# Zebralight SC52 (XM-L, 1xAA, 1x14500) Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO and more!



## selfbuilt

*Warning: pic heavy, as usual. *











The SC52 is the latest refresh of the Zebralight line of 1xAA lights. I recall reviewing the very first Zebralight model ever produced – the 1xAA H50 (XR-E) – some five years ago now.  That was more of a headlamp model though, and was followed eventually by the traditional forward-facing SC50 (XP-E) and eventual SC51 (XP-G). 

The new SC52 is a XM-L-based model, with a revised build and greater output. Let's see how it compares to the earlier models, and the competition.

*Manufacturer Reported Specifications:*
(note: as always, these are simply what the manufacturer provides – scroll down to see my actual testing results).


LED: Cree XM-L Cool White (Nominal CCT 6300K)
User Selectable Levels: 3 main levels (High, Medium and Low). Each main level can be programmed to one of its two sub-levels. The second sub-level of the each main levels can be further programmed to different brightness levels or strobes.
Light Output:
High: H1 280 Lm (0.9 hrs) or H2 172 Lm (1.7 hrs) / 108 Lm (3 hrs) / 4Hz Strobe
Medium: M1 50 Lm (7.5 hrs) or M2 25 Lm (12 hrs) / 12 Lm (27 hrs)
Low: L1 2.7 Lm (4 days) or L2 0.34 Lm (3 weeks) / 0.06 Lm (2 months) / 0.01 Lm (3 months)
 Light output are ANSI out the front values. Runtime tests are done using Sanyo 2000mAh Eneloop AA batteries. Light output with 14500 batteries are the same except that the H1 is 500Lm for the first minute and then steps down to 280Lm.
Operating Voltage Range: 0.7V - 4.2V
Battery: One 1.5V AA (NiMH, lithium or alkaline) or 3.7V 14500 Li-ion battery. Batteries are not included in the package.
Parasitic Drain: Negligible (equivalent to 16 years, much less than the self discharging of a battery)
Automatic stepping down when battery (AA and 14500) capacity is low
Built-in over-discharging protection for 14500 batteries (2.8V cutoff)
Electronic soft-touch switch, with a 200,000 cycle operating life
Smart user interface provides fast and easy access to all brightness levels
Precision machined unibody casing from premium grade Alcoa aluminum bar stocks
Proprietary heat sinking design bonds the LED board directly to the unibody aluminum casing
Durable natural hard anodized finish (Type III Class I)
Tempered optical grade glass
Preinstalled bezel down pocket clip
Orange peel textured reflector
Anti-roll and tail-standing capable
Battery power can be locked out by slightly unscrewing the tailcap to prevent unwanted activations or parasitic drain
Beam Type: 80 degree spill, 12 degree hot spot
Dimensions: Diameter: 0.93 inch (23.6 mm), Length: 3.08 inch (78.2 mm)
Weight: 1.4 oz (40 gram) 
Waterproof to IPX7 (2 meters, 30 minutes)
Accessories: two o-rings
MSRP: ~$64
Operation:
This light has 3 main levels (High, Medium, and Low). Each main level can be programmed to one of its two sub-levels. The second sub-level of each main levels can be further programmed to different brightness levels or strobes.
Basic Operation
Short click turns on the light to High or turns off the light.
Long click (press and hold for about 0.6 seconds) turns on the light to Low. 
Advanced Operation and Configuration 
Short click turns on the light to High. Short click again quickly to cycle from High to Medium, and Low.
Press and hold to cycle from Low, Medium and High, release to set. When press and hold, the light always cycle from Low to High regardless which level you are currently in.
Double click to toggle and select between the two sub-levels for that main level. Sub-level selections (except the strobe) for the 3 main levels are memorized after the light is turned off and through battery changes.
The second sub-level of each main levels can be configured after 6 double clicks. Double click (startng with the 7th) to cycle and select different brightness levels or strobes. Short click to turn off the light when finishing configurations. The selections for the second sub-levels are memorized after the light is turned off and through battery changes.
This light uses the main LED (flashing 1 to 4 times) to indicate the estimated remaining capacity of the battery. To start the battery indicator, (from Off) short-click 4 times without pause. 






The SC52 came in the standard "eco-friendly" packaging that has been standard on Zebralight for some time now. Included in the simple (but firm) cardboard box was the light with removable clip (attached, with screws), two extra o-rings, a one-page instruction sheet, and a notice about battery use. 













From left to right: Duracell AA NiMH; Zebralight SC52, SC51; Foursevens Mini AA, Quark AA; Sunwayman V11R+AA extender; Nitecore EA1, SENS AA, MT1A; Rofis JR-12.

All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

*Zebralight SC52*: Weight 39.5g, Length 79.0mm, Width (bezel): 22.6mm, Width (max) 25.4mm
*Zebralight SC51*: Weight: 37.4g, Length 80.5mm, Width (bezel) 21.1mm, Width (max): 22.6mm
*Nitecore MT1A*: Weight: 54.6g, Length: 104.6mm, Width (bezel): 22.7mm
*Nitecore SENS AA*: Weight: 26.1g, Length: 82.7mm, Width (bezel): 19.8mm
*Nitecore EZAA*: Weight 20.9g, Length: 85.0mm, Width (bezel) 16.6mm
*Rofis ER12*: Wright: 35.5g, Length: 96.2mm, Width (bezel): 18.6mm
*Tiablo E2A*: Weight: 45.7g, Length: 101.2mm, Width (bezel): 19.9mm
*Xeno E03:*: Weight: 48.1g, Length 96.7mm, Width (bezel): 21.5mm 
*Xtar WK25B*: Weight 42.9g, Length: 102.3mm, Width (bezel): 22.5mm

The SC52 is slightly shorter overall than the SC51 (which is impressive, given that it also has a deeper reflector and greater height clearance for longer 14500 cells, compared to the SC51).


















The overall build design is similar to the earlier SC5x series lights. The most obvious changes are the slightly fatter head and the ridges along the body of the light. I definitely find the SC52 "grippier" than the predecessor SC51/SC50, which were a little too smooth in my view. 

Anodizing remains the typical Zebralight "natural" finish (which is a bit more gray-green than most). Note that natural anodizing can be highly variable (e.g., my sample seems lighter colored than most Zebralights I've had).

Zebralight has finally started adding model labels to this series (previously, there were absolutely no identifying labels of any sort on SC50/SC51). The "Zebralight SC52" body label is applied to a a cut-out from the ridge detail, and is very legible.

As before, the SC52 still has a flat-bottomed tailcap (slight indentation now) and an electronic control switch in their head. The switch cover has a revised textured grip, and is more recessed than previously. It also has a firmer switch feel, requiring a more definite click to activate. Taken together, these features should help reduce accidental activations even further. 

Tailcap threads are anodized as before, allowing for tailcap lockout. :thumbsup: This is important on all lights with electronic switches, since there is always some parasitic stand-by current drain to allow the switch to function (scroll down for a discussion in this case). Threads seem of comparable size and thickness to the earlier SC51. 

The light can both tailstand and headstand.

The light comes with a removable metal pocket clip, held in place by two regular Phillips head screws. 










As before, the light has a flat stainless steel bezel ring - but the head is wider now, with a wider and deeper reflector on the SC5. Reflector also seems to be less heavily textured than before (at least on my sample, which I would consider a light orange peel – LOP). The cool white XM-L emitter was well centered on my sample.

*User Interface*

The Zebralight SC-lights have always had a fairly unique user interface. While it may sound a little complex when first described, it is actually quite easy to use. The SC52's interface has been tweaked and expanded slightly from the SC51, but will feel familiar to those used to Zebralight.

On/off and mode switching is controlled by the electronic clicky switch. 

_Basic Operation_

From Off, a quick-click (rapid press-release) of the switch turns the light on in Hi. If you repeatedly quick-click without much of a pause, the light will advance to Med, then Lo with another quick-click.

A slightly-sustained press-hold-release (hold greater than 0.6 secs) turns the light on in Lo. If you hold the switch longer, the light will advance through Med and then Hi, in a repeated Lo > Med > Hi sequence, until you let go of the switch to select the level you want.

At any time when On, press-and-hold to start the Lo > Med > Hi ramp. 

A quick-click turns the light off.

_Advanced operation_

In regular usage, there are 6 possible output modes that are easily accessible, arranged in two sets of Lo/Med/Hi levels – the primary Lo/Med/Hi, and a sub-level set. Note that you can program the second sub-set (as explained in the section below).

To switch to one of the secondary Lo/Med/Hi sub-levels when on, double-quick-click the switch in any given level (e.g., in primary Med, double-click to go to the sub-level Med). The light will remember the selection of which Lo/Med/Hi level was last used, and return to that level the next time it is access (from Off, or as part of the ramp).

For convenience sake, Zebralight refers to the primary levels as L1, M1, and H1, and the secondary sub-levels as L2, M2, H2.

_Programming the sub-levels_

For the secondary sub-levels, you can actually choose from multiple choices. The primary levels are fixed.

For L2, you have the choice of three different levels. For M2, you have the choice of two different levels. For H2, you have the choice of two different levels or strobe mode (note that the strobe option can't be memorized as part of the standard operation). For the sake of clarity in my tables and graphs, I have referred to the programmable constant-output modes as L2A/L2B/L2C, M2A/M2B, and H2A/H2B. End result is that you actually have 10 defined constant outputs available to you, plus one strobe mode.

To program your desired secondary sub-level, double-click 6 times in any given level. Subsequent double-clicks will now alternate you between your various choices for that sub-level (e.g. M2A > M2B, in repeating sequence). To select the desired secondary sub-level, turn the light off by a single quick-click. When you next access that level, it will be saved to your programmed choice.

I realize the programming above may seem complicated, but you can safely ignore it all and simply use the light in basic mode as a 3-stage light. Or for that matter, as a 6-stage light in two sets of 3. 

*Video Overview:*

For information on the light, including the build and user interface, please see my new video overview:



Video was recorded in 720p, but YouTube typically defaults to 360p. Once the video is running, you can click on the configuration settings icon and select the higher 480p to 720p options. You can also run full-screen. 

*PWM*

There is no sign of PWM that I can see, at any output level – the SC52 is fully current-controlled, as claimed. 

Note that the early SC51 had PWM on some of the lower levels (although I believe this was eventually replaced with current-control on that model as well). I am glad to see the SC52 is fully current-controlled right out of the gate. 

Some users have reported seeing a brief flicker or pulse on the lowest possible output level (i.e. L2C, in my terminology). But I have not noticed one on mine – it seems perfectly stable, on all batteries.

Strobe:






The "hidden" strobe is a relatively slow 4 Hz (i.e., more of a signalling strobe than a tactical one). 

*Standby Drain*

A standby current drain is inevitable on the SC52, due to the electronic switch in the head. Here is how the new SC52 compares to the earlier SC50 and SC51:

SC52: 129.1 uA on 14500, 20.2 uA on Eneloop NiMH
SC51: 41.8 uA on 14500, 14.2 uA on Eneloop NiMH
SC50: 7.4 uA on 14500, 2.3 uA on Eneloop NiMH

While there has been an upward trend in standby currents over time on the SC5x series, these values for the SC52 are still quite low in absolute terms. Assuming a standard 900mAh protected 14500, and a 2000mAh Eneloop NiMH, these currents would translate into 9.5 months on 14500, and 11.3 years on Eneloop. 

Certainly, the drain is absolutely nothing to worry about on NiMH. The drain is higher 1x14500 (but still not unreasonable). But as always, I recommend you lock-out the light when not in use.

*Flicker Issue on 14500*

Some users have also reported flickering issues on Max on 14500, but this effect can be inconsistent. Note that the only difference in output between 14500 and NiMH/alkaline is the max mode (H1) runs at a higher level on 1x14500 initially (i.e., 500 lumens). After 1 min, the light steps down to typical max mode level for standard batteries (i.e., 280 lumens). The flickering, when observed in my case, has been on this first minute of 500 lumen output only.

There has been some speculation here as to whether this is due to different 14500 chemistries, voltage or heat. I can confirm that on my one sample, it is fact dependent on BOTH battery voltage and heat.

To explain, let me show you an oscilloscope trace for the first 65 seconds of runtime - on a fully charged AW protected ICR 14500 (~4.19V right off the charger), in my standard runtime testbed with a cooling fan.






Ok, not much to see here – the first spike shows the light On signal at time=1 sec, and the second spike is the step-down to the standard H1 level at t=60 secs.

Not let's try it again without any cooling applied:






Starting ~6 seconds after activation, the light begins flickering – at a rapidly accelerating rate. This rapid flickering continued until the light stepped down at 60 secs – at which point it ceased immediately.

How about a slower spinning fan?






Ok, now you see the flickering doesn't start until much later (~20 secs in), and is much more infrequent (i.e., slowly accelerating). I increased the fan speed to my typical level after ~35 secs, and you can see the flickering stopped immediately.

On the basis of the above, you could reasonably conclude that the flickering is mediated solely by relative heat (i.e., with sufficient cooling, you can prevent it from occurring).

But here's where it gets interesting – if I re-run the test with a partially depleted cell (~4.09V according to my DMM), with no cooling applied, I get this:






:thinking: Ok, now all you see are a few flicker spikes starting at the very end the first 60 secs 500 lumen level (which again ceased immediately with step-down). Note again, there is NO cooling applied to run above.

Note also that the actual output above is no different from the earlier runs (i.e., the 4.09V battery is giving the same ~500 lumens as the 4.19V battery did). So this tells you that the effect cannot be due solely to heat (i.e., the heat in the situation above should have been the same as the earlier no cooling trace, given that the outputs were the same).

It therefore seems that there is some sort of circuit issue whereby the light responds to high heat only if the 14500 is near max capacity. On my sample at least, these two variables are intertwined – you can't say the light never flickers <4.1V (it can – but only mildly without cooling), and you can't say it always flickers >4.1V (depends on the level of cooling). 

I'm not quite sure what to make of all this, and have queried it with Zebralight. They have responded to me that they are aware of the issue, and are working to resolve it. When I hear more, I will update this thread. In the meantime, if you are finding a similar issue on your SC52, I recommend you either drain some capacity off your freshly-charged 14500 cells, or contact your dealer about a replacement. :shrug:

*Beamshots:*

All lights are on Max output on Sanyo Eneloop AA NiMH. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 





























































1x14500 (AW Protected 14500) Li-ion Comparison:

































Beam pattern is as you would expect for a XM-L light with this size reflector – a fairly big hotspot and decent sized spillbeam. Scroll down for full output details in my tables.

*Testing Method:* 

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lightbox values to Lumens thread for more info. 

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see ANSI/NEMA FL-1 Standard page for an explanation and a description of all the terms used in these tables. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).











As you can see above, the SC52 has class-leading output – for both standard AA and 14500 Li-ion. The max output on 1xAA is particularly impressive. oo: Throw is reasonable, given the size of the reflector.

Since I don't have a lot of comparator data on other 1xAA XM-L lights, here are some summary tables for recent 2xAA and 1xCR123A/1xRCR lights I've recently tested (mainly XM-L-based). You can directly compare the output and throw values for the SC52 in the tables above to the tables below.






The SC52's ~290 estimated ANSI FL-1 lumens on max puts it a bit under most of the max outputs of the newer XP-G and XM-L 2xAA lights I've tested. That's to be expected, given that it is easier to have a sustained power draw from 2x AA cells in series than it is a single AA (i.e., you can't drive a 1xAA light as hard).






A similar pattern can be observed for most the 1xCR123A lights – typically, these have fairly similar max outputs to 2xAA lights.






On 1xRCR, the better comparable would be the ~540 estimated ANSI FL-1 lumens I get on the SC52 on 14500 Li-ion. That puts the SC52 in much the same category as many of the recent 1xRCR lights I've tested. This is as you would expect, as there is effectively no real difference between RCR and 14500, except perhaps greater runtime/capacity on some 14500s.

_Lumen Estimate Summary_

As with a number of my recent reviews, here is a summary table showing what my ANSI FL-1 lumen estimates are for the SC52:






Zebralight's reported ANSI FL-1 lumen specs seem pretty consistent with my output estimates (although my estimates seem to be a bit higher at the high end, and a bit lower at the low end). Part of this may simply be variability from one light sample to the next (e.g., it is hard for manufacturers to reliably reproduce the same sub-lumen levels in every light).

I know there's been some discussion here as to the accuracy of various lumen estimates. To expand on this in the case of the SC52, I have done some additional detailed comparisons to a Fenix light in post #2. :wave:

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

Let's start with standard AA cells (NiMH Eneloop, alkaline, and Energizer L91 lithium):




























Ok, there's a lot of data up there. :sweat:

The general take-home message is that the SC52 is a real output AND efficiency leader on standard cells. oo: A second point is that the SC52 is typically quite well regulated (i.e. flat-regulated) on standard cells, except on max output (especially on alkaline, as expected). 

It is particularly impressive to see how long the SC52 runs on the Med-Hi levels, compared to equivalent output levels on other models. To help you compare to the Zebralight specs, here is a table comparing runtimes to the ANSI FL-1 standard of time to 10%:






Like with the Zebralight lumen output specs, the ANSI FL-1 runtimes seem fairly consistent with my testing as well. 

_As always though, I recommend you actually look at the full runtime graphs for more info on output level changes over time. _ Given the range of possible regulation patterns, it is important not to get fooled by looking at just two (rather arbitrary) points from the ANSI FL-1 standard – the full graphs tell you infinitely more (as I explain on my Testing Methods page).

1x14500:










On 14500 Li-ion, overall output/runtime efficiency of the SC52 is good, and seems pretty much in keeping with other lights in this class. However, the SC52 again shows very flat-regulation – which not all of the other lights were able to maintain.

As shown in my output summary table in the preceding section, Zebralight has also done an excellent job keeping output levels consistent between standard cells and Li-ions. The only real difference is on max (H1), where the SC52 shows a higher initial output for 1 min, before stepping down to the standard cell H1 level.

Normally that would be the end of my runtime comparisons, but I have been asked to show how the SC52 compares to other classes of lights. I provided summary tables for 2xAA, 1xCR123A and 1xRCR in the preceding section, and thought I would include 2xAA below (given the comparable battery chemistry).

2xAA Lights: *
(NOTE that the SC52 is a 1xAA light, and all the others below are 2xAA!)*
























A couple of points strike me in this comparison of the 1xAA SC52 to the 2xAA lights. The first is that max output of the SC52 is not that much lower than the 2xAA lights – but standard cells get exhausted quickly at this level. You can really see this on the alkaline graph – there is simply no way that a 1xAA light is going to be anywhere near competitive to a 2xAA light on max drive levels on alkaline.

The second point is that the very high efficiency of the SC52 on its Med levels gives it the opportunity to compete fairly well with a lot of the 2xAA lights. No, it doesn't run quite as long for comparable output, but it is surprisingly close for a 1xAA light. Again though, you are best to run the light on NiMH or L91 lithiums to see the best performance here.

_UPDATE FEBRUARY 1, 2013: Upon request, I've also plotted the max output of the SC52 against common XM-L-based 1xCR123A lights in my collection:






Please note that I have plotted *BOTH* L91 lithium and NiMH Eneloop for the SC52 above. In my testing, many 1xAA lights show slightly lower max output on L91 than they do on alkaline or NiMH. I'm not sure why (maybe to do with voltage?), but it is a common observation I've noticed over the years. :shrug: In the case of the SC52, I estimate ~290 ANSI FL-1 lumens on NiMH, and ~255 estimated lumens on L91.

