# **NEW** Fenix E40 (4AA, XP-E R4, 17500cd)



## gopajti (Jun 15, 2012)

I found this.. 

retail price approx.: 43.64 USD


----------



## firelord777 (Jun 15, 2012)

Looks interesting, but with a LD40 body no?


----------



## BLUE LED (Jun 15, 2012)

*Re: **NEW** Fenix E40 (4AA, XP-E, 17500cd)*

Does it use a R2 or R3 XP-E ?


----------



## inspirit (Jun 15, 2012)

*Re: **NEW** Fenix E40 (4AA, XP-E, 17500cd)*



BLUE LED said:


> Does it use a R2 or R3 XP-E ?



◎Cree XP-E (R4) LED


----------



## firelord777 (Jun 15, 2012)

Looks like it'll throw noticeably better than the LD40 XP-G, but slightly less bright


----------



## kj2 (Jun 15, 2012)

It;s just a new LD40  
Looks good, but won't take one.

edit; Had a look at this light, at my local dealer. Do think now that I'll take one. That plastic handle is very handy in cold-weather.


----------



## yliu (Jun 15, 2012)

I can already imagine how concentrated the beam will be:devil:


----------



## firelord777 (Jun 15, 2012)

Yeah, reflector looks decently big


----------



## Ezeriel (Jun 15, 2012)

Meh...

Only 3 brightness levels? the forth mode wasted on a strobe? :thumbsdow 




Unless this thing is a throw-king, or a follow-up to the TK20, I don't really see a reason for it.


----------



## kwalker (Jun 15, 2012)

Why get this when a Jetbeam PA40 delivers 468lm and is structurally almost identical? > love my PA40


----------



## Abyssos (Jun 15, 2012)

Ack... Only 220 lumens??!!! What is the point?


----------



## tobrien (Jun 15, 2012)

i *think* the point of this light is to bring dual switches (for instant strobe, mode switching, etc.) on a flashlight to the general population.


----------



## firelord777 (Jun 15, 2012)

Does anyone know how much it'll cost?

@Kwalker, the PA40 and this serve two different purposes. Your PA40, while surely much brighter, simply won't throw as far as this. The PA was around 5K lux I believe, this is 17K (supposedly). However, it is obviously not as bright as the PA

Cheers


----------



## firelord777 (Jun 15, 2012)

Tobrien my friend, yes, I believe you are correct, I assumed this as well seeing that "E" in E40 stands for "Economy", so perhaps it would be more feasible for more people?

Regards


----------



## Blindasabat (Jun 15, 2012)

That looks SOOO much like that old Streamlight 4AA.


----------



## tam17 (Jun 16, 2012)

What happened to the efficiency? PA40 is supposed to run 6h on 220lm using the same battery format. A step backward IMHO...


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 16, 2012)

tam17 said:


> What happened to the efficiency? PA40 is supposed to run 6h on 220lm using the same battery format. A step backward IMHO...




That's to be expected really as the PA40 has 4 times the die area and therefore will be running much more efficiently at that level. The advantage of the E40 is throw. I would have expected a bit better from the E40 though but we need to see runtime graphs from both to compare. Specs tell you very little, even if they are ANSI rated.


----------



## fiberguy (Jun 16, 2012)

$40 for a decent durable light from a trusted manufacturer? I'd probably buy one. It's a little throwy but it would have its function. I've wasted more on lights that were a bigger gamble before (and lost, of course)


----------



## Animalmother (Jun 16, 2012)

fiberguy said:


> $40 for a decent durable light from a trusted manufacturer? I'd probably buy one. It's a little throwy but it would have its function. I've wasted more on lights that were a bigger gamble before (and lost, of course)



E40 the rapper?
LOL, I am glad to see this. Pretty much for more throw. I am actually glad to see them use that emitter.
I figured I would seen the LD41/LD50 though. It's actually brighter then the LD40.

Still love my PA40(SMO) though.


----------



## ico (Jun 16, 2012)

I think this would be just great specially for normal folks just like the E21 that is both affordable and built like a tank. As I was reading its specs, I was even ashamed because my Quark turbo X can only do about 10,000 lux; not that they can be compared but it is my farthest thrower as of now:mecry:


----------



## A10K (Jun 16, 2012)

Awesome, this is just what I want to see (more lights using XP-E R4s). Fenix has been continuing a disappointing trend by "upgrading" their lights to less throw. This is exactly what happened with the LD20 series (started with XR-E Q5, went up to XP-G, and the LD22 has an even shorter head). Its nice to be able to have a decent thrower that isn't a. a high-current, giant-reflectored XM-L with short battery life or b. high-end aspheric setup with no spill. I think the middle ground has been lost.
Its also a bargain at $40. As always I wish Fenix had better low modes. The runtime of this thing at less than 10 lumens would make it great for around-the-house/yard use too.


----------



## Ezeriel (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm thinking more about this.. how can the E40 out-throw the TK41?


----------



## biglights (Jun 16, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> I'm thinking more about this.. how can the E40 out-throw the TK41?



Dont think that it does, where did you read that?

It wont, the TK41 is listed at 472m and the E40 is 268m. Not even close...........


----------



## A10K (Jun 16, 2012)

It can out-throw the LD41​, that's a whole different animal.


