# Fenix L2D-CE Comparison Review



## UnknownVT (Feb 8, 2007)

Again through the kind courtsey of 4sevens (http://Fenix-Store.com) the other much anticipated light - the Fenix L2D CE -

The head is the same as the Fenix L1D-CE - just on a 2x AA body -

Size -





I deliberately changed my normal layout and lined up the tails of the flashlights - one can see that the new L2D-CE is longer than the L2T because of the longer/bigger head. Also if one looks carefully the diameter of the L2D-CE head is wider.......

This photo should show it better -





Head -





L2D-CE Turbo vs. Fenix L2T High - both on Alkalines







the Cree XR-E in the L2D-CE clearly is brighter than the previous generation Luxeon III

L2D-CE Low vs. Fenix L2T Low - both on Alkalines







comparable.... so the L2D-CE has a usable Low level - 
However I remember lots of people used to complain that the low of the L2T/L1T wasn't low enough.... 
(can't please everyone.... even if this level on the L2D-CE, rated at 9 lumens, is supposed to have a runtime of 55 hours!!!(but battery type not stated - 2500mAh NiMH? vs. the 22 hours of the L2T)

L2D-CE Turbo alkaline vs. P1D primary CR123A High







not surprisingly similar to the L2T High comparison.... 
The P1D would be a fabulous light by any account until the arrival of these Cree versions.......

vs. P1D both on primary cells - Low







again the Low levels are similar - but the L2D-CE is rated at 55 hours on 2x AA vs. 21 hours of the P1D on primary CR123A

Not fair, those were older gen Luxeon III lights - how about other Cree based lights?

One of the current brightest lights Fenix P1D-CE -

alkaline Turbo vs. Fenix P1D-CE primary CR123A High







perhaps not surprising - since both are on 3V - 
BUT the P1D-CE has the advantage of Lithium technology which is capable of delivering sustained higher currents - alkalines are well known to droop. 
So this is actually quite an impressive performance from mere 2x alkaline AA's.....

vs. Fenix P1D-CE both on primary Low







L2D-CE has a noticably lower low.....and is rated to run for 55 hours vs. 21 hours of the P1D-CE (which is brighter)

Of course the main advatage of the P1D-CE is its much smaller size - use of Lithium battery - 
but the L2D-CE runs on common AA's - has a much easier UI (user interface) due to the (reverse) clicky switch - and can use the 1x AA L1D body when they become available with a slight decrease in brightness performance and about 1/2 the runtimes please see - Fenix L1D-CE Comparison Review.

For grins I wanted to see how the Cree XR-E in Fenix L1/2T (link) performed against the L2D-CE - since I originally speculated the Cree Mod in L1T/L2T was kind of like a preview for the L1D-CE and L2D-CE........ so was I right?

Turbo vs. Cree XR-E in Fenix L1/2T High - both on alkaline







similar perhaps the Cree Mod L2T may have a slightly more diffused beam since it is using a McR18 stippled reflector........
(so maybe I was right?



)

Low vs. Cree XR-E in Fenix L1/2T Low - both on alkaline







The Cree Mod L2T has a noticably brighter low - its estimated runtime based on the rated L2T low is about 22 hours vs. the rated 55 hours of the L2D-CE

is the Low of the Cree Mod L2T as bright as the Medium of the L2D-CE?







in a word - no........

Wait!........

There's more.....





How does the L2D-CE compare to the Fenix L1D-CE ?

vs. Fenix L1D-CE both on alkalines - Turbo -







Important Note: the positions are reversed - the L1D-CE is on the left and the L2D-CE on the right.....
L2D-CE is brighter...... but the L1D-CE uses only a single AA.

L2D-CE on 2x Lithium AA vs. Fenix L1D-CE on 3.7V Li-Ion Rechargeable 14500 - both on Turbo 







Important Note: the positions are reversed - the L1D-CE is on the left and the L2D-CE on the right.....
L1D-CE using Li-Ion is just brighter than the L2D-CE on Lithium Primaries....