I suggest you compare the full curves for how the lights perform, but in general terms, the SC52 is toward the middle of the 1xCR123A pack for initial activation output levels on max. Of course, regulation on lithium-based CR123A cells is typically flatter than NIMH. _

*Potential Issues*

Zebralights all use an electronic switch, and therefore require a small stand-by current when fully connected. The standby drain on SC52 is low enough on standard cells as to be completely negligible (i.e., would take over a decade to drain an Eneloop). However, on 14500, the drain is bit higher – enough to fully drain a cell in under one year. Note that you can always physically lock out the light at the tailcap. 

My SC52 sample had flickering issues at the "500 lumen" Max mode on 1x14500, with freshly-charged cells. As explained earlier in the review, this flickering disappeared <4.1V, and was highly dependent on the cooling state for Li-ion cells between ~4.1V and ~4.2V. I suspect there is some sample variability here, as only some users have reported similar issues near the 14500 max capacity level. Zebralight is aware of the problem, and working on a resolution - I will update this thread when I hear more.

The SC51 was known to have accidental activation issues (i.e., when I carried it as an EDC, I found that the SC51 could turn on if something pressed against the switch in my holster/pocket). I have been carrying the SC52 for better part of a week now, and have had absolutely no accidental activations yet. It thus seems like the revised switch design of the SC52 (i.e., smaller button, more recessed, firmer press need to activate) is effective at ameliorating this previous issue. 

*Preliminary Observations*
The SC52 is a very impressive update to the SC5x-series of 1xAA lights. 

I was impressed with the XP-G-based SC51 when it was first launched – especially with its class-leading max output and its extremely efficient runtime performance and good regulation pattern. It did have a few limitations though – no 14500 support, a rather smooth finish, PWM on lower modes (at least originally), and an annoying tendency toward accidental activation when carried as an EDC (typically on max!). I'm happy to report the SC52 has improved in all the above areas. 

Let's start with the output – the XM-L-based SC52 is again a new class leader on standard AA cells. Regulation pattern is excellent (i.e., perfectly flat on all levels except max), and output/runtime efficiency has reached an even new high for the class, at all levels tested. oo: I don't know how Zebralight has managed to squeeze so much runtime out of their current-control circuit, at all levels now. 

The support for 14500 is appreciated, although there are a few quirks here. My sample showed a flickering issue initially on fully-charged 14500 during the ultra-Hi max output stage. This flickering was both voltage and temperature dependent, and was easily resolved by draining off a small amount of capacity from the freshly-charged cell first. Regulation on 14500 was excellent, with perfectly flat output at all levels (something a lot of other multi-power lights can't match). Overall efficiency was very good, in keeping with other good current-controlled lights (but just very good - not at the outstanding efficiency levels seen on standard AA batteries).

I'm also glad to see that Zebralight appears to be quite accurate in their specs – including ANSI FL-1 output and runtime measures, according to my testing (see post #2 for an additional discussion of lumen estimation).

Build-wise, I like the new "ribbed" body design, which improves grip. I also personally like the larger head – in fact, I'd like an even longer body (I have fairly longer hands and fingers, so can find overly small lights problematic for handling). The more recessed switch (with firmer feel) is also greatly appreciated – no accidental activations so far, when carried on my belt. This is what caused me to give up on EDCing the SC51, so I'm glad to see they have addressed it here on the SC52.

So far, I'm not coming up with any negatives for the SC52, compared to its predecessor SC51. Beam pattern is bit more "floody" on the XM-L-based SC52 compared to the XP-G-equipped SC51, but peak throw remains pretty similar on max (thanks to the extra output). 

It is frankly amazing to see a 1xAA light than can – on standard batteries – nearly match the output of many 2xAA or 1xCR123A lights. Coupled with its outstanding efficiency and excellent regulation patterns the SC52 is a real competitor for these other classes, not to metion its own 1xAA class. :wave:

----

SC52 was supplied by Zebralight for review.


----------



## selfbuilt

I've noticed there has been a bit of discussion around here as to how accurate Zebralight's ANSI FL-1 output ratings are. As this is a separate issue from the actual review, I thought I would do some analysis in a second post.

As you can see from the summary table in my review above, my SC52 lumen estimates actually match the Zebralight specs fairly well. That said, I've also seen comments that my lumen estimate scale is inflated, compared to some sources. That's certainly possible, since my estimation method is based on a calibration of my lightbox to certain specific makers and testers (see my Lumen Estimation page for more information). If the lumen values for the group of lights used in that calibration were biased one way or other, than my estimation method would be similarly biased. 

But my key point has always been that it doesn't matter for _relative_ output measures, as those remain consistent across all my reviews (i.e., regardless of the absolute value of the calibration, the relative relationships always hold consistently). I also recommend you don't focus on one arbitrary output time point (i.e., ANSI FL-1 30 secs), but rather look at the full runtime graphs for how relative output changes over time. 

In any case, I think that it is unlikely that there is a large systematic bias in the absolute values of my lumen estimates, given that I used what were generally agreed upon as reputable lumen sources for the calibration standard at the time (again, see the link above for details). In particular, Fenix was one of the sources used in my calibration, and their lumen measures were very consistent with the best-fit line of my own estimates (although this was based on their pre-ANSI FL-1 lumens). Note that I matched the time of lumen measurement as best I could, and gave priority to later time points where available (i.e., I only use initial activation maximums if that's all that was available for a given light). Looking at the recent results (including this review), there may be a slight inflation of my lumen conversion scale - but it's very hard to say without testing the lights in a proper integrating sphere. :shrug:

In this case, I have been asked to comment on how the SC52's lumen estimates match the Fenix LD20. I happen to have a LD20 XP-G R4, which was rated by Fenix as 205 lumens at the time. Let's start with my calibrated lightbox estimated lumens:

SC52 Hi1 = 280 Zebralight lumens = 290 Selfbuilt Lightbox estimated lumens
SC52 Hi2A = 172 Zebralight lumens = 190 Selfbuilt Lightbox estimated lumens
Fenix LD20-R4 Turbo = 205 Fenix lumens = 205 Selfbuilt Lightbox estimated lumens 
_
*EDIT*: As jirik_cz points out below, this "205" from fenix was pre-ANSI FL-1. Unfortunately, I don't have any of their later LD20 lights, so don't how they would compare to this one. I would assume the LD20-R4 should have a slightly lower ANSI FL-1 lumen rating, but it's hard to know what that would have been. If we had true apples-to-apples ANSI FL-1 output lumen values, I suspect the LD20-R4 would probably be rated somewhere close to the SC52 Hi2A._

Note that I also do ceiling bounce tests for all my lights, to give you an independent measure from my light box. I have just re-measured ceiling bounce results for both lights at 30 secs post-activation, using my NIST-certified Lux lightmeter:

SC52 Hi1 = 290 Selfbuilt lumens = 55.5 lux ceiling bounce
SC52 Hi2A = 190 Selfbuilt lumens = 36.5 lux ceiling bounce
Fenix LD20-R4 Turbo = 205 Selfbuilt lumens = 38.5 lux ceiling bounce

Now, the ceiling bounce numbers don't help you with figuring out absolute lumen estimates – but they again correlate fairly well for the relative relationships. In the example above, the LD20-R4 is 5.5% brighter than the SC52 Hi2A by ceiling bounce (consistent with my lumen estimates which say it is ~8% brighter). Similarly, the SC52 Hi1 is 44% brighter than the LD20-R4 on ceiling bounce (consistent with my lumen estimates suggest it is ~41% brighter).

It's hard to demonstrate this visually, since our relative perceptions of output are not linear (see my discussion here of the power relationship that defines human visual output perception). Also, the differing beam profiles of the two lights introduce a huge confound to visual comparisons, as the LD20 has a narrow (and correspondingly brighter) spill, and a more "throwy" hotpsot (thanks to smaller XP-G emitter).

Beamshots are an extremely limited aid in this regard, but here's a simple comparison of output of these two lights under various camera exposure settings. To facilitate visual comparison, _I have moved the lights closer to the wall (to diffuse out the beams somewhat), and adjusted depth so overall spillbeam diameter is roughly similar (so you don't get fooled by a wider or narrower spill)._



































Again, the lights are at different distances to the wall, to try and equalize the overall spillbeams to allow you to more easily compare overall output visually. This is distinct from all my other beamshots, which are a standard distance from the wall to allow you to compare different spillbeam widths. In any case, I think the above direct comparisons are consistent with what my lightbox and ceiling measures both report. 

So, by all measures at my disposal, it would thus seem that Zebralight's lumen values (for the SC52 at these levels) are at least pretty comparable to Fenix's lumen values, as well as my own lumen estimates. At least it gives you a way to calibrate your expectations.

P.S.: Despite the above, _I continue to recommend that people do NOT focus on max lumens estimates at the rather arbitrary time point of 30 secs post-activation (i.e. the ANSI FL-1 standard)._ It is far more important to pay attention to the actual output/runtime graphs, as these show you how the relative output changes over time. On max, a lot of Iights tend to drop off rapidly in output, or step-down after a couple of minutes. As such, you risk being misled if you simply look at ANSI FL-1 output and runtime values for a given light. I discuss the importance of comparing runtime graphs visually on my Testing Methods - Runtimes page on flashlightreviews.ca. :wave:


----------



## jirik_cz

Thanks for the SC52 review  It is probably one of the most efficient AA lights on the current market.



selfbuilt said:


> In this case, I have been asked to comment on how the SC52's lumen estimates match the Fenix LD20. I happen to have a LD20 XP-G R4, which was rated by Fenix as 205 lumens at the time.



LD20 R4 was rated at 205 lumens, but that was before Fenix adopted the ANSI standard. The next R5 model which used 7% more efficient LED was rated only 190 ANSI lumens, so the LD20 R4 was probably only around 177 ANSI lumens.


----------



## reppans

Stellar Selfbuilt.. thank you so much for including 2xAA and 1xCR123 light data given that the ZL specs really compete in that realm. Also, thank you for addressing the lumen scale thing, I know I've been one of the voices behind it. Whatever the scale used, as you have mentioned, the important thing is that your data is consistent and relative, and so can be used as an accurate common base from which to compare between lights.

Very, very much appreciated.


----------



## Fireclaw18

Awesome review for an awesome light. Well done as always Selfbuilt


----------



## GordoJones88

Thanks SB for yet another excellent review, best ever.
You really stepped outside the box and gave us some meat to chew on.
Your runtime graphs truly give insight into how these lights work.


----------



## Badbeams3

Superb review. We are so lucky to have Selfbuilt and our other excellent reviewers. 

Regarding the light, solve the flickering issue and a total win. 

Spotted only one error: "Again though, you are best to run the light on NiMH *of* L91 lithiums to see the best performance here." ...Did you mean "or"...or is this a new hybrid batt? Lol...

Well, been waiting for this review, guess it`s time to place my order. Dis is mine nixt lite. Soon as my dealer gets them back in stock...


----------



## cyclesport

I'll add my voice to the other grateful readers and thank you for yet another detailed review of a very popular light. I too have been interested in the posts of some with flickering on H1 using fully charged IMRs/ICRs and had not noticed it with my SC52 until today when I popped a charged Sanyo based Intl' Outdoor 14500, 840mAh ICR and noticed that it dropped from H1 to L1 within seconds. No flicker just a drop-down. Oddly the battery level indicator only showed 3 flashes with this battery as well? Took it out and measured 4.07v. When the battery finally reached around 4v it functioned normally. Another exact same IO Sanyo battery as well as 7 other fully charged 14500s of diff brands function fine as well.


----------



## Mr Floppy

Another great review. I know you don't normally do this but how hard does it work an AA battery? On the H51w, it is drawing around 2.2A-2.3A at the tailcap on an Eneloop and 2.5A on a Sanyo 2700. I found that the H51w was very fussy (i.e hard to get the highest mode) with a lot of NiMH AA batteries other than Eneloops.


----------



## StandardBattery

Nice Review, I like the runtime tests. I'm a little sad to see that this light is not that well suited to the Lithium cells when used on Hi. The SC51 is much better for EDC with Lithium primary in my opinion even if it gives up some brightness.

From your analysis it looks to me that the flickering is totally from heat buildup probably on the regulator chip. I suspect your cooling is not effective enough to cool the circuit enough. The excessive heat appears to have two sources; the overall excess heat generated by the LED, and the excess heat created by the regulator itself when the input voltage is high. These two significant heat sources are contributing different amounts of heat in your various tests that exhibit the flicker issue, such that the temperature of the regulator circuit is too high.

Amazing output for this light, I quite like mine but I don't have any 14500, I thought this light might be the first to make me buy a 14500, but I think I'll pass on that for now. Maybe by the time the 5K version ships, I am quite disappointed in the performance on the Lithium primary because if I was to EDC this light, that is the cell I'd want to use... I guess this one is Eneloop power for me. I was quite impressed with how well it did on Alkaline. It looks like they paid less attention to the Lithium and more to the Alkaline, NiMH, Li-Ion chemistries.

Looks like there are some typos from cut and past in the legend for the Medium level graphs as the modes are still listed as HiA and HiB. I think I saw some other typos in the legeneds, but I forget now.

Thanks for the extensive testing.


----------



## selfbuilt

Thanks for the support everyone, glad you are enjoying the review. :grouphug:



jirik_cz said:


> LD20 R4 was rated at 205 lumens, but that was before Fenix adopted the ANSI standard. The next R5 model which used 7% more efficient LED was rated only 190 ANSI lumens, so the LD20 R4 was probably only around 177 ANSI lumens.


Thanks, a good point - ANSI FL-1 spec would certainly have been lower than max OTF lumens. Unfortunately, I don't have the later lights to directly compare in my lightbox, so don't know how they perform. But in my experience, a higher output bin does not always translate into a directly proportional increase in output (and conversely, a lower output bin may not be that much lower in output spec). Not sure why, but it likely involves a combination of effects of the circuit design and other LED characteristics (Vf maybe?). So while it would have been lower, it's hard to know what the ANSI FL-1 spec would have been for the R4 version (unless Fenix released that info at some point, for the older light?)

As an aside, I should mention that my lumen estimation conversation method was based on a comparison of specific time points post-activation. I matched the time of lumen measurement as best I could, and gave priority to later time points where available (e.g. if I had specified 30 sec or 1 min post activation, I choose those over initial activation for the comparison). I only used initial activation maximums if that's all that was available for a given light. In any case, they were always matched to the same time point in my lightbox testing. 



reppans said:


> Stellar Selfbuilt.. thank you so much for including 2xAA and 1xCR123 light data given that the ZL specs really compete in that realm. Also, thank you for addressing the lumen scale thing, I know I've been one of the voices behind it. Whatever the scale used, as you have mentioned, the important thing is that your data is consistent and relative, and so can be used as an accurate common base from which to compare between lights.Very, very much appreciated.


Thanks. Yes, at the end of the day, I'll I can say is my relative scale is consistent over time. Even if it does seem slightly inflated, not sure there's much point in trying to come up with a new calibration - it would likely just create confusion between the "new" numbers and the "old". The consistency and backward-compatibility is more valuable in my mind than the absolute correlation. 



Badbeams3 said:


> Regarding the light, solve the flickering issue and a total win.


Agreed. Zebralight tells me they are working on it ... I'm sure they will sort it out (hopefully soon). I have certainly seen many other cases of new light launches (from various makers) where there have been flickering issues on Li-ion. Typically tends to be due to some specific circuit component not being quite up to spec - can take a bit of time to isolate, but once they do, it is usually resolved for good by changing the component. I'll let you know more when I hear more. 



> Spotted only one error: "Again though, you are best to run the light on NiMH *of* L91 lithiums to see the best performance here." ...Did you mean "or"...or is this a new hybrid batt? Lol...


Thanks, fixed that one. I'm sure there are a lot more ... it's a long review to proof-read. :sleepy:



Mr Floppy said:


> I found that the H51w was very fussy (i.e hard to get the highest mode) with a lot of NiMH AA batteries other than Eneloops.


Interesting. Unfortunately, I've stuck with Eneloops-only NiMH for years now. I found the old high-capacity/high-self-discharge NiMH didn't hold up well to repeated use, and Eneloops have been rock solid performers.



StandardBattery said:


> Nice Review, I like the runtime tests. I'm a little sad to see that this light is not that well suited to the Lithium cells when used on Hi. The SC51 is much better for EDC with Lithium primary in my opinion even if it gives up some brightness.


Well, to be fair, I've only done the highest two modes so far on L91. Let me try the Hi2B level and see how it does - that's when alkaline performance really started to pull away from the crowd. I'lll do it tomorrow and update the graph. Also, keep in mind as well that my relative output scale for the lightbox is not linear (i.e., the Hi1 and Hi2A are quite a bit brighter than the lower levels - my relative scale is not in estimated lumens).



> Looks like there are some typos from cut and past in the legend for the Medium level graphs as the modes are still listed as HiA and HiB. I think I saw some other typos in the legeneds, but I forget now.


Thanks, I see what you mean - some of the "Hi2B" should actually be labelled M1. I'll fix the legends tomorrow, when I'm back in front of my main computer.


----------



## Swede74

Read, savoured and reread. 

Roger Ebert was the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. If there were one for flashlight reviews, I can think of no worthier candidate for it than Selfbuilt.


----------



## ruf997tt

Thanks for a timely and excellent review. I can't wait to get mine and maybe I should order another as I think I am really going to like this light and as good as it seems it might be in short supply for some time to come.

:thumbsup:


----------



## TweakMDS

Great review! Certainly one of the most anticipated reviews - of a light I already own 

I was one of the people doing my own tests on lithium primaries - comparing it with a few Eagletac lights. With that, the Zebralight came in relatively lower, but it's very plausible that the D25A Ti CLickies are simply brighter on lithiums than their NiMH rating, so I'm glad you were able to address these concerns. 

Thanks again for your time and effort in these reviews. I expressed my gratitude by hitting the donate button on your website for a small amount. I hope more people join in with that ^^


----------



## frosty

Super review. Thanks again.


----------



## LEDburn

Man! Awesome review, as usual. Thanks for spending all the time on it.

There's been a lot of people waiting for this review - I am glad the lumen arguments can finally be laid to rest.

Zebralight, and obviously selfbuilt too, have outdone themselves yet again!!!


----------



## dts71

Thanks for a great review - much appreciated!
I think many of us have been waiting to see this one.


----------



## hazna

I notice the sc52 doesn't come with a headband... does the sc52 fit inthe sc50/sc51 headband?


----------



## selfbuilt

Swede74 said:


> Read, savoured and reread. Roger Ebert was the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. If there were one for flashlight reviews, I can think of no worthier candidate for it than Selfbuilt.


Thanks! :laughing:



TweakMDS said:


> I was one of the people doing my own tests on lithium primaries - comparing it with a few Eagletac lights. With that, the Zebralight came in relatively lower, but it's very plausible that the D25A Ti CLickies are simply brighter on lithiums than their NiMH rating, so I'm glad you were able to address these concerns.


Interesting. It's a shame Eagletac never sent me the D25A to review (I gathered at the time that they had difficulty keeping it in stock, which is why it wasn't sent out with the other models). The D25Cs that I have are certainly very highly driven, so it wouldn't surprise me that the D25A was as well. But unfortunately I don't have any data to compare. :shrug:



> Thanks again for your time and effort in these reviews. I expressed my gratitude by hitting the donate button on your website for a small amount. I hope more people join in with that ^^


Thanks, always appreciated as well! 



LEDburn said:


> There's been a lot of people waiting for this review - I am glad the lumen arguments can finally be laid to rest.


