don't see anything negative in a comparative TEST. The test was not made to favour one or another item being tested.
I have not said which light I like more. The comparison is made by the luxmeter.
I just pick the color of the curves and the font of the graph.

Yourself could make the same comparison just looking at the runtime plot of each light side by side.
I'm guessing if you are interested in buying the E11, you will look at the performance of the E11. 
If you are interested in buying the Mi7, you will look at the performance of the Mi7.
If you are interested in both lights, you will at the performance of both.

Also, they have not seen the two plot and asked me to combine them.
I have been ask to compare the lights before I even asked for the Mi7 to review, so they had not certanty about the result.

So next time no coke vs pepsi test?


----------



## Wendee (Sep 4, 2016)

I didn't think I'd be posting in this thread again :sigh:, but since you imply that I don't agree with comparison charts in general, I have to say that of course I do. I read them all the time. They're very useful. It wish every flashlight review had such graphs. 

I just read your BLF review. I don't see anyone asking about the E11 vs the Mi7 before you posted the graph. To be honest, I'm really not that concerned about all of this anymore. It was never about the graph itself and I'm sure that you're well aware of that. This going in circles has become tiring. After the threads I just read on the other forum, I realize that I was out of the loop and posting my concerns in this thread was an exercise in futility from the beginning.

Sorry to have bothered you. Good night.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Sep 6, 2016)

I bought the E11 and have a Klarus Mi7 on the way to me. I found the graph very helpful. The Manker seems to have higher output regardless of cell type.

That said, my E11 remained in its stock configuration less than a week. I replaced the emitter with a 5A2 tint XPL HI on a copper Sinkpad, and driver swapped to a 17mm FET driver from Mountain Electronics with Moppydrv firmware.

On an Efest purple IMR cell: UI, lumens, throw and tint are all greatly improved. However, runtime at max power is extremely short due to heat.


----------



## Redemption (Sep 10, 2016)

Thanks for the great review Budda, it's very helpful. Could you comment on the quality/durability of the anodizing? Is the surface easy to scratch when you add/remove the clip? I read elsewhere that the clip scrapes the anodizing, what does that mean and could you point out what is scraped (does it chip?).

I wanted to add that I disagree with Wendee's opinion that Manker asking you to compare against the Klarus is shady in any way. I have a lot of review experience in an unrelated industry and to my knowledge no company that wants to influence the review process will ask for MORE tests against competitors. This is a sign that either Manker is curious to see what happens in independent testing, or Manker is very confident in its product and wants to show it is a superior product. It is a very good sign when manufacturers want reviewers to do additional testing and I don't see it as a slippery slope at all. The slippery slope only starts when manufacturers ask for changes in what or how something is is written, not when they ask for more comparison or more exploration of a product. I think its admirable that you added additional comparisons like this Budda, it's more work for you and more info for us!


Cheers!


----------



## Wendee (Sep 10, 2016)

Redemption said:


> [...]
> I wanted to add that I disagree with Wendee's opinion that Manker asking you to compare against the Klarus is shady in any way. I have a lot of review experience in an unrelated industry and to my knowledge no company that wants to influence the review process will ask for MORE tests against competitors. This is a sign that either Manker is curious to see what happens in independent testing, or Manker is very confident in its product and wants to show it is a superior product. It is a very good sign when manufacturers want reviewers to do additional testing and I don't see it as a slippery slope at all. The slippery slope only starts when manufacturers ask for changes in what or how something is is written, not when they ask for more comparison or more exploration of a product. I think its admirable that you added additional comparisons like this Budda, it's more work for you and more info for us!
> Cheers!


 
You just joined and this is your first post on CPF? Really. Of all the lights, threads and posts on here, you picked this particular one, to ask about the clip on a Manker light? Of all the QA issues related to this light, this is your concern & that's your first ever question? 

You know, I had visited the other forum as a guest and people there are complaining about Manker's MK34 light. It seems people want a comparison done to the M43 Meteor. How about a chart identifying Manker's stated specs for the MK34 vs the actual output levels and runtimes. Then a chart comparing it to the M43. It's a comparable light, isn't it? I don't see Manker asking for that. Why not? Do they cherry pick lights they want comparisons done? You think this is fair and unbiased? I know for a fact they knew the stats on the Mi7 before they asked for the comparison chart (as per Mi7 thread that Manker actually posted in, that contained Mi7 test results, before Budda had even ordered the Mi7 for review). 