*Current draw* on NiMH and primary Lithium - Post #*11*
*Part 2* - Fenix L2D-CE *NiMH vs. Primary Lithium AA - *Post #*17*
*Part 3* - practical indoors *Stairway* beamshots - Post #*21*
*ReFocussed beamshots* comparison - Post #*26* 
*ReFocussed Stairway* beamshot comparison - Post #*29*

Fenix L2D CE and L1D CE runtime graphs by *Chevrofreak*


----------



## Ty_Bower (Feb 8, 2007)

In your L2T Cree mod, was anything done to the McR-18 reflector? Was it shaved or shimmed?

Does anyone know if the McR-18 could be used as a drop in replacement for the stock reflector of the L2D-CE? It looks like the McR-18 gives a better looking beam.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 8, 2007)

*Ty_Bower* wrote: _"In your L2T Cree mod, was anything done to the McR-18 reflector? Was it shaved or shimmed?_
_Does anyone know if the McR-18 could be used as a drop in replacement for the stock reflector of the L2D-CE? It looks like the McR-18 gives a better looking beam."_

I didn't do the mod - but I'm pretty sure that the hole had to be enlarged -
also because of the space on a stock L1T/L2T head and the way the Cree was mounted - the silver surround of the Cree protudes into the reflector - that is probably the prime cause of the dark halo - although the stippling does somewhat reduce the effect and makes the overall beam smoother - with an attendant loss in throw.

Please go look at the full review for a lot more details and discussion -

Cree XR-E in Fenix L1/2T (vs. UWAJ, stock)


----------



## Anders (Feb 8, 2007)

Thankyou Vincent for your comparing pictures, always good info and nice pics from you

I have a question, do you know which is the brightest light, P1D CE with 3,7 V Lion on High VS L2D CE with Nimh in Turbo mode.


Anders


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 8, 2007)

*Anders* wrote: _"which is the brightest light, P1D CE with 3,7 V Lion on High VS L2D CE with Nimh in Turbo mode."_

I believe that the L2D-CE on primary _Lithium_ AA's should be brighter than using NiMH.

If that's the case, via a round-about deduction -

from *Part 2* - 3.7V Li-Ion Rechargeable 14500 in Post #*92* - in 
Fenix L1D-CE Comparison Review

vs. Fenix P1D-CE 3.7V Li-Ion Rechargeable RCR123 - High







not surprisingly - pretty even.

Now look at the comparison beamshots of the L2D-CE on 2x Lithium AA vs. Fenix L1D-CE on 3.7V Li-Ion Rechargeable 14500 - both on Turbo in the opening post above (last set of shots).

So I don't think the L2D-CE on NiMH or primary Lithium AA is as bright as the P1D-CE (or L1D-CE) on their respective 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable batteries.


----------



## ruralott (Feb 8, 2007)

Thank you so much. Great reviews on all the LXD-CE.

At first, I thought the dark ring is much less noticable with the L2D-CE because it's so bright. But on medium, it's not much either.

Time to pull out the wallet 

:goodjob:


----------



## daq (Feb 8, 2007)

Once again, thanks for your excellent work Vincent.

I got my L2D-CE 2 days ago and am very pleased with it. I did unscrew the head a bit to minimize the darker ring around the hotspot.

Right now, I have it mounted on my bike helmet. I use "turbo" mode when riding, either steady when it's dark or flashing during daytime. It's kind of funny to see reflective signs (like speed limit signs) flashing during the day on my way to work. This summer, I'll use the light for camping and I plan to keep it in general mode. Low is plenty of light for many situations ("Dad, leave a light on") and medium is just a click away...

I really like the UI. It is very well suited for my needs.

I have to admit I was hoping for a turbo hotspot that rivaled my Survivor LED. However, the Survivor hostspot is significantly brighter (I'd call it ~2x) but it's diameter is less than half the L2D (meaning the hostspot area is less than 1/4 of the L2D). Also, the L2D spill is at least 2-3x brighter than the Survivor LED spill.

Thanks again for your work.
Dale


----------



## Anders (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks again for the quick answer Vincent.

But i am not sure if regular Lithium AA cells could handle that amount of A.
Therefore, i had to test with a regular DMM and my result is as follows:

Energizer e2 primary Lithium cells open voltage 1,7 V showed 0,91 A in Turbo mode (new cells).