Well, I wouldn't say that exactly.  Despite how it may sound above, I'm not trying to shut down any discussion of relative or absolute lumen level estimates. I think it's important to critically evaluate ALL claims of purported "lumen" values, to see if they hold up to scrutiny. My commentary above is just to add to the existing literature on my own method, so people can better understand my estimates (and the effort I put into making them the best I could).

Truthfully, I resisted coming up with an estimated lumen scale for the longest time. I preferred (and still prefer) that people look at the full relative output/runtime data to get a better feel for how a light performs over time. But once a lot of people started posting their own "lumen" values here (some carefully considered, others not so much so), I realized I had to make an effort to provide a comparable scale. The point is that I did the best I could at the time to come up with an appropriate conversion (just like I've done more recently for high-output throwers that don't fit in my lightbox).

Of course, even if you had the most accurate lumen estimates, I find the arbitrariness of two simple ANSI FL-1 measures frustrating. It can easily be misleading as to a light's true performance, unless you look at all the variables in-between. That's why the output/runtime graphs remain the staple of my reviews. 



hazna said:


> I notice the sc52 doesn't come with a headband... does the sc52 fit inthe sc50/sc51 headband?


Good question. There was no headband included on my SC50 or SC51, so I can't say for certain. There was of course the one that came with my H31 (i.e., the contemporary 1xCR123A headlamp version of that series), but I don't know if they made different size attachments for the CR123A vs AA lights. I would guess that they used the same attachment, as the head and tailcap pieces weren't that different in diameter. I just tried that one on my SC52, and it would be really hard to get over the head - but you could do it easily enough from the tailcap, if you removed the pocket clip first.


----------



## Pvt. Pile

Nice one Selfbuilt! Ordered one before I even finished reading the review. I think we could call this THE most anticipated light review so far this year.


----------



## MichaelW

Does this light get hot on H2B? I am wondering if the body gets hot enough to transfer waste heat to the cell, say if you used alkaline in a cold environment, to maintain flat regulation. Maybe if you intentionally insulated the light.
But damn good regulation on M1. Kind of funny that the improved efficiency is making alkalines viable, well to the general populous not CPFers, of course.


----------



## Bumble

looks like this review has finally won me over, i will purchase one soon


----------



## pepekraft

I think I need one of these, dangit. I only have headlamp style Zebras so far, and this looks like the time to cross over to the flashlight form factor.

I'm confused by the 14500 graphs. If I'm reading things correctly, the only reason to put a 14500 in one of these is for the first 30 seconds. After that, in every case, the eneloop outperforms Li-ion.. is that correct -- same output and longer runtimes on the eneloop? Not that I'm bashing that first 30 seconds. That's a lot of light.


----------



## selfbuilt

StandardBattery said:


> Nice Review, I like the runtime tests. I'm a little sad to see that this light is not that well suited to the Lithium cells when used on Hi. The SC51 is much better for EDC with Lithium primary in my opinion even if it gives up some brightness.


I've just updated the L91 runtime graph (1xAA) in the review with the H2B results:







The L91 runtime on Hi2B is quite impressive - nearly twice the runtime as Eneloop at this output level, and about 3.5 times the runtime of standard alkaline. oo: I'm surprised that it can outperform the SC51 by such a wide margin. It also demolishes the Nitecore MT1A at this level. 

I agree you are probably best sticking with NiMH if you plan to run on H1 ... but the L91s seem like an excellent option for H2A on down.



MichaelW said:


> Does this light get hot on H2B? I am wondering if the body gets hot enough to transfer waste heat to the cell, say if you used alkaline in a cold environment, to maintain flat regulation. Maybe if you intentionally insulated the light.
> But damn good regulation on M1. Kind of funny that the improved efficiency is making alkalines viable, well to the general populous not CPFers, of course.


All my tests are done under a cooling fan, and it's definitely possible that alkaline may not have fared as well on H2B without it. Of course, most people don't run lights at this level for an hour continuously, so I think you could expect flat regulation at this level (on down) on alkaline in normal usage.

I agree, it is rather ironic to see a modern light perform so well on the rather archaic alkaline cell. I would certainly never want to store one in there, given their propensity for leaking. 



pepekraft said:


> I'm confused by the 14500 graphs. If I'm reading things correctly, the only reason to put a 14500 in one of these is for the first 30 seconds. After that, in every case, the eneloop outperforms Li-ion.. is that correct -- same output and longer runtimes on the eneloop? Not that I'm bashing that first 30 seconds. That's a lot of light.


You are reading everything correctly  - and the result is actually not that surprising.

The two typical advantages of Li-ions over standard cells (in multi-power lights) is the ability to drive the emitter harder (i.e., the higher-voltage Li-ion can handle the higher current drain), and the improved ability to maintain flat regulation (i.e., Li-ions can more easily supply power fully regulated). In this case, the SC52 does a remarkable job keeping flat regulation on most cells (at all levels below Hi1), so that advantage is negated somewhat. The SC52 does run brighter on max Hi1 on 14500 - but due to the small heatsinking mass, the circuit won't keep it up for long (i.e., timed step-down after 1 min). So practically, you don't get to benefit much from these two typical 14500 features.

The other question is battery capacity and relative circuit efficiency for different voltage sources. In the capacity sense, the actual work capacity of 14500 is not all that different from NiMH. In simple terms, you can think of this as the work done for the current to flow through a given voltage differential (i.e., the definition of a watt). If you multiply typical amperage capacity (in mAh) by nominal voltage (in V), you basically get work capacity (or Watt-hours, Wh) for a cell. The typical 14500 thus only has a small advantage over the typical NiMH for actual work capacity (how much exactly depends on how much you trust the rated mAh capacities). 

In an ideal situation, I would expect my 14500s to only have a small runtime advantage over Eneloop NiMH for a given output level. That said, there are also always potential differences in the relative circuit efficiencies of different voltage sources, which may skew things a bit one way or the other (i.e., depending which voltage source the light is optimized for). In the case of the SC52, standard batteries seem to have a greater edge - which gets back to why I consider the NiMH/Alkaline/L91 peformance to be outstanding on the SC52, and the 14500 performance only very good. :wave:


----------



## QSL

*Re*

I'm confused about the data in the high eneloop chart.

If I'm reading it correctly I'm better off using the brighter of the two sub high modes, it will give me a higher output, with a flatter regulation, and a longer runtime?!

Look like the lower level is unregulated and drops quickly. I must be reading the chart wrong.

Thanks for the great review.
73's Bill 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## QSL

Duh, 

Nevermind , just ignore the new guy. Apparently he's (me) color blind and can't read a simple chart. Lol. Nothing to see here move along. 

Bill

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chadvone

Great Review SB .

Automatic stepping down when battery (AA and 14500) capacity is low

Your run time graphs show any indicator to having this feature ?


----------



## reppans

This is a long post …. my apologies in advance.



LEDburn said:


> ....There's been a lot of people waiting for this review - I am glad the lumen arguments can finally be laid to rest....


 


selfbuilt said:


> ....Well, I wouldn't say that exactly. Despite how it may sound above, I'm not trying to shut down any discussion of relative or absolute lumen level estimates. I think it's important to critically evaluate ALL claims of purported "lumen" values, to see if they hold up to scrutiny....


 
I agree w/ Selfbuilt and I’m quite certain that I am the one that started this whole liberal lumen scale thing with ZL and Selfbuilt. There has been only one other CPF member that has publicly back me, and while I don’t always agree with his political correctness in voicing opinions, I sometimes really wonder if it is only the three of us (Selfbuilt included) that truly understand the issues here. Selfbuilt is absolutely a stand-up guy, and sounds to be completely open to this discussion, and without taking any personal offense, for which I truly appreciate. I think we both understand each other. I am sorry that so many others do not get the point…. and/or of course, simply do not care. 



maxrep12 said:


> Reppans,
> 
> ....it appears like you have identified some lights whose manufacturers may have understated the lumen output.....
> 
> .... These types of mistakes are made, both over and under ratings, and the responsibility for these errors rest squarely upon the manufacturer. The onus of correcting their ratings does not fall to Zebra or Selfbuilt.....
> 
> ......*We use ANSI measurements here.* There are no Zebra lumens, Fenix Lumens, or collaborations between Selfbuilt and Zebralight. This past month seems to have brought out some unfortunate comments from some decidedly adversarial posters, calling both Selfbuilts and Zebralights integrity into question.....


 
First off, there are no official "ANSI " lumens here... please read in detail both Selfbuilt's comments here, and his methodology discussion on his website. He is making an estimate based on a sample of manufacturers (best fit line), and if that sample is skewed, so is his scale. I am doing the same and I know my scale is skewed on the conservative side.

I will admit to being the loudest voice on ZLs spec sheet overstatements and I do question the integrity of the company, partially due to the lumen exaggerations, but also for pulling things like tripling the 0.34 moonlight runtimes (vs a QAAX) by actually delivering only 1/3 of the spec'd lumens. Similar with the 2.7 L1 mode which also matches (sorry, "is supposed to match") the QAAX, and I have highlighted this in my earliest reviews of the SC52. These modes happen to be personal favorites of mine, but they are also important indicators of a flashlight's driver efficiency. Is this an honest mistake, grossly poor estimation, or deliberate misrepresentation? Imagine if Ferarri claimed one of its vehicles got 50 MPG.

I don't have any issues with Selfbuilt's integrity and in fact am even more impressed by his willingness to discuss this issue openly.

While I have more than voiced my opinion about Selfbuilt's liberal lumen calibration, I have also repeatedly said that his data is consistent and relative, and I frequently use his numbers as the basis from which to recalibrate the conservative manufacturers "up" for apples-to-apples comparisons in my posts. The big problem I have with liberal interpretations, especially from someone as respected as Selfbuilt, is that people automatically take it as a de facto ANSI certification. I personally believe, in the longer run, it will reward manufacturer bad behavior and eventually lead to less transparency for all us flashaholics. Having said all that, and I’ve repeatedly said this too, if I were in Selfbuilt’s shoes, I would do the same exact thing. Selfbuit has modestly stated here…..



selfbuilt said:


> ...Thanks. Yes, at the end of the day, I'll I can say is my relative scale is consistent over time. Even if it does seem slightly inflated, not sure there's much point in trying to come up with a new calibration - it would likely just create confusion between the "new" numbers and the "old". The consistency and backward-compatibility is more valuable in my mind than the absolute correlation.


 
…. that it doesn’t make sense to recalibrate for practical reasons. However, I personally feel there is NO WAY HE CAN RECALIBATE, if only for POLITICAL reasons. Imagine if Selfbuilt were to adopt a more conservative lumen scale and then start reporting that ZL, and a few other liberal manufacturers, are not meeting their specifications. I suspect that Selfbuilt’s reviews will diminish in quantity as his supply of flashlights dry up. A man in his position, just like the automobile journalists, must walk a politically fine line with the manufacturers. The only resolution to this, in my mind, is to free Selfbuilt up, by turning him into a “Consumer Reports” of sorts, and have CPF members fund his flashlight purchases. If there’s any interest in this, I will happily offer to fund 10% of the pot, when it hits USD 2,000. Selfbuilt, I hope you do not take any offense to my suppositions here, once again, if I were you, I wouldn’t do a single thing differently.

Now back the original question of whether ZL is overstating, and Selfbuilt’s scale is too liberal. I attach a couple of Selfbuilt’s recent Output/Runtime graphs for the 3V, 1xCR123 and 2xAA classes. I took the liberty of including manufacture max lumen specs as best as I could determine, and attempted to superimpose the SC52/L91 graph onto CR123 graph… I hope I’ve been reasonable fair and accurate with the data, please correct me where I am wrong. Here are the saiient points based on Selfbuilt’s review population above:

1) 280 lumens appear to be the highest manufacturer specification (using a non Li-ion battery), and most are significantly lower than that, in the 3V class. The SC52 is spec’d right at that high water mark and with a 1.5V.
2) Despite claiming THE highest lumen spec, the SC52 appears to be the bottom dweller on both charts, and probably, the furthest away from it's claimed spec. (assuming the others are remotely correct)
3) Looking at Selfbuilt’s CR123 and 2xAA max lumen tables above, it appears that every light, save ZL and Jetbeam, have been “underrated” by their manufacturers. 
4) So, perhaps it is not so much that I've found the few manufacturers that understate their lights, rather, it appears that the current bar is set low enough to accommodate the lowest common denominators.

When we are talking about really statistics and the use of “best fit lines” I strongly believe in bell curves, and for every light that has been understated by its manufacturer, there should be an equal number of lights that have been overstated by its manufacturer. So, where are all these overstated lights?

Selfbuilt, apologies for referring to you in the third person, I feel I am still trying to explain my position to others. In the end, I suspect you may be one of the only people that understands, or cares, what I am talking about. Please do not take any of this personally, I hope it is merely construed as constructive criticism..... you're the best.:twothumbs


----------



## tam17

Great review, Selfbuilt! This petite ZL is bound to be a real killer...

Cheers


----------



## kosPap

putting it up against the 2AA lights. what a bold thing to do!

Since the light is 14500 compatible, it would be interesting to see how it does with the 14505 3V batteries

then you can make a graph with the various battery chemistries on high mode.


----------



## WilsonCQB1911

I don't know if anyone has noticed, since we've been so entrenched in the weeds on lumen issues... but the SC52 is actually a really nice flashlight. I'm really/happy excited with mine.


----------



## reppans

kosPap said:


> putting it up against the 2AA lights. what a bold thing to do!
> 
> Since the light is 14500 compatible, it would be interesting to see how it does with the 14505 3V batteries
> 
> then you can make a graph with the various battery chemistries on high mode.



I personally asked Selfbuilt to include onin the 2xAA graphs (which he did), and also the CR123 graphs (which he did not), since this light attempts to compete with the top of the class in those batteries categories.... ummm, on paper at least.

Good point about the 14505s, this was discussed in one of the SC52 threads. They don't work properly in this light due to the idiot-proof automatic low voltage step-down protection, and probably the same with IFRs too.


----------



## WilsonCQB1911

reppans said:


> I personally asked Selfbuilt to include onin the 2xAA graphs (which he did), and also the CR123 graphs (which he did not), since this light attempts to compete with the top of the class in those batteries categories.... ummm, on paper at least.
> 
> Good point about the 14505s, this was discussed in one of the SC52 threads. They don't work properly in this light due to the idiot-proof automatic low voltage step-down protection, and probably the same with IFRs too.



Let it rest man. It almost seems like you are getting paid by one of ZL's competitors.


----------



## stp

reppans there are more people who understand the issue, for example me. I will just point few things, keep in mind that it's just my point of view and I don't have time/will and this is no place to argue about it anyway. 

-Introducing few lumen scales named after manufacturer was counter-productive. Just think what a mess it would create if other people would catch to it and it would spread over the forums. There is only one scale: THE ANSI. Others (manufacturers, reviewers) should try to stick to it as close as possible. 

-..as close as POSSIBLE. And here is the problem because it's not easy. You would need few sources of light calibrated and certified by ANSI to calibrate your measures. And it still wouldn't be enough. You would have to control many aspects: temperature, power source, the way you measure every light and so on.

-It's still much better now than it was before. We had OTF lumens, led lumens, calculated lumens, lumens after 10s, lumens after 30s, lumens from thin air...introducing ANSI FL-1 by manufactures is a great progress. The FL-1's runtime until 10% is stupid but still it is big progress.

-There is difference between the same bin leds, batteries, drivers. Manufacturers introduce silent updates. Is there a high chance that the lumens measured by ZL or selfbuilt are higher than in some ANSI laboratory or other manufacturer? Of course. But I and you can't be really 100% sure. And if yes than by how much? You can't use the bell curve because the sample pool is too small and there are too many factors. 

-Wouldn't it be great if selfbuilt could say that his measures stay within for example 1% of ANSI? It would of course. And I believe that he could do it but the problem is with money. We should be happy with what he is doing now because without him most of us would be unable to compare output of the lights. We don't know the exact lumens but we know that light A emits 120% more then light B thanks to him.

-For me lumens are like Mpg(km/liter) in cars. To many factors to trust manufacturer even with heavy standardized test and hard to compare with real life usage. It's much better if somebody compares cars doing the same route. They get different Mpg than manufacturer but can compare the two cars much better and get real life data. This is what selfbuilt is doing with lights.

-You and especially Shelm made big deal about it. FOR ME from the beginning it did look like you have some beef against ZL and doubt the integrity of selfbuilt. You did way better later on. SC51 was the most efficient AA light on the market. So it looks strange when somebody tries to downplay its successor and potentially the new king of efficiency. Now we know that SC52 is the most efficient AA light on the market whatever the lumens are thanks to selfbuilt.

-It's much better to do it in positive way: You could ask manufacturers about certificate from certificated by ANSI labs in Europe or US and make the big deal about the ones that do it. I think that nobody is doing it currently but some could see the PR value in that if enough people will start asking them.



*selfbuilt*:

Thanks a lot for your work.

I have one question. Did you think about adding the area under the graph up to 50% and 10% of output as two additional parameters describing the light and its mode? It would help a lot in comparing efficiency of the lights and modes. We would know precisely which mode gives us the most bang for the buck for example. I think it should be not hard to do from spreadsheet.


----------



## MichaelW

So what is Zebra's timeframe for the xm-l2 ?


----------



## Polki

Thank you for the very nice Review

I hope the SC52 will delivered soon

Polki


----------



## selfbuilt

chadvone said:


> Automatic stepping down when battery (AA and 14500) capacity is low


There is some clear evidence of it in some of the 14500 runtimes - check out the H1 and M1, where there is at least one clear step before the protection circuit kicked in. In the other 14500 cases, I suspect the battery protection circuit kicked in before the step could occur.

On standard batteries, I don't see much evidence of (certainly not on eneloops, but perhpas I didn't let them run long enough). On some of the alkaline traces, you can see what looks like defined drops near the end of the runs (e.g. H2B alka), but it seems like the circuit is unable to draw regulated low level power from the nearly depleted cells.



reppans said:


> I agree w/ Selfbuilt and I’m quite certain that I am the one that started this whole liberal lumen scale thing with ZL and Selfbuilt. ... Selfbuilt is absolutely a stand-up guy, and sounds to be completely open to this discussion, and without taking any personal offense, for which I truly appreciate. I think we both understand each other. ... Selfbuilt, apologies for referring to you in the third person, I feel I am still trying to explain my position to others.


To be honest, I only briefly scanned through the other threads, so I may have missed some of the points raised. But I certainly don't feel any sort of offence to any of the comments I've seen - and I think it is important to raise and discuss these issues. Not sure of the best place for it, but I'm fine with leaving it in this thread (along as everyone stays respectful of everyone else). 

Like most here, I have my own personal views of which manufacturer lumen values seem to be the most consistently believable. I try to keep that speculation out of my reviews, and just comment on how each given light perfroms relative to my scale, which is all I can say. :shrug: But one of the huge confounds here is the nature of sampling variability, as reppans alluded to - there are a lot of variables that can affect a given light's output (including specific output bin, where in the output bin range it falls, how the circuit responds to different Vfs - and Vf variability relative to output bin, variation in circuit components, centering and focusing of reflectors, etc, etc.). This is why my output/runtimes are just a guide - one sample, at one point in time - and may not be representational of the "average" (which, in turn, is a moving average that changes over time from batch to batch).