Also, if you read the other forum in the E11 thread, you'll see Budda joking about doing a future review on the Mi7 and Manker replying "haha". Do you consider that professional? In an unrelated Mi7 thread started by someone else, Budda would jump in to promote the E11, then Manker would mysteriously show up right away, and also jump into the conversation (in the Mi7 thread). Someone even posted to Manker "Nice see you here in this thread,…is not a surprise……(some friend call you perhaps……?)". Who's the friend, I wonder. From all I've seen, it looks like the manufacturer and the reviewer were working together on these reviews or at least didn't have the distance required to keep things unbiased. This only makes me feel more strongly that reviews should be 100% independent, with no input what-so-ever from the manufacturer. 

Maybe do a little more research before commenting, or ask Manker, sounds to me like you might know them personally. 

I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I've had enough of this nonsense.


----------



## Redemption (Sep 11, 2016)

I'm sorry our opinions diverge so much on this, I don't want to a pick a fight but I did want to share my opinion. I don't know Manker or Budda, but I do believe that attacking a review for having added more comparison data is a misguided way to challenge the impartiality of a review, unless the data is comparing Apples to Oranges or is an attempt to steer the discussion away from better comparisons.

As for why did I ask about this light. I happen to care only about AA and AAA lights and the E11 happens to fit the formfactor I care about at this moment (I'm looking for a smaller AA NiMH light with high lumens). Others have raised issues about tint and other quality issues, so I think its very fair to ask about anodizing quality. As you might know, alot of manufacturers claim Type III Hard Anodization and yet not all manufacturers who make this claim have durable anodization. You might think the clip and anodization is immaterial but I happen to consider that aspect quite important.

I also wanted to ask about other items but I didn't think Budda was the type to test such things as parasitic drain (how much drain and how long will it take for it to drain an Eneloop battery).

I do have a request to compare the beam shots with a Nitecore MT10A if you have one.


----------



## Aggressor (Sep 11, 2016)

Wendee said:


> You know, I had visited the other forum as a guest and people there are complaining about Manker's MK34 light. It seems people want a comparison done to the M43 Meteor. How about a chart identifying Manker's stated specs for the MK34 vs the actual output levels and runtimes. Then a chart comparing it to the M43. It's a comparable light, isn't it? I don't see Manker asking for that. Why not? Do they cherry pick lights they want comparisons done? You think this is fair and unbiased? I know for a fact they knew the stats on the Mi7 before they asked for the comparison chart (as per Mi7 thread that Manker actually posted in, that contained Mi7 test results, before Budda had even ordered the Mi7 for review).



Review of Manker MK34 is missing useful comparison, therefore review of Manker E11 should not have one either? It makes absolutely no difference who pushed for this comparison, assuming it was done objectively by independent reviewer.

There is no complete silence between manufacturer and reviewer, nor there ever could be. What exactly manufacturer tells the reviewer is important, not the fact that they talk at all. Asking reviewer to run tests against a direct market competitor is completely fine. Asking reviewer NOT to run tests against a direct market competitor - that would be a problem.


----------



## Budda (Sep 11, 2016)

@Wendee:
I don't have anything to compare the MK34 with, so no comparison.
If someone is kind enough to found me or gift me a M43...
it is not possible that a cinese maker has already tested the other brands light, right?
if you think that my reviews are in favor of Manker, then you can stop reading them. No harm done.

@Redemption: the anodization seems fine on all my manker light. On all lights in general adding-removing the clip will result in potential damage to the anodization since it means putting metal against metal in tension. In order to decrease the potential damage you can add a thin piece of cloth between clip and light when installing it, and remove it pulling it when they are in position. I also spray some silicon oil between the parts to help increase the smoothness of the process.


----------



## cyclesport (Sep 11, 2016)

FWIW after a couple of months of use my E11 developed an odd problem...it will turn on and cycle through all modes fine, but once turned off will not come back on again unless the end cap is unscrewed (even slightly), retightened, then operates fine again..just once..then must repeat the end cap unscrew/retighten action? 

I initially thought it just had some particulate matter/ debris in the contact path, so I cleaned all batt. contact points, threads, stretched spring, etc. to no avail? Also tried 8 diff batteries of various chem's, Li-ion, NiMh, alky's, etc. Anyone else experienced this issue?


----------



## Budda (Sep 11, 2016)

sorry, mine is fine.
Just yesterday I replaced the CW stock emitter with an XP-L U4 3000K 80 CRI.


----------



## Aggressor (Sep 12, 2016)

Which 14500 battery would you recommend for Manker E11?
Will Sanyo UR14500P (800 mAh) work?


----------



## Budda (Sep 12, 2016)

I don't know. I have only EFEST.


----------



## Aggressor (Sep 12, 2016)

Budda said:


> I don't know. I have only EFEST.



Protected or unprotected?
Is it important for this light?