My old Digital 2000 Nimh showed 1,47 A in Turbo mode?
Both Energizer 2500 Nimh and Eneloop showed 1,24 A in Turbo mode.

I measured at the battery.

Am i correct in my guessing that Nimh is the proper way to go if i want the most of my _L2D CE?

Edit:Vincent wrote:_"So I don't think the L2D-CE on NiMH or primary Lithium AA is as bright as the P1D-CE (or L1D-CE) on their respective 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable batteries."

Maybe you are right on that, but i wonder if that is the case with primary lithiums, it would be intresting to know the correct answer.
_ 
Anders
_


----------



## Xygen (Feb 8, 2007)

:goodjob:
Thanks for your effort!


----------



## lightbug (Feb 8, 2007)

Another great review from you, thank you so much. People like you make CPF so much fun to come again and again! :goodjob:


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 8, 2007)

*Anders* wrote: _"i am not sure if regular Lithium AA cells could handle that amount of A._
_Energizer e2 primary Lithium cells open voltage 1,7 V showed 0,91 A in Turbo mode (new cells)._
_My old Digital 2000 Nimh showed 1,47 A in Turbo mode?_
_Both Energizer 2500 Nimh and Eneloop showed 1,24 A in Turbo mode."_

Dang-nabbit - if you're not right...

I'll teach you to make a fool of me....
(actually I manage quite well by myself, thank you



)

These are my readings -

2x *NiMH* 2.57-2.56V open-circuit
Turbo = 1.33A
Low = 0.05A
Medium = 0.21A
High = 0.47A

2x *primary Lithium AA* 3.28-3.15V open-circuit
Turbo = 0.92A
Low = 0.04A
Medium = 0.16-0.21A
High = 0.43A

So maybe the L2D-CE on NiMH will be brighter than on primary Lithium AA's?








The L2D-CE on NiMH Turbo is about the same level as the P1D-CE on 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable RCR123 High 
- this is a fabulous performance.

*Anders* wrote: _"Am i correct in my guessing that Nimh is the proper way to go if i want the most of my L2D CE?"_

I think so....

More reason to get the L2D-CE to use with NiMH - 
or if you already have a L1D-CE - 
the L2D body!


----------



## pantshacker (Feb 9, 2007)

Because of this review and the other reviews of the L1D-CE, I convinced myself that I just had to have the L2D. I am finally getting onboard the cree bandwagon. Thanks alot, UnknownVT :thumbsup:


----------



## Anders (Feb 9, 2007)

Hello Vincent.



I was wrong in my statement, i was thinking about this during the day and found out about it . "Mike abcd" also told me in another thread.

Now when i got home i did another measure.
Lithium under load 3,47 V X 0,91 A = 3,25 Watt
Nimh under load 2,65 V X 1,23 A = 3,15 Watt

The numbers in my DMM aren't steady so it is basically the same Watt
, no advantages of any of them in the manner of giving more power to this light, exept that Lithiums give more hours with 2900 mAh but they are more expensive than Nimh if you use you light frequently.

I don't know how the cells behave when half way used, maybe one is better then the other?


Anders


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 9, 2007)

*Anders* wrote: _"I was wrong in my statement, i was thinking about this during the day and found out about it



. "Mike abcd" also told me in another thread._
_Now when i got home i did another measure._
_Lithium under load 3,47 V X 0,91 A = 3,25 Watt_
_Nimh under load 2,65 V X 1,23 A = 3,15 Watt_
_The numbers in my DMM aren't steady so it is basically the same Watt_
_, no advantages of any of them in the manner of giving more power to this light"_

Both you and Mike_abcd are correct to calculate the wattage consumption - as that is the total power delivered from the batteries.

However are your figures the actual voltages _UNDER-LOAD? -_ they look more like open-circuit voltages (normally I would have thought voltages under load were lower).