Something else to keep in mind is that some manufacturers may choose to stick with minimum lumen specs (at time of launch), whereas others go for typical output (and some perhpas higher still ). Over time, as output bin and other variables change, manufacturers may not update those specs, so later lights could over-perform. I'm thinking of Foursevens and Surefire as potential examples of this - they seem to go for a minimum spec at time of launch, and don't typically change them (even when improved outbin bins are used). Case in point: the original Foursevens Quark Turbo AA-2 (XP-G R5), the re-labelled Quark QB2A (XP-G, no output bin given), and the new QB2A XP-G2 (no output bin given) all share the same official "205 lumen" spec. But from my testing, my QB2A XP-G2 appear to one output bin higher than my late-model QB2A, which in turn appears to be at least one output bin higher than my old-stock Quark Turbo AA-2. This is as you would expect, as currently available XP-G2 output bins are about two steps up from the old common XP-G R5 (see my QB2A XP-G2 review for more of a discussion). 

Incidentally, Foursevens was one of the manufacturers I used (along with Fenix and Novatac) for the comparison data for my calibration. But both Foursevens and Fenix were using peak "out-the-front" lumens in those days, which I found correlated very well with my intial activation data. I suspect they were closer to "average" lumen values for their lights too ... in Foursevens case, it appears to me that they have adopted a more conservative "minimum" spec rating around the time they moved to official ANSI FL-1 lumens. But again, that's just speculation - I don't have any direct knowledge of their lumen measuring processes (or any other manufacturer, for that matter).

The issue of the low levels on Zebralight is worth considering. My calibration for the lower <20 lumens levels is heavily based on the Novactac and Foursevens (sidebar: the older Novatac lights were well regarded in terms of their lumen values, it is only the later models when confidence here seems to break down). I generally continue to find that Foursevens "moonlight" mode values fit within a reasonable range of my calibration estimates, even on newer lights. But by that calibration, my SC52 is producing unusually low readings (compared to ZL specs - see the lumen table in my review). :thinking:

In any case, runtime and lumen estimates for really low levels are tricky. There seems to be a LOT more variability here than higher levels (for both outut and runtime, from sample to sample). This is especially true for current-controlled lights. When I've queried this with some makers, a few have told me that they have difficult ensuring consistent lumen levels (especially <1 lumen) between samples/batches. Others have also speculated that Vf can greatly influence runtime at these low levels (apparently for circuit funcitioning reasons, but that's getting beyond my level of knowledge or expertise).



kosPap said:


> Since the light is 14500 compatible, it would be interesting to see how it does with the 14505 3V batteries





reppans said:


> Good point about the 14505s, this was discussed in one of the SC52 threads. They don't work properly in this light due to the idiot-proof automatic low voltage step-down protection, and probably the same with IFRs too.


Yes, I can confirm that. I just tried a primary 14505 (which is a little over 3.2V fully charged), the light came on in H1, then immediately stepped down to a medium-level mode. Same thing if I try to switch back to max - it goes there for a second, then immediately steps down. 

The circuit is thus interpreting the primary 14505 as a nearly depleted Li-ion, and refusing to stay in Hi modes (i.e., triggers automatic step-down). Actually makes perfect sense, when you think about it ... that's what you get for the Li-ion low-voltage step-down feature. 



WilsonCQB1911 said:


> I don't know if anyone has noticed, since we've been so entrenched in the weeds on lumen issues... but the SC52 is actually a really nice flashlight. I'm really/happy excited with mine.


----------



## selfbuilt

stp said:


> I have one question. Did you think about adding the area under the graph up to 50% and 10% of output as two additional parameters describing the light and its mode? It would help a lot in comparing efficiency of the lights and modes. We would know precisely which mode gives us the most bang for the buck for example. I think it should be not hard to do from spreadsheet.


I've thought about it, but I prefer that people look at the graphs themselves rather than just a couple of arbitrary time-under-the-curve points. There's more information to be gleamed about the regulation patterns that way. 

The other problem is that I rarely let lights run down to 10%. For high-output runs, they usually hit that point fairly quickly once they fall out of regulation. But on the Med and Lo levels, it can sometimes take quite a bit of time to make it all the way down to 10% (i.e., they spend a lot of time just slightly above it). Parathentically, this is why I'm not too enamored with the ANSI FL-1 standard runtime to 10% ... it preferentially benefits lights run at lower levels on alkaline cells (which have a quick drop-off at the high-end, and a slow drop-off at the low end). 

In practical terms, I also don't like tying up the lightbox for extended runs to 10%, when I have a pretty good answer by ~20% (and there's always plenty more lights waiting to be tested). It's also not good for NiMH and Li-ions to spend too long at nearly depleted levels. Again, that's not a issue for Hi mode runs, but can start to be one at the lower outputs (i.e. where 10% of initial low output means an almost dead battery, for a long period of time).


----------



## stp

selfbuilt said:


> I've thought about it, but I prefer that people look at the graphs themselves rather than just a couple of arbitrary time-under-the-curve points. There's more information to be gleamed about the regulation patterns that way.
> 
> The other problem is that I rarely let lights run down to 10%. ...



You could always place it in the legend of the graphs . There is more information in the graphs but some of it is harder accessible. For example it would be easier to compare (and conclude) the efficiency of Hi1, Hi2a, Hi2b, on ni-mh's and alkaline if the graphs would be accompanied by that numbers.

The 10% was just example. Even just 50% would be great. 

Anyway just food for thought. Thanks again for the reviews.


----------



## GordoJones88

selfbuilt said:


> I think it is important to raise and discuss these issues.



Ditto. I've learned a lot of good stuff about lights from some of these discussions. People should always question things.


----------



## DavidMB

I am curious to know what Selfbuilt thinks of the pocket clip with regard to the ridges.


----------



## scout24

I should have one of these in my paws tomorrow, if the USPS is done giving it a tour of the northeast before delivering it... First: DavidMB- while the clip works well, I for one would be thrilled with a subdued clip. Bright honkin' chrome isn't really my thing. Selfbuilt: Thank you yet again for a thorough, objective review that covers so much ground... I'm going to add my unsolicited two cents to the lumens debate here. As long as everyone's beamshapes are different, I really think all a lumens number does is get you in the ballpark. My 200 throwy lumens bear no resembelance to your 200 floody lumens which differ in appearance with your 200 lumens in a bigger/smaller reflector... Beamshape, (proper tool for the job) sufficient output for the task at hand, and efficiency (runtime) are what do it for me. Thank you for trying to keep things comparable for us, but there are a lot of variables, absolute lumen numbers are just one of many.


----------



## StandardBattery

Thanks for the extra graph on the Lithium primary. I guess I have to retract what I said earlier; compared to the competition the SC51 and SC52 still leave them far back in the dust. The SC52 is very impressive over all even with the L91. Great light, I hope you'll be able to compare this one with the models with the other LEDs when they appear. While I really like this light, I'm sure the neutral and daylight versions will be more my cup of tea as they say. I'm really hoping now though that they hurry up with the SC62, and I hope that they also start using the Nichia 219 HCRI LED in versions of the 18650 and AA lights. I guess I better find your paypal 'donate' button.


----------



## reppans

selfbuilt said:


> ....But I certainly don't feel any sort of offence to any of the comments I've seen - and I think it is important to raise and discuss these issues. Not sure of the best place for it, but I'm fine with leaving it in this thread (along as everyone stays respectful of everyone else).



OK there's obviously no point in beating this dead horse any further... I've made my case, will stand by it, and am happy to answer any questions if prompted here, or by PMs. I at least feel that I have gotten some people to question the large differences between some manufacturer's claims, and also a few others to use their DSLRs as objective light meters to prove it to themselves. If anyone else has a DSLR and is interested in using it as an ambient light meter, please PM me, I'd be more than happy to explain how it works, there's a pretty cool trick to it and it is amazing easy to measure any light, any mode, based off of a single calibration. There are quite a few good lights that Selfbuilt has not reviewed, where an ambient light meter might come in handy. 

I am happy that Selfbuilt has been so open-minded about this and only feel bad that some think I am questioning his integrity. Once again, if I were in his shoes, I would do exactly the same thing. I know his relative data is good and consistent, and the despite claims of sample variability, I have found my relatively measurements to be very close to his, except that I chose to use a different scale. Adjusted for scale, I have previously come up with nearly the same SC52 measurements down to overspec'd L modes, and even the odd drop off on Li-ions for the L1 mode.

I will continue to use his data as a common base from which to upwardly adjust the lumen specs of competing "conservative" manufacturers for apples-to-apples comparisons with Zebralights, for both myself and others comparing lights. In addition, I will reference these SC52 vs 3V output/runtime graphs as illustrative examples since they explain my position perfectly.

So back on topic, and I will refrain from commenting on the lumen scale issues any further.


----------



## selfbuilt

DavidMB said:


> I am curious to know what Selfbuilt thinks of the pocket clip with regard to the ridges.


I don't have much comment, except it may be a bit more cumbersome to slide it on to things than the SC51 (i.e., those ridges do restrict the smooth flow of material). I typical carry my EDC in a holster on my belt, and found the clip tricky to insert over the material in this case.



scout24 said:


> I'm going to add my unsolicited two cents to the lumens debate here. As long as everyone's beamshapes are different, I really think all a lumens number does is get you in the ballpark. My 200 throwy lumens bear no resembelance to your 200 floody lumens which differ in appearance with your 200 lumens in a bigger/smaller reflector... Beamshape, (proper tool for the job) sufficient output for the task at hand, and efficiency (runtime) are what do it for me. Thank you for trying to keep things comparable for us, but there are a lot of variables, absolute lumen numbers are just one of many.


Absolutely, it is a good point - beamshapes are a major factor in how you experience the light. This why I do all those standardized white-wall beamshots, to allow you to compare differing profiles.  And as an aside, they are also a confound for lumen testing, as even a perfect sphere can never fully integrate all beamshapes consistently.



reppans said:


> I know his relative data is good and consistent, and the despite claims of sample variability, I have found my relatively measurements to be very close to his, except that I chose to use a different scale. Adjusted for scale, I have previously come up with nearly the same SC52 measurements down to overspec'd L modes, and even the odd drop off on Li-ions for the L1 mode..


Good to know - thanks for sharing. The problem with only having one sample is that its hard to know how representational it may be. Interesting that you independently had the same observations for the low levels on yours.



StandardBattery said:


> I'm really hoping now though that they hurry up with the SC62, and I hope that they also start using the Nichia 219 HCRI LED in versions of the 18650 and AA lights. I guess I better find your paypal 'donate' button.


Yes, that would be interesting. And thanks for the donation plug, always appreciated. :wave:


----------



## chadvone

I think this light needs and extension tube. Make it a 2 AA Zebralight !!!!


----------



## demoteamone

I still have hard time to understand how powerful wise it's this light, considering the high tech and the small battery apply it in to it.
I appreciate the review.


----------



## maxrep12

It is important to note, that many individuals may see two different beam patterns(throw and flood) and wrongly conclude that the thrower represents more total lumens than the flood beam. Example:


> i am still looking for SC52 owners who also own post 2011 Fenix models with comparable brightness because my reference scale is not selfbuilt or Zebralight but whatever Fenix claims. the other day i borrowed a brand new Fenix LD20 R5 from a friend and with 2x Eneloop AA the claimed 180 Fenix lumens blew away all of my 1xAA lights by 4sevens, Thrunite, Eagletac, Jetbeam .. by a huge margin. "180" is a comparatively low number nowadays and mev reported 199 lumens in his LD20 R4 review but the margin by which the Fenix wins over D25A, Quark X w/ 1xEneloop AA, a.o. is incredible. simply put, at this point i cannot imagine that the SC52 is brighter than the 2x Eneloop AA Fenix LD20 until several users do report it.



I believe this comment caused Selbuilt to compare the LD20 R4(two AA light) with the single AA SC52. The end result was the LD20 R4 at 205 lumens and the SC52 at 290 lumens. Perhaps it is the illusion a bright hotspot provides that allows some users to not account for the total lighting area of a more floody beam. 


In the end, the SC52 put out almost 50% more lumens, yet the individual who requested the match up just did not see this as a possibility at all.


----------



## maxrep12

reppans said:


> I personally asked Selfbuilt to include onin the 2xAA graphs (which he did), and also the CR123 graphs (which he did not), since this light attempts to compete with the top of the class in those batteries categories.... ummm, on paper at least.


I certainly was not aware that a 1xAA light was in the same comparison category as a 2xAA light.


----------



## Wiggle

selfbuilt said:


> I agree, it is rather ironic to see a modern light perform so well on the rather archaic alkaline cell. I would certainly never want to store one in there, given their propensity for leaking.



Actually might not be the hardest mess to clean with the new sealed battery tube


----------



## selfbuilt

chadvone said:


> I think this light needs and extension tube. Make it a 2 AA Zebralight !!!!


That would be interesting ... although it may require a circuit re-design from the current SC52. Given that the SC52 currently reads a ~3.2V primary 14505 cell as nearly depleted 14500 Li-ion and automatically steps down, I expect it would also read the ~2.8V of 2xNiMH the same way. So an extension tube may be out, but no reason for them not to design a separate 2xAA ...



maxrep12 said:


> I certainly was not aware that a 1xAA light was in the same comparison category as a 2xAA light.


Well, generally it isn't - but it was close enough that I agreed to the request and added the 2xAA comparisons (with extra table, graphs, beamshots) into the review.

What the comparisons show is that while the SC52 may approach the max output of some 2xAA lights, it cetainly can't handle it for long on a single standard cell (as expected). It's really at the medium levels where the incredible efficiency of the SC52 allows it to perform closer in runtime to some of the 2xAA lights at comparable levels. You are still better off with a 2xAA light for sustained Hi-level output, of course.


----------



## Swede74

chadvone said:


> I think this light needs and extension tube. Make it a 2 AA Zebralight !!!!





selfbuilt said:


> That would be interesting ... although it may require a circuit re-design from the current SC52. Given that the SC52 currently reads a ~3.2V primary 14505 cell as nearly depleted 14500 Li-ion and automatically steps down, I expect it would also read the ~2.8V of 2xNiMH the same way. So an extension tube may be out, but no reason for them not to design a separate 2xAA ...



I just tried this today, with a little help from the extension tube from an Ultrafire C3, some aluminium foil, brazenness and good luck. I too expected the circuit would interpret the two GP ReCyko NiMH gen 2 cells I used as a Li-Ion cell close to its cut-off voltage, but surprisingly, it stayed in high mode (turbo rather, it looked like ~500 lumen) for several seconds. I would probably have run out of luck if I had attempted to operate this precarious MacGyverism for too long, so I don't know if would have stayed in high for a full minute, or stepped down early. 

Some time ago I posted in another thread a rendition of what a 2*AA Zebralight might look like (post#24) 


http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...CR123-light)&p=4102662&highlight=#post4102662


----------



## phips

The Non-Li-ion graphs look simply amazing.
Even when I am not looking to buy a particular flashlight, I love it when manufacturers set a higher bar for its competitors.
I wonder what the SC600 MK II will offer.


----------



## chadvone

Swede74 said:


> I just tried this today, with a little help from the extension tube from an Ultrafire C3, some aluminium foil, brazenness and good luck. I too expected the circuit would interpret the two GP ReCyko NiMH gen 2 cells I used as a Li-Ion cell close to its cut-off voltage, but surprisingly, it stayed in high mode (turbo rather, it looked like ~500 lumen) for several seconds. I would probably have run out of luck if I had attempted to operate this precarious MacGyverism for too long, so I don't know if would have stayed in high for a full minute, or stepped down early.
> 
> Some time ago I posted in another thread a rendition of what a 2*AA Zebralight might look like (post#24)
> 
> 
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?345627-***NEW***-Zebralight-SC32-%28single-CR123-light%29&p=4102662&highlight=#post4102662



I just violated the end of my SC52 with the battery tube from my Maratac AA. Selfbuilt was right as it did kick off. It would go through all the modes but when I let off the button it went out. MY SC51 on the other hand worked just fine.


----------



## lampeDépêche

I'm a wee bit disappointed that it won't reach its high modes with a 14505, but I can see why it's an inevitable trade-off with low-battery protection for Li-ions, and on the whole I guess it's the right trade to make.

Still, on the medium and low modes, the 14505 would have to be the run-time champ, right? With 2400 mah at 3.0 volts, they contain double the watt-hours of an Eneloop.


----------



## Kyle K

Aren't 14505's 1500mA?


----------



## Swede74

chadvone said:


> I just violated the end of my SC52 with the battery tube from my Maratac AA. Selfbuilt was right as it did kick off. It would go through all the modes but when I let off the button it went out. MY SC51 on the other hand worked just fine.



You are right, I just tried a second time, and it went out almost immediately. My apologies, I didn't want to deceive anyone and I certainly didn't want to compel anyone to violate their lights. I didn't screw the Ultrafire tube onto the Zebralight, I just held their ends together.

I am waiting for my NiMH cells to charge. Once they have finished I'm going to try again - it did run continuously for a few seconds on freshly charged batteries - but I probably got a bit carried away when I called 2-3 seconds 'several'. I was secretly hoping someone (maybe even Zebralight) would manufacture an extension tube, and was likely suffering from a bout of optimism bias. 

Edit: I wasn't able to repeat what I did earlier, which at the time looked to me as though the light stayed in high mode. It does stay on when I release the button though, but it jumps down from 500 lm almost instantly.


----------



## Mr Floppy

selfbuilt said:


> That would be interesting ... although it may require a circuit re-design from the current SC52. Given that the SC52 currently reads a ~3.2V primary 14505 cell as nearly depleted 14500 Li-ion and automatically steps down, I expect it would also read the ~2.8V of 2xNiMH the same way. So an extension tube may be out, but no reason for them not to design a separate 2xAA ...



I used to do this with 2x 1/2 AAA cells in my LF2XT and you get less than a few minutes before it thinks that the battery is low but I think the cut off for the LF2XT is lower than 3.2V. What works though are 3x 1/3 AAA cells all charged to around 1.4V OC off the charger except there's a huge 90mAh capacity. I have some 1/3 AA cells though that I may try in this if the warm version ever comes out.


----------



## selfbuilt

chadvone said:


> I just violated the end of my SC52 with the battery tube from my Maratac AA. Selfbuilt was right as it did kick off. It would go through all the modes but when I let off the button it went out. MY SC51 on the other hand worked just fine.


Thanks for the confirmation, that's what I expected. Interesting that it worked on the SC51 ... that light was never intended to work with 14500 (although mine at least seems to handle them), so there's no low-voltage cut-out to be concerned with.


----------



## reppans

maxrep12 said:


> I certainly was not aware that a 1xAA light was in the same comparison category as a 2xAA light.





selfbuilt said:


> What the comparisons show is that while the SC52 may approach the max output of some 2xAA lights, it cetainly can't handle it for long on a single standard cell (as expected).



I beg to differ..... I think Zebralight put the SC52 smack into the 2xAA and 1xCR123, 3V class by spec'ing the SC52 at 280 lumens - which is at the *very top* of the 3V class BTW. Please see my post #28 where I've superimposed all the [non Li-ion] lumen ratings for each graph line, as well as the SC52/L91 graph line onto one of Selfbuilt's CR123 graphs (hope I've fairly represented all of it).

I hoped it was obvious, but apparently it is not - the intention of the 3V graphs was only to compare initial outputs, and maybe a few minutes into the runtime to account for the step-down features, for a lumen scale comparison. It's just an illustration using Selfbuilt's relative data, of how ZL's definition of "280" lumens seems so different from most other manufacturers' definitions of 180-280 lumens. 

Perhaps its just me, but I still think SC52 appears overstated vs, ...well... just about the entire field. Course, maybe all the other manufacturers are just too conservative. 



stp said:


> ...SC51 was the most efficient AA light on the market. So it looks strange when somebody tries to downplay its successor and potentially the new king of efficiency. Now we know that SC52 is the most efficient AA light on the market whatever the lumens are thanks to selfbuilt.