----------



## Budda (Sep 12, 2016)

only with unprotected IMR you will get max output.
with protected your max output will severely be limited, and, most importantly, I have heard protected batteries doesn't fit


----------



## cyclesport (Sep 12, 2016)

Aggressor said:


> Protected or unprotected?
> Is it important for this light?




For those w/questions re: battery fit in the E11...

My example will operate w/most AA's, and 14500's (non-protected or protected) as long as the length doesn't exceed 51, 52mm (max) from nipple top to bottom. For example, I've found the Xtar 800mAh *protected 14500 Li-ion's to work just fine seemingly giving same output as IMR's. Maybe that's why mine stopped working lol!

Actually the dia. of most Li-ions are a bigger issue, since some are a tight squeeze and can require vigorous shaking to extract. No fittment issues of any kind w/Eneloops.


----------



## TomElf (Sep 28, 2016)

Fireclaw18 said:


> I bought the E11 and have a Klarus Mi7 on the way to me. I found the graph very helpful. The Manker seems to have higher output regardless of cell type.
> 
> That said, my E11 remained in its stock configuration less than a week. I replaced the emitter with a 5A2 tint XPL HI on a copper Sinkpad, and driver swapped to a 17mm FET driver from Mountain Electronics with Moppydrv firmware.
> 
> On an Efest purple IMR cell: UI, lumens, throw and tint are all greatly improved. However, runtime at max power is extremely short due to heat.


I'm interested you were able to do a straight driver replacement. I can't find any reference to a full teardown or full mod of this light. Sometimes the switch mounting gets in the way, etc. I just got in a AWT 600 mAh 14500 and found it performed a bit better on a FET driver than my new EFEST 650 cell. I got 5.25A on the AWT while 5.0A on the EFEST. I'm gonna order a couple more of the AWT's. The driver looks glued - I've seen Manker use epoxy, like on the U21 to secure the driver down. With the U21, it's easy to break the bond from the top - it appears to be the softer type of thermal epoxy.
I'll go with my own Narsil firmware of course, 85 based driver with full smooth ramping. I have it running in my U21 - the driver died anyway, so now I got a dedomed XPL V6 0D and got more lumens, lot more throw than the stock setup .


----------



## Witterings (Sep 29, 2016)

I just got mine a couple of days ago ... what a brilliant little light!!!

Might keep this one as is and look to get a 2nd and de-dome it.


----------



## JohnnyMac (Oct 21, 2016)

Nice review, Budda. I may have to pick up an E11 one of these days. I had no idea it was as small as a Thrunite T10 twisty. Remarkable!


----------



## akoposilester (Oct 24, 2016)

pull the trigger and ordered one. bought cw. as per one user the cw version is a little greenish.


----------



## DisisMrC (Dec 15, 2016)

Thanks for the review, because of it, I just ordered the last one from Amazon in the CW. I've got a few of the EcoGear 14500 protected batteries. I really hope they fit into this unit, guess I'll find out in a few days.


----------



## DisisMrC (Dec 25, 2016)

Got the light. EcoGear 800 protected and Fenix protected 14500 batteries do not fit. Just ordered the ThorFire 14500 this should work. Anyone get any other 14500 batteries to fit in this thing? I'm looking for quality. Any ideas or suggestions? Don't think the NiteCore NL147 will fit either. Please let me know what y'all were able to get in 14500 size that works.


----------



## Bdm82 (Dec 26, 2016)

DisisMrC said:


> Got the light. EcoGear 800 protected and Fenix protected 14500 batteries do not fit. Just ordered the ThorFire 14500 this should work. Anyone get any other 14500 batteries to fit in this thing? I'm looking for quality. Any ideas or suggestions? Don't think the NiteCore NL147 will fit either. Please let me know what y'all were able to get in 14500 size that works.


Unprotected Efest IMR 700mah lat top fits great. 
Unprotected Nitecore NI14500D 650mah button top fits barely. 
Protected Fenix ARB-L14-800 800 mah bton top does NOT fit. 

I'd say you need to look at quality unprotected.


----------



## DisisMrC (Dec 27, 2016)

Bdm82 said:


> Unprotected Efest IMR 700mah lat top fits great.
> Unprotected Nitecore NI14500D 650mah button top fits barely.
> Protected Fenix ARB-L14-800 800 mah bton top does NOT fit.
> 
> I'd say you need to look at quality unprotected.



Thank you. Just ordered some of the Sanyo UR14500. Spec wise they should fit, I'll confirm in the next few days when they arrive.


----------



## Witterings (Dec 27, 2016)

DisisMrC said:


> Thank you. Just ordered some of the Sanyo UR14500. Spec wise they should fit, I'll confirm in the next few days when they arrive.