Using my measurements and taking the lower open-circuit voltages (measured directly after my tests) I get -

NiMH 2.56V x 1.33A = *3.4 watts*
primary Lithium AA 3.15V x 0.92A = *2.9 watts*

even taking into account that there may be some inaccuracy in my measurements or DMM - 
the NiMH is delivering *over 17%* more power/watts than the primary lithium AA's - although 17% may theoretically still be in some sort of a margin of error - it just seems a bit too high/significant to me for that.

My side-by-side beamshots also seem to show that the L2D-CE on NiMH appears to be brighter than on primary lithium AA's


----------



## Anders (Feb 9, 2007)

Hello Vincent.

Interesting,.

In my earlier post my Nimh was lower, now i did it again and waited for the numbers to stop:
I got 3,27 Watt with my old Digital cells, fresh from the charger.
3,30 Watt with new GP 1800 Nimh cells.
3,25 with Eneloop.
3,10 with my Lithium cells.

Yes it is a very small difference, but it is a difference.

Anders


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 9, 2007)

*Anders* wrote: _"In my earlier post my Nimh was lower, now i did it again and waited for the numbers to stop:_
_I got 3,27 Watt with my old Digital cells, fresh from the charger._
_3,30 Watt with new GP 1800 Nimh cells._
_3,25 with Eneloop._
_3,10 with my Lithium cells._
_Yes it is a very small difference, but it is a difference."_

Yes, but even the bigger difference you got was only about 6.5% - which may be just in the margin of error.

Mine was over 17% - where I would expect just to be able to see a difference side-by-side or compared to a known reference light of similar brightness - and my beamshots do show that.

I would suspect/guess that you may not see any difference in brightness between NiMH and primary lithiums for your combination - 
whereas on my sample of L2D-CE, NiMH, and primary lithium batteries seem to measure a more significant difference and actually do show in beamshots that the L2D-CE on NiMH is brighter than on primary lithiums.

Coming back to your original question - NiMH would seem to be the way to go in the L2D-CE for regular and frequent use - as it's virtually "free" power - without any brightness penalty - even when compared to primnary lithium AA's. 

But Lithium AA's should give the longer runtimes - so they're the ones to keep in the light - that's reserved for emergencies, and long term outages


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 9, 2007)

*Part 2* - Fenix L2D-CE *NiMH vs. Primary Lithium AA*

Previously it was brought up whether in the L2D-CE primary Lithium AA's were brighter than NiMH - I had always assumed so - but further investigation seemed to show that my sample appeared to be brighter on NiMH. 

CPF memeber Anders also did some more tests including beamshots that seem to show they were about par/equal (in another thread - see post #*128* link)

So to see more directly - I took beamshots of the L2D-CE on NiMH and then primary lithiums with the exact same fixed exposures at full exposure (as suggested by the camera) and one at the exact same -2 stops underexposed.

Then cropped one of each pair of the photos and flipped them horizontally and merged the cropped and flipped photo with the respective pair on the other battery to form a composite merged photo that looks like a direct side-by-side beamshot - but they are of the same L2D-CE just on different batteries (now side-by-side) -

L2D-CE NiMH vs. primary lithium AA - Turbo 








I also took some side-by-side comparison beamshots against a reference control light the Fenix P1D-CE on primary CR123A High for each battery combination -
NiMH







primary lithium AA








Based on these beamshots I would now say there is very little if any difference between the brightness on Turbo using primary lithium AA or NiMH -
certainly not enough to make any real practical difference for me.


----------



## Anders (Feb 9, 2007)

Thankyou Vincent for your effort in theese photos and all extra work you did because of my questions.

Now we can see that is none, i can't see any difference between them both.

:goodjob:

Anders


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 9, 2007)

*Anders* wrote: _"all extra work you did because of my questions."_

I didn't mind doing this at all - 
assumptions need to questioned and tested.

When it's this close a call on which may be brighter - 
we can either dismiss it as "close enough for jazz" - 
or, actually compare the levels side-by-side -
so I did the "extra" work - it was just as much for myself - 
so there is no resentment or wasted effort here.

In fact I thank you for bringing the subject up.


----------



## luminari (Feb 9, 2007)

Another kick *** review by Vincent! I've been waiting for this UnknownVT review to decide if I should get that L2D-CE. Thanks!