I just wanted to get back to this post since I think you really meant to say ".... that Selfbuilt has tested" as opposed to "....on the market." We really don't know that since Selfbuilt does not test every light and, unfortunately, has not yet tested what I would consider to be the SC52's closest competitors, the Quark AAX and the D25A clicky XML. For some indicators of their potential, again referring to my/Selfbuilt's charts on my post #28, you can see that both the Quark AA2X and the D25C clicky XML appear to be the class leaders in their respective 3V categories.


----------



## lampeDépêche

reppans, you are very hard to please.

But would you at least agree that, of all the flashlights in the 2AA class, the SC52 is the shortest? 

Of all the flashlights in the 2AA class, the SC52 uses the fewest AA cells?

Seriously--I don't have any stake in praising ZL or in defaming them. I have been a loyal Quark buyer--bought several dozen of them--and even 4Sevens I don't feel any need to puff up or run down. It's just a company. 

But you seem to feel some deep need to persuade all of us that ZL is cheating, even if it requires you to shift the goal-posts by changing the comparison-class, or by inventing a new comparison-class ("3v categories") that I have never heard of. 

I don't want to get into any argument with you, but I do want to let you know, as a neutral observer: 

the credibility that you are damaging is not ZL's credibility, or Selfbilt's credibility. It is your own.


----------



## amanichen

Agreed lampeDépêche!

The same sensationalized arguments were being made over at budgetlightforums.com a few weeks ago. Once objective data appeared, the argument suddenly turns into a straw-man attack on other "issues" that even a discerning person doesn't seem to worry about. I don't want to say that people are paid to damage the reputation of others, but I know it happens. On the other hand, I think some people just need attention, and a high profile thread about a high profile light, with a high profile reviewer is an opportune place to get it.

Selfbuilt is one of the few sources of objective information about many lights. Selfbuilt's numbers are not 100% accurate or precise, and he doesn't claim they are! He explains in detail, how he arrived at the measurements. While he does include his opinions in reviews, if you study his complete "body of work" you don't get the sense that there's impropriety. As with any experiment, if you question the results, you are free to (and obligated to) repeat the experiment to either confirm or refute the other set of data. 

What I see is a lot of criticism, without any actual attempt to duplicate the results. It's very easy to make baseless and sensationalized accusations as a psychological tactic. Even if it "looks" like someone's questioning the scientific method of another, it's often about having social influence. Questioning numbers was just an excuse to do this. 

As such, my belief is that manufacturers should compete over customers, not the other way around. Therefore an irrationally positive, or irrationally negative, attitude about a brand or manufacturer is basically the same thing: people competing over the brands and makers - it should be the other way around!


----------



## stp

reppans you are nitpicking the words and over interpret them...really. We would have to accompany each post with few stars and few explanation at the bottom or make them much longer to please you.



selfbuilt said:


> What the comparisons show is that while the SC52 may approach the max output of some 2xAA lights, it cetainly can't handle it for long on a single standard cell (as expected).






reppans said:


> I beg to differ..... I think Zebralight put the SC52 smack into the 2xAA and 1xCR123, 3V class by spec'ing the SC52 at 280 lumens - which is at the *very top* of the 3V class BTW. Please see my post #28 where I've superimposed all the [non Li-ion] lumen ratings for each graph line, as well as the SC52/L91 graph line onto one of Selfbuilt's CR123 graphs (hope I've fairly represented all of it).
> 
> I hoped it was obvious, but apparently it is not - the intention of the 3V graphs was only to compare initial outputs, and maybe a few minutes into the runtime to account for the step-down features, for a lumen scale comparison. It's just an illustration using Selfbuilt's relative data, of how ZL's definition of "280" lumens seems so different from most other manufacturers' definitions of 180-280 lumens.
> 
> Perhaps its just me, but I still think SC52 appears overstated vs, ...well... just about the entire field. Course, maybe all the other manufacturers are just too conservative.



First: selfbuilt did say "approached". Its obvious that from the bottom. If you look at your graphs you will see that after 5 min the difference is around 20-25% less output. Maybe your intention was to compare initial output but selfbuilt didn't said that he is commenting it so it's obvious that he is commenting entire graph. He also didn't use the amount of lumens in his sentence. If you wouldn't be so fixated at the 280 vs. 180 lumens problem you would see that it is in fact quite close for light powered with much weaker source. Nowhere in that quote he was relating to the difference in official specs.

Btw. There is small problem with comparing the initial output (at last for me) because its hard from the graphs to see what is happening in the first seconds. The measure done at 30s is very, very important for ANSI FL-1 and I don't know if its the first pixel on the graph or not.



reppans said:


> I just wanted to get back to this post since I think you really meant to say ".... that Selfbuilt has tested" as opposed to "....on the market." We really don't know that since Selfbuilt does not test every light and, unfortunately, has not yet tested what I would consider to be the SC52's closest competitors, the Quark AAX and the D25A clicky XML. For some indicators of their potential, again referring to my/Selfbuilt's charts on my post #28, you can see that both the Quark AA2X and the D25C clicky XML appear to be the class leaders in their respective 3V categories.



I could say that. But anybody without personal agenda knows what I meant. There are many products on the market and there will be always some potential untested candidate for best of the best. We could never say that something is the best if we would care about untested products. There is easy solution to that if its so much important for you:
-contact manufacturers and ask them about ANSI certificate or about sending the lights for a test to selfbuilt.
-it it doesn't work buy them and send them to selfbuilt and ask for a test (I don't know about the money aspects behind selfbuilt's reviews so its possible that you will have to pay some more)

Btw. regulation from 3v, 2.4v and 1.2v are totally different things. They (Quark AAX, D25A) may be better then SC52 but I wouldn't say that your graphs indicate it in one way or another.

Reppans I really uderstand why and about what you have a problem. I just believe that with time it will selfcorrect. Manufactures know that if they will overstate to much there will be people like you. And with growing lumens output each year the difference will be less visible to an eye. The professional equipment to measure the lumens should also get cheaper. And ANSI FL-1 is a step in good direction. I also never believe manufacturers anyway. For me it doesn't matter if it's 200 or 300 lumens, as long as I know that light A emits 50% more than light B I'm good and you agreed that comparatively selfbuilt tests are good. 

I think that you already made your point and we are now making circles. And I don't know what would make you happy now because selfbuilt already agreed that its lumen scale MAY be overinflated - he just don't know but tried his best, what more do you want?


----------



## selfbuilt

Hmmm, I get the feeling I missed some juicy commentary in other threads and other boards.  But I certainly haven't seen anything in this thread that has caused me any concern. I don't usually get so thick into weeds on methodology issues, but I'm happy to do it (on occasion).

And truthfully, I haven't looked around for commentary on this light. FYI, my standard practice when preparing to review a light is to _avoid_ looking at other reviews or discussion threads (so as not to bias myself with other people's perspectives). In this case, I briefly scanned the more recent posts of a couple of the SC52 threads here on CPF as I was finalizing my review, to see if there were any additional comparisons people would like. This is why I added the lumen scale discussion and the 2xAA comparator data, given the level of interest I could see on those topics. But I didn't look too closely at what people were saying, just what they wanted to know more about. And honestly, I've been too busy at work this week to scan any threads other than my own, so I don't know what's going on elsewhere.

Reading between the lines of the commentary here, it sounds like some arguments got started over the accuracy of various manufacturers lumen claims (with the accuracy of my estimation method caught in the balance). I think I've addressed a number of points around that already in this thread, but in general I support the position that you CANNOT easily equate one maker's numbers with another (even with so-called standard ANSI FL-1 measures). All you can do is look at _relative_ rankings from a common testing source - which is something I provide, in as consistent a way as possible (and I think I've gone to fairly great lengths to ensure that consistency). Fundamentally, this is why I do comparative runtime testing, as the graphs tell you far more about relative output levels over time than any arbitrary output measure at one time point.

On the issue of 3V cell comparison, I think reppans request for direct comparison is perfectly reasonable. On the surface, it does sound like the SC52's max output should be in the same league (i.e. based on various manufacturers ANSI FL-1 lumen values). The only way to know for sure is to do the comparison. This is not something I'm in the habit of doing, as comparing a 1xAA battery to a 1xCR123A battery is worse than apples-to-oranges (maybe more like apples-to-coconuts, giving the scale of the voltage differentials).  And I figured the review was long enough with the 2xAA data, which gave you a good approximation to 3V CR123A max levels. 

But the only way to resolve the AA to CR123A comparison issue is to actually plot the data, which I'm happy to do given the apparent level of interest:







Please note that I have plotted *BOTH* L91 lithium and NiMH Eneloop for the SC52 above. I don't want any conspiracy theories to get started, so I've added the clear note that 1xAA lights commonly show lower max output on L91 than they do alkaline or NiMH. I'm not sure why (maybe to do with voltage?), but it is a common observation I've noticed over the years. :shrug: In the case of the SC52, I estimate ~290 ANSI FL-1 lumens on NiMH, and ~255 estimated lumens on L91 (which is about a typical ~10% disparity for this class).

You are free to interpret the above how ever you like. But in terms of the classic "ANSI FL-1" max output time point, the graph shows that the SC52 (on NiMH Eneloop) compared to 1xCR123A is:

Brighter than the Sunwayman V11R, M11R, C10R and Olight i1
Similar to the Foursevens QTLC XP-G2, Jetbeam PC10 and Eagletac D25C (on Hi1, not Turbo)
Dimmer than the Eagletac D25C (on Turbo), Olight S10, and Nitecore MH1C
Of course, that's just for ANSI FL-1, with the SC52 on Eneloop vs 1xCR123A. Over time, the QTLC XP-G2 and PC10 pull away from it, as they can maintain a more stable regulation on 1xCR123A than the SC52 can on 1xNiMH. Again, you need to keep battery types in mind.

Anyway, I hope that resolves the outstanding issues as much as possible. I've put all the comparator data that I have available out there. :wave:

-----

On the side issue of personal motivations, I thought amanichen raised a number of very good points (fully quoted below):



amanichen said:


> Agreed lampeDépêche!
> 
> The same sensationalized arguments were being made over at budgetlightforums.com a few weeks ago. Once objective data appeared, the argument suddenly turns into a straw-man attack on other "issues" that even a discerning person doesn't seem to worry about. I don't want to say that people are paid to damage the reputation of others, but I know it happens. On the other hand, I think some people just need attention, and a high profile thread about a high profile light, with a high profile reviewer is an opportune place to get it.
> 
> Selfbuilt is one of the few sources of objective information about many lights. Selfbuilt's numbers are not 100% accurate or precise, and he doesn't claim they are! He explains in detail, how he arrived at the measurements. While he does include his opinions in reviews, if you study his complete "body of work" you don't get the sense that there's impropriety. As with any experiment, if you question the results, you are free to (and obligated to) repeat the experiment to either confirm or refute the other set of data.
> 
> What I see is a lot of criticism, without any actual attempt to duplicate the results. It's very easy to make baseless and sensationalized accusations as a psychological tactic. Even if it "looks" like someone's questioning the scientific method of another, it's often about having social influence. Questioning numbers was just an excuse to do this.
> 
> As such, my belief is that manufacturers should compete over customers, not the other way around. Therefore an irrationally positive, or irrationally negative, attitude about a brand or manufacturer is basically the same thing: people competing over the brands and makers - it should be the other way around!


I would like to add two additional general comments to the above. The below is NOT directed at any specific individual, but just my general observations of the flashlight business, and human nature.

The first point is that humans are very good at drawing reasonable inferrences from insufficient data. This is part of what has made us so successful as a species - we can "fill in the gaps" of missing information, and often intuitively arrive at a pretty good working conclusion despite limited data. What we are not often so good at is _revising_ that initial conclusion once more data presents itself.

This is why the final section of my reviews always says "Prelliminary Discussion" and NOT "Conclusions". Frankly, I see my reviews as never being complete, as more information can surface that will change the conclusions. This may seem like a minor point to some, but it is a major one to me. I try very hard not to become "emotionally-invested" in the specific conclusions of any given analysis. To do so makes it very hard to reassess your conclusions in light of new evidence.

From a basic human psychology perspective, it is well known that getting into arguments with others tends to only harden ones opinions (in addition to the other good points amanichen raised). But especially in the case when it involves the absence of evidence, or with only limited evidence on hand, it makes it harder to reassess when new evidence presents itself. 

My second general comment is that "brand loyalty" (another common aspect of our psychology) is similarly difficult to guard against. But I have been unusually foruntate to get to test a wide range of lights from different manufacturers - over a fairly wide period of time. What I've learned from this fairly deep sampling is that most makers are NOT entirely consistent over time (at least not in the manner that most of us would expect for a defined "brand"). While some makers retain their original designer or general design philosophy over time, many seem to have a high turnover of staff (especially customer service/marketing, but I belive in design and manufacturing as well). The same goes to how accurately (or consistently) they rate their specifciations - this can change over time, with NO advance notice.

As a result, you really have to assess each new light that comes out as its own entity, on its own merits. The past history of the maker can be a very useful piece of information, but it is really just one piece - there's no guarantee of the continuity of manufacture, feature set, or specification standards.

There's a popular phrase in many professions that epitomizes our natural tendency to think in linear, consistent terms: past performance is the best indicator of the future.

While this is true up to a point, I think the following refined view is far more useful as a guide: past performance is a poor predictor of the future, but it is the best one we have.

As always, I encourage everyone to look at all the available data, and draw their own interim conclusions (subject to the availability more data, of course).


----------



## TweakMDS

That's a lot of text... I'll redo my comparison between the D25's and the SC52 without lithiums, since it does look like the eagletacs are brighter on L91 lithium primaries than on NiMH, whereas the SC52 actually appears dimmer on L91 than on NiMH. 

Eitherway, FWIW, I feel like I have to place some counterweight with the words of some of my peers around here. Without harming any interpersonal friendships of course. Internet arguments can be serious business ^^

While it's healthy to doubt everything; I consider your reviews as THE leading source of relative light output.
I place my full trust in your measurements and as far as I'm concerned, your tireless explanations and insight in this should more than put these issues to rest.

The only explanation for any deviating numbers from other testers would be sample variation and a different way of testing.


----------



## reppans

amanichen said:


> The same sensationalized arguments were being made over at budgetlightforums.com a few weeks ago. Once objective data appeared, the argument suddenly turns into a straw-man attack on other "issues" that even a discerning person doesn't seem to worry about. I don't want to say that people are paid to damage the reputation of others, but I know it happens. On the other hand, I think some people just need attention, and a high profile thread about a high profile light, with a high profile reviewer is an opportune place to get it.



Please show me any one of my posts on CPF, or BLF, where you think I've changed ANY of my arguments. We all knew Selfbuilt was going to test this light and I've said the following before and after his review (with a link to some of my own results, since you asked):



reppans said:


> I think Selfbuilt will find that it meets its lumen claims, except for all the L modes. The real question is how many lumens you should increase the competing AA/14500/sub-lumen lights to compare them, apples to apples, on a Zebralight-Selfbuilt scale. Sadly, some of the best competing lights will likely not be in his comparison charts.





reppans said:


> Selfbuilt's results are pretty much in line with what I was expecting and, after adjusted for our very different lumen scales, his results agree to what I personally came up with, with the exception of the L1 mode, which I found lower - or about half of spec. Even our runtime tests Mine HERE, to ~50%, are remarkably close (H1 45 vs 48mins, H2B 2:28 vs 2:30mins).



I can assure you, and others that have implied it, that I am completely independent from any flashlight concern, I am merely a AA/sub-lumen enthusiast, with both a light meter and stop watch that always felt a need to call out those all braggart kids in school to see if they can really deliver what they promise, and perhaps hammer a little humbleness into them for next time. As far as seeking attention, trust me on this one - this is absolutely the one type of attention I do not enjoy.



stp said:


> Reppans I really uderstand why and about what you have a problem. I just believe that with time it will selfcorrect. Manufactures know that if they will overstate to much there will be people like you. And with growing lumens output each year the difference will be less visible to an eye. The professional equipment to measure the lumens should also get cheaper. And ANSI FL-1 is a step in good direction. I also never believe manufacturers anyway. For me it doesn't matter if it's 200 or 300 lumens, as long as I know that light A emits 50% more than light B I'm good and you agreed that comparatively selfbuilt tests are good.
> 
> I think that you already made your point and we are now making circles. And I don't know what would make you happy now because selfbuilt already agreed that its lumen scale MAY be overinflated - he just don't know but tried his best, what more do you want?



I thank you very much for this comment stp, it's one of the few that have acknowledged some inkling of legitimacy. I realize there're all sorts of exaggerations going on with spec sheets, but when the scale gets into twice the max lumens and three times the runtime (equiv. lowest modes) as the rest of the 1xAA/sub-lumen/XML field.... I'm sorry, but I simply found it too outrageous to let go. 

I agree I'm running in circles, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm happy to stop until someone wants to call me out... then I will respond. Feel free to PM me to save others from the useless dialogue.

Selfbuilt, thank you chiming in again, graphing the CR123 chart, and putting up with my generally B/S...

I don't disagree with anything you've said, and you already well know that I completely trust and support your relative data, if not entirely the scale you choose to use. But I also know that there is really no alternative scale to adopt for both practical and political reasons unless we supply you with the lights.

From my understanding, the "brighter than" lights are all spec'd at <200 lumens; the "similar to" are spec'd in 182 - 205 range (but could be as high as 245 if we bumped the Quark 20% for the new G2 emitter); and the "dimmer than" has the 277, or Li-ion, ratings. 



selfbuilt said:


> Of course, that's just for ANSI FL-1, with the SC52 on Eneloop vs 1xCR123A. Over time, the QTLC XP-G2 and PC10 pull away from it, as they can maintain a more stable regulation on 1xCR123A than the SC52 can on 1xNiMH. Again, you need to keep battery types in mind.



As a side question, I was just wondering if you could look into the data behind the Quark's graph line. You say it should pull away from the SC52 NiMh, but it appears well below it throughout. I saw it before and thought it was very odd, but now that you mention it....


----------



## selfbuilt

TweakMDS said:


> That's a lot of text... I'll redo my comparison between the D25's and the SC52 without lithiums, since it does look like the eagletacs are brighter on L91 lithium primaries than on NiMH, whereas the SC52 actually appears dimmer on L91 than on NiMH.


Cool, I'd be interested to hear the result, as I haven't seen the D25A.

As for the L91 output issue, it's variable - some lights have about the same brightness on L91 as NiMH, but many show an up to ~10% or so drop in max output on L91. I've noticed the same for 2xAA lights. Of course, you'd never notice without some sort of light metering device, because its too subtle a drop.



reppans said:


> As a side question, I was just wondering if you could look into the data behind the Quark's graph line. You say it should pull away from the SC52 NiMh, but it appears well below it throughout. I saw it before and thought it was very odd, but now that you mention it....


Really? Maybe it's a poor visual contrast on the graph with the color chosens, but it looks to me like the Quark QTLC XP-G2 line (in grey) stays well above the SC52 NiMH line (light orange) over most of their respective runs. They both start just above 110 on my relative output scale, but the SC52 dips down to ~100 for most of its "regulated" portion, whereas the Quark is just below 110 for most of its run. Those aren't lumen values of course, just raw lightbox output. OF course, these aren't huge difference, which is why I put the SC52 in the same "middle-of-the-pack" category when describing the graph.