That's what I use in mine :thumbsup:


----------



## DisisMrC (Dec 28, 2016)

Witterings said:


> That's what I use in mine :thumbsup:



Sure glad I'll finally be able to see the highest output possible soon. Thanks for the reassurance.


----------



## DHart (Jan 23, 2017)

Fireclaw18 said:


> I bought the E11 and have a Klarus Mi7 on the way to me. I found the graph very helpful. The Manker seems to have higher output regardless of cell type.
> 
> That said, my E11 remained in its stock configuration less than a week. I replaced the emitter with a 5A2 tint XPL HI on a copper Sinkpad, and driver swapped to a 17mm FET driver from Mountain Electronics with Moppydrv firmware.
> 
> On an Efest purple IMR cell: UI, lumens, throw and tint are all greatly improved. However, runtime at max power is extremely short due to heat.



My wife has been wanting a single AA with a side switch and this came up on my radar. She may not mind, but I'm pretty sure I would not be happy with the stock cool white tint... and I have been itching to learn how to replace emitters.

Is this a good light for me to start with when it comes to learning to replace an emitter and driver?


----------



## Witterings (Jan 23, 2017)

DHart said:


> My wife has been wanting a single AA with a side switch and this came up on my radar. She may not mind, but I'm pretty sure I would not be happy with the stock cool white tint... and I have been itching to learn how to replace emitters.
> 
> Is this a good light for me to start with when it comes to learning to replace an emitter and driver?



Funny this should come up now ... I've literally just done my 1st ever upgrade and this was it ... I went to an XP-L HI to give it a bit more throw with a warmish tint and whilst it's very small to get to and solder / a bit fiddly and I had to dremel a 14mm board to get it to fit I found it easy as a 1st to do but I didn't change the driver.
https://www.aliexpress.com/snapshot/0.html?orderId=500963899763761&productId=32684191479

You mention the tint though...the standard has 2 different tints available, one which is warmer than the other???


----------



## DHart (Jan 23, 2017)

Witterings said:


> Funny this should come up now ... I've literally just done my 1st ever upgrade and this was it ... I went to an XP-L HI to give it a bit more throw with a warmish tint and whilst it's very small to get to and solder / a bit fiddly and I had to dremel a 14mm board to get it to fit I found it easy as a 1st to do but I didn't change the driver.
> https://www.aliexpress.com/snapshot/0.html?orderId=500963899763761&productId=32684191479
> 
> You mention the tint though...the standard has 2 different tints available, one which is warmer than the other???



I found a version of the light on Amazon with a neutral emitter, so I may wind up liking the tint and leaving well enough alone. 

I read about your efforts to replace the switch, over on BLF, and was a bit discouraged about messing with that after reading what you went through.


----------



## Collect4Fun (Mar 16, 2017)

Thanks for a great review and the many follow-up comments! I'm planning on ordering this light very soon so I especially appreciate the insight on the compatible cells.


----------



## joelbnyc (Apr 7, 2017)

I love this light with my purple Efest 650mAh unprotected button top, my only 14500 so far. Might order a flat 700mAh Efest as well, wasn't sure if they'd work.

The light definitely needs some lube though, I've never applied my own before, I wonder if silicone is good for this, and if so whether the jetbeam/nitecore is okay or the nyogel I've heard mentioned?


----------



## Bdm82 (Apr 8, 2017)

joelbnyc said:


> I love this light with my purple Efest 650mAh unprotected button top, my only 14500 so far. Might order a flat 700mAh Efest as well, wasn't sure if they'd work.
> 
> The light definitely needs some lube though, I've never applied my own before, I wonder if silicone is good for this, and if so whether the jetbeam/nitecore is okay or the nyogel I've heard mentioned?


There's a whole lube thread on here covering the good, bad, and ugly lubricants. You can probably find it with a quick search. But after reading and considering... I ponied up and bought a little jar of nyogel off amazon for $12 and now now I'm covered for a long time. I'd recommend doing the same.


----------



## joelbnyc (Apr 8, 2017)

Yeah I read up some more and people say the Jetbeam/Nitecore jars are rebranded Nyogel. True or not, I'll try it, incoming now from Battery Junction.

What I am curious about is whether the 650mAh purple button Efest which is advertised as 'high drain' will perform better than the 700mAh red Efest flat top, or whether the high drain thing is a nonissue for this application.


----------



## joelbnyc (Apr 11, 2017)

Just an update, I'm really loving this light still. It gives my Nitecore MH20 a run for it's money for practical purposes, and is much more pocket-able. I'd avoided AA size for a while, but this light has won me over.


----------



## ligerpaw (Apr 18, 2017)

good review, samll body and bright enough with good CNC machine, like manker very much


----------