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 10, 2007)

*Part 3* - practical indoors *Stairway beamshots*

These should be directly comparable to the other shots in 

"Practical" Beamshots?

all on Turbo -


----------



## paulr (Feb 10, 2007)

VT, what do you think of the tint of these different CE lights you're testing? A lot of people are complaining about green, yellow, and purple casts. My L0D-CE is quite neutral but I'm wondering if I got lucky.

Also, do you like the L2D-CE styling, particularly the narrowing of the body tube in the middle? In pictures it looks dorky to me, but maybe it's better in person. I like the looks of the straight sided L2P a lot better.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 10, 2007)

*paulr* wrote: _"what do you think of the tint of these different CE lights you're testing? A lot of people are complaining about green, yellow, and purple casts. My L0D-CE is quite neutral but I'm wondering if I got lucky."_

All the Cree lights I've looked at except for these latest L1Dce and L2Dce - tended to a cool almost blueish white.

The one sample of each of L1Dce and L2ce seemed to have a slight yellow-green tint - emphasized especially on Low. I literally just posted about this in another thread -

Please see Post #*5* 
in
L1D-CE Very Green Tint! 

I don't know what to say - I can see the yellow-green tint espcially on Low - 
but looking at my own beamshots of the L1Dce vs. the L1T (which I consider a really good tint) - I should like the L1Dce tint better (I don't, but then the yellow-green tint doesn't bother me too much either)

*paulr* wrote: _"Also, do you like the L2D-CE styling, particularly the narrowing of the body tube in the middle? In pictures it looks dorky to me, but maybe it's better in person. I like the looks of the straight sided L2P a lot better."_

I like the L2Dce over the L2T which I have on direct comparison 
I actually like the bigger fatter head on a longer flashlight....

and I prefer the L2T over the L2P v2.0 which I also happen to have at hand, since I like flashlights with some mild contours -

The latter statement you would probably disagree with -

so it's really down to personal taste - as always YMMV


----------



## Thujone (Feb 10, 2007)

FWIW I didn't think I would like the L2Dce body, but I am fond of it now that it is in hand.


----------



## Xygen (Feb 11, 2007)

Regarding tint: My L2D-CE has the most neutral white of all my lights listed below. Just the FireFly has the same neutral white tint.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 14, 2007)

I've done some more comprehensive experimentation and more controlled comparison beamshots _RE_focussing the L2Dce in a separate thread -

Please see -

*Part 2* - ReFocussing the *Fenix L2Dce* - Post #*18* in

ReFocussing the Fenix L1D-CE (& L2Dce) (link) 

the "before and after" comparison beamshots seem to show there was very little, if any, loss in refocussing the L2Dce - 
this applies equally to the L1Dce since they have the same (interchangeable) head.

*Before vs. After* composite beamshots -


----------



## moontroll (Feb 14, 2007)

Hey Vincent have you run the batteries down on L2D yet.Its been reported that their may be reason for concern that running two NIMH batteries may run them down past the safe discharge state for them.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 14, 2007)

*moontroll *wrote: _"have you run the batteries down on L2D yet.Its been reported that their may be reason for concern that running two NIMH batteries may run them down past the safe discharge state for them."_

Since I think running 2x NiMH AA's in series down to a possinble 0.9V is probably not good for them - and might cause permanent damage to the NiMH - I am very _UN_likely to do this.

However, if you or anyone cares to donate some NiMH for me to do this test - I'd be more than happy to


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 16, 2007)

*UnknownVT* wrote: _"I've done some more comprehensive experimentation and more controlled comparison beamshots REfocussing the L2Dce in a separate thread -_
_Please see - _
_*Part 2* - ReFocussing the *Fenix L2Dce* - Post #_*18*_ in_
_ReFocussing the Fenix L1D-CE (& L2Dce)__ (link) _
_the "before and after" comparison beamshots seem to show there was very little, if any, loss in refocussing the L2Dce"_

I've also done the "practical" indoors stairway beamshot of the ReFocussed L1Dce using NiMH on Turbo and I'll also post the original stairway shot from earlier for comparison (please see "Practical" Beamshots? for details and methodology) -