----------



## reppans

selfbuilt said:


> Really? Maybe it's a poor visual contrast on the graph with the color chosens, but it looks to me like the Quark QTLC XP-G2 line (in grey) stays well above the SC52 NiMH line (light orange) over most of their respective runs. They both start just above 110 on my relative output scale, but the SC52 dips down to ~100 for most of its "regulated" portion, whereas the Quark is just below 110 for most of its run. Those aren't lumen values of course, just raw lightbox output. OF course, these aren't huge difference, which is why I put the SC52 in the same "middle-of-the-pack" category when describing the graph.



Sorry, I was just referring to how it drops below the SC52 at the 31 min mark and stays below for the remainder.. seems odd for an Eneloop vs CR123 and the graph makes it THE most inefficient light in the group. Looking at what should be same emitter/driver on the 2xAA chart, the QB2A, the XP-G2 head seems every bit as efficient as the XML head on turbo.. and the XML head looks quite efficient vs the AA2 pack on both turbo and high.

EDIT: Selfbuilt, I don't think it's worth answering this question here... it would be more appropriate for me to address in your review thread of that light... so never mind. Thank you,


----------



## StandardBattery

Since I made use of the Donation button, I hope you don't mind if I point out that the new graph (CR123A) comparison seems to have a typo listing SC51 where it should list SC52. If I'm not understanding something right hopefully you won't mind.


----------



## chadvone

Took the SC52 to work today. Used it on several occasions. Every time I used it I had to tighten the tail cap. I guess I am so used to the SC51 I am doing this without noticing..........


----------



## selfbuilt

StandardBattery said:


> Since I made use of the Donation button, I hope you don't mind if I point out that the new graph (CR123A) comparison seems to have a typo listing SC51 where it should list SC52. If I'm not understanding something right hopefully you won't mind.


Whoops, thanks, fixed.


----------



## jkid1911

I'm not even sure how to start.....all I can say is that I've been involved in many technical things for many years and I've NEVER seen a review this comprehensive. I have an SC51W and wanted to know more about the 52. Well, look no more. ZL should pay you as a consultant...!! Thank you for this incredible review...! SC52 is in my future for sure...!!


----------



## Wiggle

I don't believe reppans was ever trying to imply that the SC52 should compete with 2AA lights, or even CR123 lights. His point was that the rated output from ZL is more comparable to outputs from lights in this class and thus a more accurate comparison to verifying the lights output would be to established lights in the 3V/2xAA class, not the 1xAA class.


----------



## astein29

Selfbuilt, excellent review, as always. 

I was wondering if you could include the 'Peak Throw ([email protected])' column for the 14500 battery table. I am curious to see what the beam intensity is for the SC52 running on 14500. I wish you were able to review the D25A, but understand you have not received that model. Maybe they will send you a sample for review soon.

Your information is much appreciated.


----------



## Swede74

astein29 said:


> Selfbuilt, excellent review, as always.
> 
> I was wondering if you could include the 'Peak Throw ([email protected])' column for the 14500 battery table. I am curious to see what the beam intensity is for the SC52 running on 14500.



I was wondering that too. I'm particularly interested in learning if the SC52 on a 14500 out-throws the Xtar WK26, which I believe is one of the greatest throwers in the 1xAA format.

Also, I'd like to add to a comment I made a few days ago: Selfbuilt is not only a worthy candidate for the Pulitzer Prize for flashlight reviews - I would gladly award him an equally prestigious prize for his admirable patience with our never-ending barrage of questions.


----------



## selfbuilt

stp said:


> You could always place it in the legend of the graphs . There is more information in the graphs but some of it is harder accessible. For example it would be easier to compare (and conclude) the efficiency of Hi1, Hi2a, Hi2b, on ni-mh's and alkaline if the graphs would be accompanied by that numbers.
> Anyway just food for thought. Thanks again for the reviews.


Sorry I missed your response earlier.

FYI, I did do this once, in a case where I thought it was appropriate - my CR123A comparison. The point there is that I was trying to compare battery capacities, run in the same lights at _exactly the same drive levels_.

But that's where the problem comes in with using area-under-the-curve (AUC) for comparing different lights, with different drive levels. The efficiency of emitters drops with increasing current, but it is not linear. The AUC would pick up this, but by itself you wouldn't know know if the lower efficiency was due to a poor circuit design or a higher drive level (or some combination thereof) - unless you carefully compared the output/runtime curves similatenously. And if you are looking at the curves anyway, the AUC doesn't really give you any more information, as you can quickly tell visually how the lights compare relatively. 

In my experience, it's easy for people to run away with one single piece of info (especially if its a nice and simple single number),  while missing its true significance. So I could imagine comments being unfairly made that a given light was "inefficient" (just because the manufacturer drove it a bit harder), or mistaken praise given for an "efficient" light (that is simply being under-driven). Since my goal is always provide good relative assessments of lights, I'd be worried about putting those kind of numbers out there, where they would invariably start circulating divorced from the graphs that you need in order to assess them.

By way, if you are interested in a more detailed explanation of the statistical reasoning behind visually inspecting your data, you might enjoy reading about Anscombe's Quartet. :wave:



astein29 said:


> I was wondering if you could include the 'Peak Throw ([email protected])' column for the 14500 battery table. I am curious to see what the beam intensity is for the SC52 running on 14500.





Swede74 said:


> I was wondering that too. I'm particularly interested in learning if the SC52 on a 14500 out-throws the Xtar WK26, which I believe is one of the greatest throwers in the 1xAA format.


I haven't done this, simply because it was a lot of work to go back to all my old lights when the new NIST-certified lux meter arrived. :sweat:

But I am starting to track this for new lights, so I can tell you that I measured 4,100 cd (lux @1m equivalent) for the SC52 on 14500 - which translates into 128m beam distance.



jkid1911 said:


> I'm not even sure how to start.....all I can say is that I've been involved in many technical things for many years and I've NEVER seen a review this comprehensive. I have an SC51W and wanted to know more about the 52. Well, look no more. ZL should pay you as a consultant...!! Thank you for this incredible review...! SC52 is in my future for sure...!!





> Also, I'd like to add to a comment I made a few days ago: Selfbuilt is not only a worthy candidate for the Pulitzer Prize for flashlight reviews - I would gladly award him an equally prestigious prize for his admirable patience with our never-ending barrage of questions.


Thanks guys. I must say, this review was a little work than usual, for a 1xAA light.


----------



## chadvone

This light will also run off of an AAA.


----------



## Bumble

chadvone said:


> This light will also run off of an AAA.



that poor aaa battery... sent to the slaughter/recharger (very quickly i suspect) via a sc52....


----------



## blackFFM

Although i rarely read your complete reviews i enjoy watching your comparison charts. Helps me everytime before i order my next flashlight. thanks


----------



## Pvt. Pile

This great flashlight has unearthed so many trolls! Well 3 anyway. I really hope they find another hobby. Leave it to the enthusiasts, not the conspiracy theorists.


----------



## ruf997tt

reppans said:


> OK there's obviously no point in beating this dead horse any further...



Dead? That horse was mutilated.



reppans said:


> So back on topic, and I will refrain from commenting on the lumen scale issues any further.



What's a few lumens (high or low) really mean anyway. Nothing...and no response is needed. :shrug:


----------



## Tulip bush

Wow, in must take some time, effort and skill and not to mention commitment to do a review of a flashlight. My respect goes out to anybody who goes to all that effort.......far better than I could ever do it. It never fails to amaze me. Thanks on my behalf to all those that go to all that effort for us.


----------



## selfbuilt

Tulip bush said:


> Wow, in must take some time, effort and skill and not to mention commitment to do a review of a flashlight.


Thank you for the support! Some reviews are more work than others - but everything that crosses my desk gets a fair and consistent treatment. FYI, for those who are curious, I describe my review philosophy a bit on my revamped flashlightreviews.ca website.


----------



## pblanch

Thanks selfbuilt great review. Wasn't really looking at a single AA as I had a 47's AA and I love the forward clicky (but the preflash is a killer for me) and my H51 and SC600 do everything in between. 

Anyway I bought a SC52 regardless after reading you review. Just received and have to say the photo's don't do it any justice. The ZL photos make the head look ginormous but when I first saw it out of the pack, I thought that it looks just right. 

Also I would like to see a change in the lumen/distance/ansi thing. I am going to change it to how many turkeys you can see both horizontally and vertically; and if beam has any type hotspot it would also have how far one can fly before you lose site of it. This would eliminate all confusion on the issue's and give the most accurate measurement of what to expect. It will be called the Lumturkey efficiency factor. I expect it will break new ground in the industry. Just don't ask how the waterproofing will be tested.


----------



## holylight

tam17 said:


> Great review, Selfbuilt! This petite ZL is bound to be a real killer...
> 
> Cheers



good review as always, my (edc) every day carry light!!!


----------



## daberti

Selfbuilt, thanks for a once more enlightening review 
Just a question: there is a cut-off threshold for Li-Ion 14500 cells, but how this flashlight behaves with Ni-Mh chemistry? I.e.: blinking etc.

Thanks


----------



## holylight

good review as usual. tyvm


----------



## selfbuilt

daberti said:


> Just a question: there is a cut-off threshold for Li-Ion 14500 cells, but how this flashlight behaves with Ni-Mh chemistry? I.e.: blinking etc.


I don't typically run my cells down far enough to notice low-voltage warning indicators in practice (i.e., I recharge often). And the review runtimes are done largely automated, so I wouldn't have noticed any flashing if had occurred there (unless it was sustained enough to be picked up with the lightbox sampling frequency). So I'm not sure if there is one on the SC52.

Or do you mean a cut-off for activation? Many lights will not come on with nearly deplete cells, but I haven't experimented with this either on the SC52.


----------



## daberti

selfbuilt said:


> I don't typically run my cells down far enough to notice low-voltage warning indicators in practice (i.e., I recharge often). And the review runtimes are done largely automated, so I wouldn't have noticed any flashing if had occurred there (unless it was sustained enough to be picked up with the lightbox sampling frequency). So I'm not sure if there is one on the SC52.
> 
> Or do you mean a cut-off for activation? Many lights will not come on with nearly deplete cells, but I haven't experimented with this either on the SC52.



Yes, I meant a cut-off or in suborder at least a flash warning.
When I insert a new Ni-Mh (I don't have 14500 around) I notice a breef flash (that to me means that battery type has been recognized) though, so I'd expect a cut-off....

Said that ZL released a new hot shot that eventually made me forget the 1x123 form factor. With the Sanyo Eneloop XX 2500mAh rated cells I scored 8hrs 3' till 50% at the highest Medium setting (50Lm per your review) and this definitely makes it my new EDC.
Great regulation, great output granularity and deadly accurate tint, with only a hint of a shift towards green at the various Low levels


----------



## Woods Walker

Great review.


----------



## WilsonCQB1911

I don't know if you'd consider it a low voltage indicator or not, but the light will step down when the battery doesn't have enough power to sustain the current level. It's very noticeable and serves as a low battery indicator.


----------



## holylight

very good and fair review self build. is painful to know the truth. but as consumer I need the truth. and your review has provided this. from my own opinion selfbuild and candle lamp did lots of very fair and detail review of flashlight and I salute them for the effort!!


----------



## RobCob

Great review! Love my SC51 (don't understand why more people don't own Zebralights) and will seriously consider upgrading to the SC52 as soon as they put the XM-L2 in it.


----------



## blinkjr

Selfbuilt - great review as always! I have an SC600 and a Xeno E03. Really like them both. But I find that if I don't use the SC600 almost daily, my touch for turning it on at the Low level is lost. Is the SC52 switch similar enough to the SC600 that swapping between them would not cause a problem? Did you find the SC52 more pocket-able than the E03?


----------



## selfbuilt

blinkjr said:


> Selfbuilt - great review as always! I have an SC600 and a Xeno E03. Really like them both. But I find that if I don't use the SC600 almost daily, my touch for turning it on at the Low level is lost. Is the SC52 switch similar enough to the SC600 that swapping between them would not cause a problem? Did you find the SC52 more pocket-able than the E03?


Interesting question ... I know what you mean about the timings. I find I have to "relearn" the exact Zebralight timings when I haven't handled one in a while (basically, hold the switch for a fraction of a second longer than typical). I haven't directly compared the SC600 and SC52, but I think the timings are pretty much the same.

As for pocketability, the SC52 is a bit shorter, so you may find it easier. I've always carried mine on a belt, so height isn't an issue.


----------



## ruf997tt

I have both the SC52 and Xeno E03 and I like 'em both. Both are XM-L and with a 14500 there's not much difference in effective light output. 

The SC52, IMO, has the best UI. From off, press > .6secs and you are in low, less than .6 secs and you are in high. Press and hold to go L-M-H or H-M-L (depending on where you started, H or L). Double press to switch through stage 1 and stage 2 at each level so essentially you have 6 different lumen levels. It will remember what stage you set for each level too. From on, press < .6secs to turn off.

The SC52 is shorter by 3/4" but the head is a bit larger. Weight for all practical purposes is close enough to be the same. SC52 has a clip but no real lanyard attachment. The E03 doesn't have a clip but does have lanyard attachment holes.

Of course the E03 is rear clicky and the SC52 side button.


----------



## blinkjr

Selfbuilt - thanks for confirming I'm not the only one that experiences the relearning process. I didn't specify in my post, but my Xeno is XM-L and I normally run it on a 14500. I carry it with me in my briefcase and will grab it for use as often as I do my SC600. Hence, my relearning dilemma.

ruf997tt - I really enjoy the ZL UI and side button. For me, it's much more useful in my day to day uses. I bought both the SC600 and the E03 at the same time, mainly because of their output and use of LiIon cells. Had the SC52 been around, I probably would have purchased it. And, I probably will buy one in the future. I'll give the E03 to my wife.

Both - I don't normally pocket carry either of these. But I will pocket the E03 ocasionally. I was some concerned the size of the SC52 head would make it very uncomforatable in the pocket.

Thanks!


----------



## ruf997tt

blinkjr said:


> Both - I don't normally pocket carry either of these. But I will pocket the E03 ocasionally. I was some concerned the size of the SC52 head would make it very uncomforatable in the pocket.
> 
> Thanks!



I don't pocket carry either since I got a Preon P1 from another member here. I do prefer to carry the E03 when walking the dogs (and picking up after them) simply because of the rear clicky. I find it a bit more convenient in the downward hold position. For almost everything else I prefer the side button hold position.

Another point in favor of the SC52 is the ease in finding the button in your hand. I have a couple of Nitecore EC25's, and while I really like them, I always have trouble locating the button by feel. Not so with the SC52. It just naturally falls into place, maybe because of the clip.


----------



## JJohn

I read through almost all the above posts but did not get a feel for what the tint was of the most recent SC52. Yes, I know it is called cool-white but there have been mixed reports of very cool/blue and very neutral white. What is the general consensus of the beam color? I am trying to decide whether I should wait for the neutral version. I don't like blue nor do I like too warm of tints.


----------



## daberti

JJohn said:


> I read through almost all the above posts but did not get a feel for what the tint was of the most recent SC52. Yes, I know it is called cool-white but there have been mixed reports of very cool/blue and very neutral white. What is the general consensus of the beam color? I am trying to decide whether I should wait for the neutral version. I don't like blue nor do I like too warm of tints.



Mine is about 5600-5700K, thus definitely not on the blue side. Noon direct sunlight is about 5350°K.


----------



## selfbuilt

JJohn said:


> I read through almost all the above posts but did not get a feel for what the tint was of the most recent SC52. Yes, I know it is called cool-white but there have been mixed reports of very cool/blue and very neutral white. What is the general consensus of the beam color? I am trying to decide whether I should wait for the neutral version. I don't like blue nor do I like too warm of tints.





daberti said:


> Mine is about 5600-5700K, thus definitely not on the blue side. Noon direct sunlight is about 5350°K.


Although I didn't discuss it in the review, I would peg mine as somewhere in the higher 5K range. While hard to be any more exact, mine is definitely on the warmer end of a typical cool white. But it will be hard for you to get a feel for what the overall average is out there - and it may still not be very predictive of what you will get.


----------



## JetskiMark

JJohn said:


> I read through almost all the above posts but did not get a feel for what the tint was of the most recent SC52. Yes, I know it is called cool-white but there have been mixed reports of very cool/blue and very neutral white. What is the general consensus of the beam color? I am trying to decide whether I should wait for the neutral version. I don't like blue nor do I like too warm of tints.



I was in the same position as you. I prefer neutral tints. I was going to wait for a neutral version of the SC52 and the S6330. I already had four warm and one cool ZL. (2x SC600w, 2x H600w & an old H60.) Instead of waiting for what might be a long time until their release, I bought an SC52 and an S6330. I'm glad that I did not wait. I do plan on purchasing neutral versions of the two and an SC600w MKII when available.

In actual use, I am happy with the tint of my SC52. It has become my new favorite dog walking light. For white wall hunting, mine seems a touch green compared to neutral or warm tints. Real world with a Li-ion, it rocks.


----------



## daberti

selfbuilt said:


> Although I didn't discuss it in the review, I would peg mine as somewhere in the higher 5K range. While hard to be any more exact, mine is definitely on the warmer end of a typical cool white. But it will be hard for you to get a feel for what the overall average is out there - and it may still not be very predictive of what you will get.



Definitely agree 
Although ZL approach is to use warmer XM-L Cool White tints that make me like their flashlights so much


----------



## markr6

I haven't been to this thread in awhile so I figured I would scan the last few pages. The comments above about the tint really want to make me try the cool white since the SC52w is not here yet. But I'll give ZL all of April to announce that since I basically banned myself from cool whites. After a few weeks though, I'll be too anxious to wait any longer.

I'm on a quest to find the best 1xAA and I'm 99% sure this is it before even having one. Although my H51w tint is a bit warm for my taste, it will have to do. I would like to see a Nichia 219 in here and accept the loss in lumens. Oh some day...


----------



## Sparrow Hawk

Is there parasitic drain issue on this model? I found this video that showing this model has 20times more than the old one.


----------



## treek13

selfbuilt said:


> *Standby Drain*
> 
> A standby current drain is inevitable on the SC52, due to the electronic switch in the head. Here is how the new SC52 compares to the earlier SC50 and SC51:
> 
> SC52: 129.1 uA on 14500, 20.2 uA on Eneloop NiMH
> SC51: 41.8 uA on 14500, 14.2 uA on Eneloop NiMH
> SC50: 7.4 uA on 14500, 2.3 uA on Eneloop NiMH
> 
> While there has been an upward trend in standby currents over time on the SC5x series, these values for the SC52 are still quite low in absolute terms. Assuming a standard 900mAh protected 14500, and a 2000mAh Eneloop NiMH, these currents would translate into 9.5 months on 14500, and 11.3 years on Eneloop.
> 
> Certainly, the drain is absolutely nothing to worry about on NiMH. The drain is higher 1x14500 (but still not unreasonable). But as always, I recommend you lock-out the light when not in use.


----------



## xevious

Is there a general consensus that the SC52 has a warmer looking neutral tint than most other lights featuring the same emitter? I'm also wondering how it compares to the SC52w.

Interesting point about getting used to the UI. It's hard to do when you switch between lights. I'm still having moments of forgetting the UI on the Nitecore EA4. When it's in standby mode, you half-press the switch to activate. If you do a full click, it goes directly to turbo mode. Blinding! It's not intuitive, so if you hand your light to someone not familiar with the UI, they'll always give it a full click rather than a half-press. Seems like the same would be true of the SC52, where they'd typically do a short press that would put the light on in high mode (although the good thing is that it's easy to explain that a longer press from off will turn it on at the low mode).