All using NiMH on Turbo mode -

Fenix L2D-CE Before/Stock ................................ After/ReFocussed


----------



## moontroll (Feb 16, 2007)

Then I must assume that running the l2d untill the light dims(with NIMH) will destroy or harm the batteries.I think most people would do just that,for whatching them is just to much trouble(I have to do that with my ROP'S),But damn it sure woulda been a nice light otherwise.Still will be on lithium primary's


UnknownVT said:


> *moontroll *wrote: _"have you run the batteries down on L2D yet.Its been reported that their may be reason for concern that running two NIMH batteries may run them down past the safe discharge state for them."_
> 
> Since I think running 2x NiMH AA's in series down to a possinble 0.9V is probably not good for them - and might cause permanent damage to the NiMH - I am very _UN_likely to do this.
> 
> However, if you or anyone cares to donate some NiMH for me to do this test - I'd be more than happy to


----------



## moontroll (Feb 16, 2007)

Then I must assume that running the light untill it dims will harm or destroy the batteries(NIMH).I think most people would do just that.Its to much trouble to watch the batteries(I have to do that with my ROP'S),Damn it woulda been a nice light otherwise.Still will be on Lithium primary's.


UnknownVT said:


> *moontroll *wrote: _"have you run the batteries down on L2D yet.Its been reported that their may be reason for concern that running two NIMH batteries may run them down past the safe discharge state for them."_
> 
> Since I think running 2x NiMH AA's in series down to a possinble 0.9V is probably not good for them - and might cause permanent damage to the NiMH - I am very _UN_likely to do this.
> 
> However, if you or anyone cares to donate some NiMH for me to do this test - I'd be more than happy to


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 16, 2007)

*moontroll *wrote: _"Then I must assume that running the l2d untill the light dims(with NIMH) will destroy or harm the batteries.I think most people would do just that,for whatching them is just to much trouble(I have to do that with my ROP'S),But damn it sure woulda been a nice light otherwise."_

No! this is NOT what I've been saying.

Using NiMH in the L2Dce is MOSTLY fine.

Just do _NOT_ leave it unattended - or allow it to run beyond the point when one sees the light going dim - then things should be more than fine.

Tons of people have used the L2P, L2T with 2x NiMH (these have a similar low 0.9V cut-off point) just fine.

It is allowing the light to remain switched _ON_ when the light has dimmed, that may eventually run the 2x NiMH down to a possible 0.9V - for 2x NiMH in series this is too low and may do them harm. 

I have no hard evidence that they will do this, but since the L2Dce head is the same/interchangeable with the L1Dce and that _HAS_ to be able to run a cell as low as at least 1.1V and most liklely to 0.9V - that there is this possible danger of running two NiMH batteries in series down to 0.9V - that's the possible problem.

Most people do _NOT_ think this is a problem.


----------



## Anders (Feb 16, 2007)

Hello moontroll.

If you use the light until it dims in low mode it would be bad for the Nimh cells.

However, if you are running them in the other modes and the light dims and then change your cells it would be harmless for them.

Almost every application that use more than one cell would suffer of drained cells if you leave it unattended so long that the cells gets discharged so low that one cells get ruined= reverse charged by the other cell.

Anders


----------



## Lobo (Feb 16, 2007)

I've run my L2P down to completely unlit with nimh(did a runtime test and forgot about the light), thought I damaged the cells, but they have worked fine even after that(not that I recommend it...). I wouldn't consider this to be a problem, the situations when you run down the light to levels dangerous to the battery, are very rare. And you can get cheap good nimh quite easily if you do.


----------



## ET3 (Feb 17, 2007)

I ran my L2D on turbo for about 80 minutes until turbo was indistinguishable from low. The batteries were old NiMH(1306 & 1286mAh). After the test one battery read 1.2V and the other read 0.9V. The 0.9 increased to 1.2 after five minutes rest. I've recharged and discharged the batteries once since then and they are fine.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Feb 20, 2007)

Got mine in the mail today. The post office had it ready for delivery on Saturday, but our business was closed. No mail on Sunday, and Monday was a government holiday.