The SC52 UI does look very interesting and I like the two sets of brightness levels. It seems to be a workable compromise between your ordinary 3 mode light and a fully programmable or variable one. However, I wish there was some way to swap which modes are activated on the long press and short press from off (i.e. short press turns on low, long press turns on high).


----------



## selfbuilt

xevious said:


> Interesting point about getting used to the UI. It's hard to do when you switch between lights. I'm still having moments of forgetting the UI


I know what you mean - I've always found carrying a Zebralight as my EDC requires a bit of "re-training" of my motor memory.  It's ok when you do you get used to it, but switching back and forth to other lights tends to interfere (as least when it comes to activation timing for low vs hi).


----------



## xevious

selfbuilt said:


> I've always found carrying a Zebralight as my EDC requires a bit of "re-training" of my motor memory.  It's ok when you do you get used to it, but switching back and forth to other lights tends to interfere (as least when it comes to activation timing for low vs hi).


They say that as we get older, it's a good idea to challenge the brain whenever you can (within reason). Taking an alternate route from time to time. Doing crossword puzzles. Changing up your flashlight UI every few days. Supposedly it helps keep Alzheimer's at bay.


----------



## js82

I'm puzzled. Doesn't the 14500 have a slightly higher amount of energy per cell than the eneloop? Aren't boost converters more inefficient than buck converters? Yet the run time for the eneloop at the same brightness is longer than the 14500. Does that mean that their step up circuit is extremely good while their step down circuit is not so great?


----------



## Lurveleven

js82 said:


> I'm puzzled. Doesn't the 14500 have a slightly higher amount of energy per cell than the eneloop?




That depends on the quality of the 14500 cell, it needs to have an actual capacity of more than 650 mAh to have more energy than an Eneloop.


----------



## selfbuilt

js82 said:


> I'm puzzled. Doesn't the 14500 have a slightly higher amount of energy per cell than the eneloop? Aren't boost converters more inefficient than buck converters? Yet the run time for the eneloop at the same brightness is longer than the 14500. Does that mean that their step up circuit is extremely good while their step down circuit is not so great?





Lurveleven said:


> That depends on the quality of the 14500 cell, it needs to have an actual capacity of more than 650 mAh to have more energy than an Eneloop.


Yes, it depends a lot on how the manufactures measure their average mAh capacity spec (and how consistent individual cells are to that mean). In my case, I actually verify cell capacity consistency across batches when they arrive, and discard outliers (fortunately, that is relatively rare for both eneloops and AW cells, which both show good inter-batch consistency). But that is just for relative consistency, not absolute accuracy - note that AW RCR specs are the same as 14500, but the AW 14500s consistently show >20% more runtime at comparable currents.

Also important to keep in mind that the capacity measures themselves are specific to a certain drive current (and doesn't scale linearly across all drive currents for a given chemistry). I don't what the eneloop or AW specs are rated at, but even if they based on comparable currents (which I doubt), there would be no reason to assume the relationship would hold linearly across different chemistries (i.e., each chemistry is non-linear across currents, and therefore unlikely to be consistently related across chemistries).

That said, Zebralight has typically been focused on optimizing their circuitry for use in standard batteries. And you can see that generally in the results - compared to other lights on the same batteries, the 14500 results are good, but the eneloop results are outstanding.


----------



## js82

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, it depends a lot on how the manufactures measure their average mAh capacity spec (and how consistent individual cells are to that mean). In my case, I actually verify cell capacity consistency across batches when they arrive, and discard outliers (fortunately, that is relatively rare for both eneloops and AW cells, which both show good inter-batch consistency). But that is just for relative consistency, not absolute accuracy - note that AW RCR specs are the same as 14500, but the AW 14500s consistently show >20% more runtime at comparable currents.
> 
> Also important to keep in mind that the capacity measures themselves are specific to a certain drive current (and doesn't scale linearly across all drive currents for a given chemistry). I don't what the eneloop or AW specs are rated at, but even if they based on comparable currents (which I doubt), there would be no reason to assume the relationship would hold linearly across different chemistries (i.e., each chemistry is non-linear across currents, and therefore unlikely to be consistently related across chemistries).
> 
> That said, Zebralight has typically been focused on optimizing their circuitry for use in standard batteries. And you can see that generally in the results - compared to other lights on the same batteries, the 14500 results are good, but the eneloop results are outstanding.



Thanks for the detailed reply, selfbuilt.


----------



## markr6

I'm anxiously awaiting the SC52w. I purchased my first 14500 battery a few days ago even though I always said I would never do this. I wanted to keep all my AA lights running on Eneloops. But I coudn't resist the 500lumens just for the WOW factor - I gotta see this!


----------



## Mr Floppy

next month they say, and with the H502w too, which is going to hit the budget hard. Interestingly with the neutral XM-L2, there's no lumen loss, or they haven't updated they specs. Hope they send one to selfbuilt to test. 

Here are the specs from the spreadsheet
LED: Cree XM-L2 
CRI: 75 
CCT: 4400
Modes: 11 
Max output 280 lumen for 0.9 hour 
Low output 0.01 lumen for 3 mo
Release date: 5/2013


----------



## markr6

Mr Floppy said:


> Interestingly with the neutral XM-L2, there's no lumen loss, or they haven't updated they specs.



Yeah I was wondering if that was a typo or they just copied the data from the SC52. But it's an XM-L2, so maybe it is correct for the SC52w and they will update the SC52 with an XM-L2 as well. Too bad, the XM-L's just shipped not too long ago. But that's how it goes!


----------



## tickled

If they made the SC52 with XM-L2 3C emitter I would buy one instantly.


lampeDépêche said:


> reppans, you are very hard to please. But would you at least agree that, of all the flashlights in the 2AA class, the SC52 is the shortest? Of all the flashlights in the 2AA class, the SC52 uses the fewest AA cells? Seriously--I don't have any stake in praising ZL or in defaming them. I have been a loyal Quark buyer--bought several dozen of them--and even 4Sevens I don't feel any need to puff up or run down. It's just a company. But you seem to feel some deep need to persuade all of us that ZL is cheating, even if it requires you to shift the goal-posts by changing the comparison-class, or by inventing a new comparison-class ("3v categories") that I have never heard of. I don't want to get into any argument with you, but I do want to let you know, as a neutral observer: the credibility that you are damaging is not ZL's credibility, or Selfbilt's credibility. It is your own.


 Every forum needs a few eccentric posters with idiosyncracies... I laughed at the completely arbitrary made up "3 volt category" and how this guy shifted to that after being proven wrong on earlier points.


----------



## kaichu dento

lampeDépêche said:


> reppans, you are very hard to please.
> 
> But would you at least agree that, of all the flashlights in the 2AA class, the SC52 is the shortest?
> 
> Of all the flashlights in the 2AA class, the SC52 uses the fewest AA cells?
> 
> Seriously--I don't have any stake in praising ZL or in defaming them. I have been a loyal Quark buyer--bought several dozen of them--and even 4Sevens I don't feel any need to puff up or run down. It's just a company.
> 
> But you seem to feel some deep need to persuade all of us that ZL is cheating, even if it requires you to shift the goal-posts by changing the comparison-class, or by inventing a new comparison-class ("3v categories") that I have never heard of.
> 
> I don't want to get into any argument with you, but I do want to let you know, as a neutral observer:
> 
> the credibility that you are damaging is not ZL's credibility, or Selfbuilt's credibility. It is your own.


Just skimmed this thread all the way through for the first time and can't agree more. 

Posters like this who are constantly trying their best to play devil's advocate, but are actually accomplishing nothing more than wasting space in otherwise valuable threads when they should start ones of their own based on the subject that they wish to run into the ground.

The more this goes on, the more likely it is that generous posters like Selfbuilt are going to tire of it and quit altogether.


----------



## selfbuilt

kaichu dento said:


> The more this goes on, the more likely it is that generous posters like Selfbuilt are going to tire of it and quit altogether.


I appreciate the concern, but there's certainly nothing in this thread that would be is an issue for me. I think everything here was addressed quite amicably. Of course, I would like it to remain a part of the historical record and not get back into it - good to just move ahead.  

That said, I hope everyone feels comfortable bringing up any potential issues in any of my review threads (as long as they are respectful of others, and fact-based in their commentary).


----------



## CrazyIvan2011

I would just like to say even though there is nothing that would be an issue for you in this thread (to quit your reviews etc as a consequence), I would like to convey my gratitude to you for all the hard work you must put into these reviews in the first place! :bow:

If it was not for people like your self and others making these reviews, taking the time and effort to test these lights to the best of your ability and giving your opinions, people like myself would have nothing to go by. I would guess I am like others here, when looking for a new light I do a lot of research first...and with out real reviews, I would be lost. Plus I enjoy just reading all the extra information, comparisons and videos. :thumbsup:

It was your reviews that made me a 'flashaholic', and although a mixed blessing as that maybe (to my wallet) I enjoy it, so wouldn't want to change it! It does not matter to me that the review may not be 100% accurate in ever single point etc...but the fact you make a review in the first place gives a starting point for people and opens up debate for others to share their experiences and opinions...as everyone will have unique situations as to why they want, what they want and intend to use their flashlights for. 

So I am glade you encourage people to bring up issues etc with your reviews, I suppose with out feedback and (creative) criticism, you would have no basis for improvement. I just hope people do not 'moan' for the sake of moaning, about the finer details, and remember that it is a review to help give an un bios opinion and open up discussions on new lights, where it builds from your review, to include users feedback, real world use and potential issues etc.

By the way I just bought the SC52 last week after following this thread...and I love it. I think your review was very true to reality, and other peoples opinions on here swayed me to get one.


----------



## noboneshotdog

Well Gentlemen, looks like the neutral is out for pre order. The waiting is almost over!


----------



## KITROBASKIN

Where did you hear this?


----------



## JetskiMark

KITROBASKIN said:


> Where did you hear this?



It is now on Zebralight's website.


----------



## markr6

YEAH! Lot's of pre-order discussion on the SC52 & SC52w thread. Myself included! Can't wait!


----------



## SwordEdge

Hi cpfers!

just wanted to share a detail about the sc52 you'll probably come across if you own one

I noticed the turbo mode on the sc52 (500 lumen, 1 min) is quite demanding on the li-ion cell, easily 2c if not more. If you have cells like mine, which are tired even when fully recharged, you will have a voltage drop below 3.1v during the turbo (or if your cell is partially discharged too). So you will experiment a shorter turbo, with step down to medium instead of the usual 280 lumen H1. Didn't quite understand it first, but with the voltmeter now I do, kinda make sense. Guess it's time to buy new 14500's.

cheers.. : )


----------



## Colonel Sanders

SwordEdge said:


> Hi cpfers!
> 
> just wanted to share a detail about the sc52 you'll probably come across if you own one
> 
> I noticed the turbo mode on the sc52 (500 lumen, 1 min) is quite demanding on the li-ion cell, easily 2c if not more. If you have cells like mine, which are tired even when fully recharged, you will have a voltage drop below 3.1v during the turbo (or if your cell is partially discharged too). So you will experiment a shorter turbo, with step down to medium instead of the usual 280 lumen H1. Didn't quite understand it first, but with the voltmeter now I do, kinda make sense. Guess it's time to buy new 14500's.
> 
> cheers.. : )



If the 500L mode is something you plan to use a lot, perhaps an IMR cell would be a good choice. 

I wonder what the current is at that level? I agree, it's gotta be pushing a 14500 pretty hard. Who's checked the current on this light?


----------



## JetskiMark

I just checked mine with a mid-range meter. It drew 1.75 amps in turbo. The voltage of the cell was 3.98 volts before the test.


----------



## Colonel Sanders

Thanks, Mark. You know you want to check it again at 4.2v.  My guess is it'll show a lower current at 4.2v. I'll go with 1.65a. That would be about 2c for the highest capacity 14500s.


----------



## mactavish

RobCob said:


> Great review! Love my SC51 (don't understand why more people don't own Zebralights) and will seriously consider upgrading to the SC52 as soon as they put the XM-L2 in it.



As most of you may know, the XM-L2 is available. Just ordered one, not sure why the specs for the Neutral White LED are the same as for the cool one, usually the warmer LED's are slightly less lumens spec wise?


----------



## selfbuilt

mactavish said:


> As most of you may know, the XM-L2 is available. Just ordered one, not sure why the specs for the Neutral White LED are the same as for the cool one, usually the warmer LED's are slightly less lumens spec wise?


Typically yes, but that's highly variable. For example, when the XM-L2s first came out, T6 neutral whites were common (along with T6 and U2 cool whites). I've seen reports of neutral white U2 bins more recently ... so it is possible that common specs could be accurate for both. I have no specific knowledge in this case, however.


----------



## mactavish

selfbuilt said:


> Typically yes, but that's highly variable. For example, when the XM-L2s first came out, T6 neutral whites were common (along with T6 and U2 cool whites). I've seen reports of neutral white U2 bins more recently ... so it is possible that common specs could be accurate for both. I have no specific knowledge in this case, however.



thanks "selfbuilt", always nice hearing from a review master! I took delivery of both the Zebralight SC52w & the Eagletac D25A XM-L2 U2 "cool bulb" the same day have not had time to do any simple light meter tests. But with both lights in their short run time highest output settings (direct drive?), visually by eye, the new LED's seem to be close in output, just different in color temperature. Very nice indeed.


----------



## icharry

Great review. I bought it because I gave my Mom my Four7's Quark which was my 1st purchase and I really liked it. Then I wanted more so I got the hybrid power Nitecore MH1A which I ended up HATING. Turning the head to change light levels basically just unscrewed the head 80% of the time. The cover for the USB was also poorly designed. Moonlight was too bright. So based on this review I got the Zebralight SC52 - GREAT LIGHT. I LOVE IT. Small, bright, easy to use. Probably the perfect light for me. THANKS Mr. Selfbuilt.


----------



## T0rch

Thank Selfbuilt. Really been enjoying your reviews, and this review convinced me to order up a SC52. Had mine for about a week now and am loving it. Compact, bright, and I really like Zebralight's interface. Definitely will be trying out more of their products, looking forward to see what you think of the SC600w Mk II.


----------



## selfbuilt

T0rch said:


> Definitely will be trying out more of their products, looking forward to see what you think of the SC600w Mk II.


Yes, I am planning to review the SC600-II, with the new XM-L2 (standard cool white version though). A couple of other reviews to get finished first, though.

And :welcome:


----------



## aberson

*sc52 with Alkalines - bad idea?*

Hi folks
Great thread here, thanks selfbuilt for all the data! I've been lusting after the sc52w for a little while now. I have LSD NIMH, but I occasionally need to rely on alkalines for stretches of time and don't want to make a mistake in upgrading.

*Is there anyone who routinely runs the sc52 on alkalines? Any qualitative real world feedback?*


After reading things and crunching the numbers, I realize that the sc52's performance on alkalines is quite crummy, especially in H1 and H2A. A severe drop in brightness after 10 minutes is not very usable, though it's understandable due to the very high current drawn from that single AA. (This issue is less severe on my Quark AA-2 XP-G R5 where currents are lower)

In reality, I probably would spend most time in H2B and lower brightnesses, where the currents are much more within the capabilities of alkalines. So perhaps this issue wouldn't affect me very much, but I'd benefit from the option of those higher levels for short bursts when I might need them. In any case, I'd be curious to hear from people who've played with this in real life.

Thanks!
Adam

Adam please do not change the thread title - Norm


----------



## selfbuilt

aberson said:


> After reading things and crunching the numbers, I realize that the sc52's performance on alkalines is quite crummy, especially in H1 and H2A. A severe drop in brightness after 10 minutes is not very usable, though it's understandable due to the very high current drawn from that single AA. (This issue is less severe on my Quark AA-2 XP-G R5 where currents are lower)


Not sure how many response you are going to get (other than the general recommendation not use alkalines).  Given the quality and price, I doubt many here are running their SC52s on alkaline cells.

But as my runtimes show, it is an outstanding performer on what I refer to as H2B. I am confident it would likely do quite well at the lower levels as well. As long as you plan to skip the higher two levels (for anything other than momentary use), I think it would be a very good choice for alkaline.

And :welcome:


----------



## aberson

> Adam please do not change the thread title - Norm



Oh crap - sorry Norm! I thought I was just setting a subject for *my* post (some forums have that). Thanks for fixing 

Thanks for the confirmation of my analysis, selfbuilt. Maybe it will be an sc52w birthday for me.


----------



## KITROBASKIN

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, I am planning to review the SC600-II, with the new XM-L2 (standard cool white version though). A couple of other reviews to get finished first, though.



Perhaps you will be reviewing the SC62 in the future? That and the SC600w-L2 are the choices I'll be looking at. The SC52 has its place no doubt, just want to get away from the green and have more runtime.


----------



## Dr.444

Thanks Bro for another Awesome Review ....  So ... is the Flicker Issue on 14500 fixed yet ? also, XM-L2 Cool White version anytime soon ?


----------



## selfbuilt

Dr.444 said:


> Thanks Bro for another Awesome Review ....  So ... is the Flicker Issue on 14500 fixed yet ? also, XM-L2 Cool White version anytime soon ?


It's been a long time since this review, and I haven't heard of any issues since the original launch. You should be go on that front ... don't know about XM-L2 update, but I presume one would be coming at some point. You would need to check with ZL.


----------



## lightliker

Hi Selfbuilt, nice review as usual :thumbsup:I am almost pulling the plug on ordering a SC52 cool or neutral white but are hesitating because of some people are complaining about the greenish tint. I have two Olights (S10 and 20) wich have both a very greenish tint, especially on lower modes . I wouldn't like to have a third greenish light so my questions are: A) did you notice a greenish tint (at all) when testing these small giant? and B) what version would have the lowest risk of having a greenish tint: the neutral or cool white one? Looking at the color spectrum I would take my chances with a cool white.


----------



## selfbuilt

lightliker said:


> I wouldn't like to have a third greenish light so my questions are: A) did you notice a greenish tint (at all) when testing these small giant? and B) what version would have the lowest risk of having a greenish tint: the neutral or cool white one? Looking at the color spectrum I would take my chances with a cool white.


There's no way to predict with tint. As with everything, you take your chances. :shrug:


----------



## lightliker

selfbuilt said:


> There's no way to predict with tint. As with everything, you take your chances. :shrug:


Well, I like this little guy so much that I will order one and take my chances, especially because this is a ligt that I really can use as a EDC light where the Olight I take with me every day is just a tad too chunky in my jeans, however: my wife somtimes thinks that I am really happy to see her (until she notices the tiny reflector popping out my pocket) .Can you tell me something about the color of the cool white versus the neutral white?Did i red that the cool white LED, compared to the other cool white flashlights, is more neutral than cool? I am hesitating ordering the neutral one because of the newer LED but don't like orange colours neither... .


----------



## markr6

lightliker said:


> Well, I like this little guy so much that I will order one and take my chances, especially because this is a ligt that I really can use as a EDC light where the Olight I take with me every day is just a tad too chunky in my jeans, however: my wife somtimes thinks that I am really happy to see her (until she notices the tiny reflector popping out my pocket) .Can you tell me something about the color of the cool white versus the neutral white?Did i red that the cool white LED, compared to the other cool white flashlights, is more neutral than cool? I am hesitating ordering the neutral one because of the newer LED but don't like orange colours neither... .



Unfortunatley it's just impossible to tell until you personally try both. I've seen people here throw around "pure creamy white" or "smooth milky white" when referring to some cool whites - and I know that's BS. They're either new to LEDS and don't know any better, or never played around with trying other tints. Not to say I've had all good luck with my neutral white tints either, to be fair. It's enough to drive you crazy!!