I'm glad I got the L2D, since the extra brightness in turbo mode is what I wanted. I'd still like it to be brighter still. The hotspot isn't noticeably brighter than my HDS U60, although there is clearly more light in the spill.

I wish the 1xAA body tubes come out soon, since there will be times I'd rather have a shorter light. Even still, the 2xAA size is slender, and fits comfortably in the pant pocket.

The dark ring / yellow circle thing is there. It's annoying. There's also a noticable bond wire shadow, and a couple other artifacts. These Crees don't have the nice, perfect smooth beam of a Luxeon. I wish these lights had a stippled or orange peel'd reflector, instead of smooth.

If it is set to low, it flashes on a bright setting when I first turn it on. That's annoying too.

The threads are a little rough. I figure with some lube and some use they will break in just fine.

Overall, I think my impressions agree with what others have already said. I hope everyone who ordered one gets theirs soon.


----------



## MAD Skillz (Apr 15, 2007)

Which is brighter on lithium, P1D-CE or L2D-CE, both on turbo? I wanna know which is better. Thanks!


----------



## Kilovolt (Apr 15, 2007)

Apart from the fact that IMO brighter is not necessarily better (think of artifacts & dark rings for example) you can find the answer here:

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews_index/reviews_index_led3watt2.htm

It appears that L2D has a slightly higher overall output than P1D while the throw is marginally higher. P1D was tested with lithium primaries while L2D was tested with alkalines but if you look at the last of the Chevrofreak's graphs (L2D MAX RUNTIME) you see that the total light output is not influenced by the type of battery. 
So the answer is that L2D is slightly more powerful but by a percentage that is probably difficult to notice with a human eye.


----------



## UnknownVT (Apr 15, 2007)

*MAD Skillz* wrote: _"Which is brighter on lithium, P1D-CE or L2D-CE, both on turbo? I wanna know which is better."_

There is a direct visual comparison in side-by-side beamshots earlier in this thread - Post #*17* (link)


----------



## Splunk_Au (Nov 30, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> 2x *NiMH* 2.57-2.56V open-circuit
> Turbo = 1.33A
> Low = 0.05A
> Medium = 0.21A
> High = 0.47A


 
Those current measurements would make the L2D's circuit over 100% efficient doesn't it?

The L2d runs regulated pretty flat for 2 hours on Eneloops.
From your readings, the draw on Turbo is ~3.25W.
2 Eneloops have ~4.8Wh capacity.

That would mean the L2D should only run for ~1 hour 30 minutes considering a 100% effecient boost circuit (which in itself is already impossible). So with tests showing the L2D running flat regulated for 2 hours, that would mean the circuit is ~140% effecient?


----------



## UnknownVT (Nov 30, 2008)

Splunk_Au said:


> Those current measurements would make the L2D's circuit over 100% efficient doesn't it?
> 
> The L2d runs regulated pretty flat for 2 hours on Eneloops.
> From your readings, the draw on Turbo is ~3.25W.
> ...


 
Sorry, can't answer that - 
those were the current draw readings I got at the tailcap.

Remember that's a static initial reading - 
the battery/flashlight circuit/LED system is dynamic - 
ie: the current and voltage from the battery are not constant.

Nevertheless because of the apparent contradiction - 
I just re-did current draw with the same L2D-CE -

Digital Concepts NiMH 2.58V o-c - 
(probably the ones I used previously)
1.40-1.50Amps 

Kodak Pre-Charged (LSD) 2.60V o-c - 
1.16-1.27 Amps

eneloops 2.76V o-c - 
1.09-1.20 Amps

The only thing I can suggest is that the (operating) voltage (under load) of the NiMH used (Digital Concepts) probably sags more under load than the Kodak Pre-Charged, which in turn sags more than the eneloops. 
(also the eneloops were (much) more recently charged than either of the others)

I have shown that eneloops maintain higher operating voltage under load than the Kodak Pre-Charged (summary in Post #*57* of eneloop vs. Kodak Pre-Charged Voltage Maintenance)


----------