Buy both directly from ZL. Return whichever one you don't like and they'll refund your money pretty quick.


----------



## dc38

markr6 said:


> Unfortunatley it's just impossible to tell until you personally try both. I've seen people here throw around "pure creamy white" or "smooth milky white" when referring to some cool whites - and I know that's BS. They're either new to LEDS and don't know any better, or never played around with trying other tints. Not to say I've had all good luck with my neutral white tints either, to be fair. It's enough to drive you crazy!!
> 
> Buy both directly from ZL. Return whichever one you don't like and they'll refund your money pretty quick.



If its anything like the xeno e03 NW, it shouldn't be too bad. Swm cool white isn't so bad either.


----------



## selfbuilt

markr6 said:


> Unfortunatley it's just impossible to tell until you personally try both.


What markr6 said - that's pretty much my experience as well. 

Anything else is like trying to describe the various consistencies of quicksand ... you really need to see what tint you prefer.


----------



## cyclesport

Been reading the last few posts re: lightliker's request for tint feedback of the SC52/SC52w. There's one other aspect to all this I'll throw out and that is as someone who just bought the new ZL H52w using what I thought was going to be the same version, more or less, of the 4400k tint XM-L2 emitter that is a yellowish/green in my SC52w (like many have reported) only to get one of the most beautiful (Nichia 219 like) truly neutral, (w/a slight rose tint) LED's I've ever seen! *(Some other new H52w owners have reported this also). I am hoping that ZL has got a new bin of these XM-L2 emitters and...either are, or will be, using them in the newest production SC52w's? Queries to both ZL and Ill. Supply asking about this LED have thus far gone unanswered. Soooo...maybe there's hope for a new neutral tinted SC52w in something other than shades of yellow or green?


----------



## markr6

cyclesport said:


> only to get one of the most beautiful (Nichia 219 like) truly neutral, (w/a slight rose tint) LED's I've ever seen!



JACKPOT!! I hope my H52w and SC600w II have this tint when they arrive!! If they do, I'm ordering another SC52w in hopes of having a nice matching group. Wishful thinking...


----------



## ghuns

aberson said:


> *sc52 with Alkalines - bad idea?*
> 
> *Is there anyone who routinely runs the sc52 on alkalines? Any qualitative real world feedback?*



I realize I am late to the party, but I have been running my sc52w on the same Energizer alkaline since Christmas when Santa brought it. I use it daily, in short bursts on high mostly. If I need it for more than a few seconds, I switch it to the lower medium setting. I noticed this weekend that I only seem to have one high setting, which I took as an indication that the battery is about shot. I will continue to use alkalines as my employer has a bottomless pit of them that they pass out like candy. I would like to pick up a 14500 one of these days, just for showing off.

Thanks selfbuilt for this review. It was what made me decide to ask Santa to bring me one, via Amazon wishlist. I has been in pocket ever since and I couldn't be happier with it.


----------



## selfbuilt

ghuns said:


> I realize I am late to the party, but I have been running my sc52w on the same Energizer alkaline since Christmas when Santa brought it.


Thanks for sharing, and :welcome:

One thing to keep in mind - the free alkalines at work might seem like a bargain now. But if one of them were to leak one day and damage the light, it's not going to seem like such a fair trade. I personally don't like taking the risk, especially as duraloops/eneloops can be had pretty cheaply around here during periodic sales.


----------



## leonpower

Hello From Greece !
I have the cw version for about a year,and be very happy with him.

And recently *my sc52 past the ultimate* (?) test from my...Mother ! :twothumbs

*45+ minutes inside the washmachine at 60+ Celcius* (I had it attached to my jean and my mother decided to wash my jean without checking it first )

Result: everything works perfect


----------



## grant_lee

Hi there,
I've had this light since about time this review was out (it clearly helped me chose this compact light). 
My gf messed with it this afternoon, and now the light makes a short flash every 17 seconds.
I checked the manual and read about strobe mode (3 short clicks) and battery indicator (4 short clicks) but these doesn't seem to apply.
Removing the battery and putting it back doesn't change the behaviour. I'm puzzled and lost here. Any clue ?


----------



## lightmyfire13

grant_lee said:


> Hi there,
> I've had this light since about time this review was out (it clearly helped me chose this compact light).
> My gf messed with it this afternoon, and now the light makes a short flash every 17 seconds.
> I checked the manual and read about strobe mode (3 short clicks) and battery indicator (4 short clicks) but these doesn't seem to apply.
> Removing the battery and putting it back doesn't change the behaviour. I'm puzzled and lost here. Any clue ?


It's a low voltage warning .when non li-ion eg alkaline or eneloop battery gets below 1.04v ..im sending my sc52fl2 for repair


----------



## search_and_rescue

Hi Selfbuilt, thank you so much for your Zebralight reviews. I bought a Zebralight SC52Fw L2 from Andrew and Amanda. It is a very high-quality, warm-neutral flood beam. The lowest firefly mode is very useful.

I was inspired by La Taupe, from the Paris catacombs movie. Thanks again.


----------



## override666666

Thanks sb! Bought this tiny monster because of your review


----------



## lumenate

I'm curious about the recovery time to access the 500 lumen mode. Once this light steps-down from 500 lumen mode with 14500's, how long must one wait before it is available again? Is this recover time programmed into the light, or is it heat or voltage dependent?


----------



## selfbuilt

lumenate said:


> I'm curious about the recovery time to access the 500 lumen mode. Once this light steps-down from 500 lumen mode with 14500's, how long must one wait before it is available again? Is this recover time programmed into the light, or is it heat or voltage dependent?


Things may have changed since this review was posted, but my sample allows you to re-start immediately in max right after step-down occurs. It is simply a timed step-down, not thermal (as on the larger 18650-class ZLs).


----------



## gkbain

I have the SC52 L2 CW. Very nice pocket light. Just pre ordered the new SC5 NW. It suppose to start shipping about April 30. 500 lm on an eneloope. I don't know how they get that much light out of a AA cell. Well, it is Zebralight. They are magic after all.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight

gkbain said:


> I have the SC52 L2 CW. Very nice pocket light. Just pre ordered the new SC5 NW. It suppose to start shipping about April 30. 500 lm on an eneloope. I don't know how they get that much light out of a AA cell. Well, it is Zebralight. They are magic after all.



I'm looking forward to selfbuilt's review of the SC5, in comparison to the SC52.


----------



## mactavish

I bought a new SC52W L2, new in 2013, has seen little use, but I like it. 

PROBLEM: Can't seem to access "Strobe/Beacon" mode. I have tried the 3 short Clicks, many times now, slow, fast button clicks, etc. but it ends up on a low output mode, never strobe. Am I doing something wrong? I can program a strobe into one of the secondary custom settings (but do not want to), SO according to the manual:



Beacon-strobe mode can be accessed from 3 short-clicks when the light is Off. Once in the beacon-strobe mode, you can double-click to cycle through different types of beacons and strobes. Beacon-strobe settings are memorized when the light is turned off and through battery changes.


----------



## treek13

It would appear you have a SC52W (which was released in 2013) not a SC52W L2 (released in 2014). 

The SC52W already came with a XM-L2 (like the L2 models & unlike the SC52) so I believe the way to access strobe is the only difference. Strobe is a sub-level of high as you have stated & there is no 3 short click access to it with your model.


----------



## mactavish

treek13 said:


> It would appear you have a SC52W (which was released in 2013) not a SC52W L2 (released in 2014).
> 
> The SC52W already came with a XM-L2 (like the L2 models & unlike the SC52) so I believe the way to access strobe is the only difference. Strobe is a sub-level of high as you have stated & there is no 3 short click access to it with your model.



Indeed, got it toward the end of 2013, printed on light "SC52W", found the original manual and I had made a little note on it saying "XM-L2", didn't know they made some kind of upgrade in 2014. And you are correct, in my original manual NO mention of the three clicks for strobe, unlike the PDF manual I downloaded from the Zebralight website, hence my confusion. I don't use strobe, so it's no big deal, but I was curious, so THANKS for your knowledge!


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight

mactavish said:


> Indeed, got it toward the end of 2013, printed on light "SC52W", found the original manual and I had made a little note on it saying "XM-L2", didn't know they made some kind of upgrade in 2014. And you are correct, in my original manual NO mention of the three clicks for strobe, unlike the PDF manual I downloaded from the Zebralight website, hence my confusion. I don't use strobe, so it's no big deal, but I was curious, so THANKS for your knowledge!



I think the changes to the L2 were the stobe, and also the electronics are now potted. Unless then SC52/52w electronics were already potted. Anyone know for sure?

I'm not a fan of strobes, so I actually prefer the old UI.


----------



## scs

Selfbuilt, I attempted to measure the standby drain of my H52Fw on an Eneloop and got alternating results of 2.6 micro amps and 1.9 mA.
I've figured out when my DMM generates each figure. When I select the micro amp range and test the light the DMM registers 1.9 mA.
If I then turn the dial to select the mA range, test the light (at which point a reading flashes but then quickly returns to zero) and then select the micro amp range again, the DMM now registers 2.6 micro amps.
On the contrary, if after I switch the dial from the micro amp range to the mA range and I DON'T test the light, then when I select the micro amp range again, the DMM still registers 1.9mA.
What might be going on in between the DMM and the light that's causing this behavior?
Much thanks.


----------



## selfbuilt

scs said:


> What might be going on in between the DMM and the light that's causing this behavior?
> Much thanks.


That\s hard to say - I'd have to leave that to the experts with more expertise with how DMM's operate. Maybe someone in the electronics subforum here could explain the behavior? You may want to post the question there.


----------



## aberson

scs said:


> When I select the micro amp range and test the light the DMM registers 1.9 mA.
> If I then turn the dial to select the mA range, test the light (at which point a reading flashes but then quickly returns to zero) and then select the micro amp range again, the DMM now registers 2.6 micro amps.
> On the contrary, if after I switch the dial from the micro amp range to the mA range and I DON'T test the light, then when I select the micro amp range again, the DMM still registers 1.9mA.



Long shot, but perhaps switching between uA and mA is doing something similar to a button press, causing your light to toggle into the lowest moonlight mode where you can't even tell it's on, explaining the 2.6mA.

To test, you could short across the DMM with a piece of wire while switching ranges. This would ensure that the flashlight sensed the battery being fully connected the entire time.

Or you could try doing this in the dark where you could see the moonlight mode.


----------



## scs

aberson said:


> Long shot, but perhaps switching between uA and mA is doing something similar to a button press, causing your light to toggle into the lowest moonlight mode where you can't even tell it's on, explaining the 2.6mA.
> 
> To test, you could short across the DMM with a piece of wire while switching ranges. This would ensure that the flashlight sensed the battery being fully connected the entire time.
> 
> Or you could try doing this in the dark where you could see the moonlight mode.



Sorry I wasn't clear. I removed the leads each time before I switched the dial on the DMM.
The 2.6 reading was in micro amps, so it's much too low even for the lowest mode.
That 1.9 mA reading on the other hand might potentially be the current for the lowest mode, the one that's supposed to run for 3 months. The rough math works out. I haven't thought of that and testing it in the dark. Thanks for the suggestion. I will try it.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight

scs said:


> That 1.9 mA reading on the other hand might potentially be the current for the lowest mode, the one that's supposed to run for 3 months. The rough math works out.



My SC52w-L2 moonlight modes measure (from highest to lowest): 5.2mA, 2.4mA, 2.0mA. Standby is 20uA.

So, yes, it looks like that one mode you're measuring is a dim moonlight mode, probably L2C.


----------



## scs

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> My SC52w-L2 moonlight modes measure (from highest to lowest): 5.2mA, 2.4mA, 2.0mA. Standby is 20uA.
> 
> So, yes, it looks like that one mode you're measuring is a dim moonlight mode, probably L2C.



I've tried it. The light doesn't turn on during measurement.
I'm guessing the design of the DMM might be causing the initial 1.9 mA measurement. Perhaps it lowers resistance to better detect a low current when dialed into the micro amp range from the beginning. Switching to mA and then taking a measurement recalibrates it?


----------



## recDNA

Did you ever review or measure output of sc32 or sc32w?


----------



## selfbuilt

recDNA said:


> Did you ever review or measure output of sc32 or sc32w?


No, just the 1xAA and 1x18650 lights.


----------



## phosphor22

Just wanted to add how much I love the SC52w - when I get up at night having everything on one button is great -- easy moving between modes, - no switching between tail clicky and a side button, for instance, and not loud either when changing modes. My only complaint is the screws that hold the clip were really torqued enough to be distorted and are rough enough to cut the hand -- and it is right where you grip. I'll get a file out today to smooth those down. Wish more AA lights had this basic UI.

UPdate 9/28 - Zebralight and retailer I purchased from sent replacement screws out very quickly-


----------



## zhou

Hello, i got this light not a long time ago. Is there any reasonable way to attach a lanyard to it?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight

zhou said:


> Hello, i got this light not a long time ago. Is there any reasonable way to attach a lanyard to it?



Just tie it or hook it over one of the prongs on the clip. (Between the outer edge, and the inner space.) No way you could pull the lanyard off there, unless you rip the screws right out of the flashlight!

For a larger hook that won't fit in the clip hole, put it over the entire clip. Very unlikely to be pulled out, since the clips are so tight.


----------



## zhou

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Between the outer edge, and the inner space.


thought about too, i must change pocket clip for purpose, thanks confirmed idea


----------



## kreisl

selfbuilt said:


> Built-in over-discharging protection for 14500 batteries (2.8V cutoff)



This feature/ad/claim/spec does need some explanation. My current SC52 unit is the SC52w L2 from II/2014 and i've tested this feature repeatedly, over and over again. In order to imitate RL battery behavior at low levels, the testing is imho best done with a low battery than with a voltage source. At very low battery levels, say ~2.9V under load, the flashlight does not really let you operate the light at the higher modes (M1, M2, H1, H2) anymore but will almost(!) immediately automatically step down to Low (L1, L2). At that point one can tell that the circuitry is still in regulation. And yes there is some kind of internal threshold, ~*2.831V* (voltage under load), at which the light (=L1, L2, M1, M2, H1, H2) would shut off for the first time.

So far so good.

However that's also around the point where the circuitry drops out of Liion regulation, meaning that the SC52 will still emit light if you somehow "force" or manage to operate the light beyond that point, e.g. by re-switching the light on, playing with the modes. This way you'd bypass the 2.8V threshold and *enter an unregulated Low* ('direct drive' or 'Nimh regulation'?) which would drain the 14500 down to 0.6V in a continuously dimming light.

I am not saying that it is easy (for other testers) to reproduce the entering of the unregulated Low but it is possible to do so and it happened several times during my repeated testings, which is why i got the impression that the light didn't have any "2.8V cutoff".

In short, the SC52 light does have 2.8V liion cutoff but one should not rely on it.


----------



## Swedpat

A few days ago I received SC52w together with H52w. I have considered these lights pretty long time but actually got SC5w before them. This seems to go the opposite way I guess, to buy the predecessor after the successor. But at first I was in two minds whether I would choose SC52 or SC5. SC5 provides a bit better grip, but can not be used with 14500.
Because of my satisfaction of SC5 I asked myself: will another Zebralight 1AA be too much? My answer was a clear NO.
H52w is a great compact headlamp, and so are SC52w and SC5 really great pocket lights! The only thing I need to be careful about is to not place a 14500 in SC5, but that will not be a problem. 
Whatever version I think there are no finer 1AA lights than Zebralight. I am really satisfied with all of them!

My Zebralight 1AA collection. From left: H501r, H501w, H52w, SC52w, SC5w






*By the way:* when I now again try the very nice H501w I realise that compared to newer models it's pretty bad brightness. I read that mid mode is 15lm and high is 80lm. The only mode which is adequate for more than very close distance use is the high mode. And every time I put it on I want at least the high mode. This makes me longing for the new H502w L2. Several more brightness levels and maximum is 260lm. I will get much better runtime with same brightness level. Having that said: H501w surely will still be in my collection.


----------



## kreisl

4 years later since OP the light is still in production as it seems. i couldn't find any S1A runtime graphs including the SC52 in comparison so i visually compared the output of S1A SS (xm-l2 cw) vs. SC52w (xm-l2 nw) by means of varying ceiling bounce/wall bounce/double wall bounce methods using my cell phone app as quantifier.

maybe during the very first minute after activation on a fully charged Eneloop the zebralight was brighter but after that the olight took over, yeah! The longer the run on the max mode was, the clearer it became that the S1A was the brighter light. even though comparison was being complicated by the gross difference in tint and beam profile/pattern, like comparing apples and oranges, to me and my app it was clear enough that the olight was the brighter light from very early on cha.

i leave it to professional reviewers to graph the S1A SS performance in the same chart as SC52 L2 (or SC52w L2) for a direct comparison on paper. in any case i am herewith asserting that the S1A beats the SC52 L2 with regard to performance, i.e. runtime and efficiency. and i shouldn't care if the assertion is true or wrong, i own both lights so it doesn't matter which the better light is. it's always better to own them all, then i can stop caring about comparisons and move on.

Other notable AA/14500 lights with kickbutt brightness and efficiencies are:
- Manker T01 xp-l hi pocket thrower
- Klarus Mi7 xp-l hi, Manker E11 xp-l pseudo edc
- Zebralight SC5 xm-l2
- Olight S1A xm-l2
- Eagtac D25A Clicky Ti xp-g2, xm-l2, xp-l hi, nichia, a. o.

except for the Smini and S1, i am not fond of the Baton series esthetic design but i respect that it has been a huge and very lucky success for the company. it must have hit the nerve when the very first baton light came out, afaik in 2011, over 5 years ago. the S1A SS lacks a lockout method, mechanical nor electrical lockout is possible, and the light is too heavy anyway for pocket carry but i like owning it, it feels/looks special the thunder gray stainless steel, the extraordinary weight (103g incl. 1 Eneloop AA), the non-greenish CW tint is super likable, and with this post, the efficiency appears top of the game, too. there are several S1A reviews on the WWW/youtube but none of them in professional-like quality with runtime graph comparisons. 

from what i can tell, the S1A SS is an extraordinary performer. One reason more to keep the light. Lovely stuff!!


----------



## moldyoldy

+1 wrt the Zebralight SC52 vs the S1A.

My usage in the US or Germany has evolved to shelving the SC52 and carrying the S1A. I pack the 1-cell XTAR charger ANT MC1 Plus for compact travel. 

Besides which the SC52 with a Zebralight 14500 demonstrates a severe voltage & output drop in sub-freezing weather. to the point that the SC52 with a Zebralight 14500 (light green color), will actually trip off the protection in 5 deg F weather if the SC52 is on H1. I am very unappreciative of any light/cell combo that trips off with no warning when the cell still had a reasonable charge level at room temp (15-20C). I expect a warning of low battery, at least via reduced output if not some blinky LED.

There is no trip-off with the XTAR 14500 or the Keeppower 14500 cells, both of which continue to function as expected, including on H1. noting also that the Keepower 14500 is really too long for the SC52. The XTAR 14500 fits the SC52 fine, just as correctly as the Zebralight 14500.


----------



## kreisl

Originally the SC52 doesn't have reverse polarity protection, neither electrical, electronic, physical, nor mechanical. Today i added mechanical reverse polarity protection by way of a plastic spacer. Very simple mod, highly recommended. I've documented it in the SC52 owner's thread, hope this helps, cheers!


----------