----------



## tobrien (Jun 16, 2012)

firelord777 said:


> Tobrien my friend, yes, I believe you are correct, I assumed this as well seeing that "E" in E40 stands for "Economy", so perhaps it would be more feasible for more people?
> 
> Regards


yea man! thanks! i think this light is intended to be sold more in sporting goods stores where laypeople will see it and have a stepping stone into high(er) end lights.


----------



## Animalmother (Jun 16, 2012)

Not sure where that came from. As a former owner of the TK41, the E40 definetly can't outthrow the TK41 like A10 said whole different animal. Where dis that came from lol? Would have never thought to compare the 2 in throw or class. It's also what i wanted to see to A10.

I am surpised they released this. I also wonder if the XP-E will hit the R5 bin


----------



## Ezeriel (Jun 17, 2012)

Animalmother said:


> Not sure where that came from. As a former owner of the TK41, the E40 definetly can't outthrow the TK41 like A10 said whole different animal. Where dis that came from lol? Would have never thought to compare the 2 in throw or class. It's also what i wanted to see to A10.
> 
> I am surpised they released this. I also wonder if the XP-E will hit the R5 bin




My bad.. meant to say "LD41"


The LD41 is 520 lumens, 10,000CD for 200 yards
The E40 is 220 lumens, 17,500CD for 260 yards

it looks to me like they have the same head.. can the size of the LED make that much of a difference in throw?


anyone have a guess as to the CD of the TK45? It's my big boy and Fenix doesn't list it, so I can only wonder as to how well the E40 throws


----------



## Numb (Jun 17, 2012)

I going to buy a couple for the kids and to give away to people. $40 for a throwy LD40 is a steal.

/N


----------



## Animalmother (Jun 17, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> My bad.. meant to say "LD41"
> 
> 
> The LD41 is 520 lumens, 10,000CD for 200 yards
> ...



Oh I see, I get lights mixed up too sometimes.
Yeah, the emitter can make a big difference. The size of the dye for the XP-E is much smaller and brighter in area then the XM-L, that means tighter hotspot. And now the XP-E is in the R4 bin too which is awesome(hope it hits R5)
Overall utput maybe higher on the XM-L in the LD41 but the higher surface brightness that the XP-E/XR-E (XP-C really high) technically make the E40 a brighter flashlight ten the LD41 but the LD41 puts out overall more light spread out in flood.

Selfbuilt says the TK45(with the XP-G R4) is about 12,150lux. It's now in the R5 bin so I don't know about the current TK45 but might not be much different. I actually liked that light when I had it for a very short while.


----------



## SuLyMaN (Jun 17, 2012)

Seriously xpe led and 220 lumens for 4aas? Zl is at 260 lumens on one aa. Seems like a joke post ;-)

Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 17, 2012)

SuLyMaN said:


> Seriously xpe led and 220 lumens for 4aas? Zl is at 260 lumens on one aa. Seems like a joke post ;-)



It is meant for consumers who have no knowledge of anything better than alkalines.


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jun 19, 2012)

SuLyMaN said:


> Seriously xpe led and 220 lumens for 4aas? Zl is at 260 lumens on one aa. Seems like a joke post ;-)



3 hours on high and it looks like a thrower. If the XP-E was a Q3, well that would be all good and dandy.


----------



## yliu (Jun 19, 2012)

Most of Fenix's E series lights are more like a budget line. Something that a non flashoholic could buy instead of a Maglite or other popular brands off the shelves.


----------



## jonnyfgroove (Jun 30, 2012)

This light looks great except for the level spacing. 35, 105, 220? The first two should both be lower, IMO. Very cool that they are making a high bin XP-E thrower that runs on AA's though...


----------



## firelord777 (Jul 1, 2012)

Maybe they're fine, but perhaps another level that is even lower like ~3-10 lumens?


----------



## pinetree89 (Jul 1, 2012)

Is what seems odd to me is the LD41 does 190 Lumens at Medium for 7.5 hours. The E40 does 220 Lumens at High for 3 Hours. 

Is the XP-E really that much more inefficient than the XML at this level, or do we also have a much more inefficient "budget" circuit in the E40?


----------



## yliu (Jul 9, 2012)

jonnyfgroove said:


> This light looks great except for the level spacing. 35, 105, 220? The first two should both be lower, IMO. Very cool that they are making a high bin XP-E thrower that runs on AA's though...



I think very low modes are not a must in larger sized lights. They are mostly intended for general tasks which the 35 lumen mode should be low enough for close tasks. 

Very low, night vision preserving modes are useful in pocketable EDC lights.


----------



## Shadowww (Jul 9, 2012)

pinetree89 said:


> Is what seems odd to me is the LD41 does 190 Lumens at Medium for 7.5 hours. The E40 does 220 Lumens at High for 3 Hours.
> 
> Is the XP-E really that much more inefficient than the XML at this level, or do we also have a much more inefficient "budget" circuit in the E40?



Maybe LD41 is rated on NiMH's (which it's target audience, flashaholics, mostly use), and E40 is rated on crappy Alkalines as it's meant for general-purpose market?


----------



## firelord777 (Jul 9, 2012)

Shadowww said:


> Maybe LD41 is rated on NiMH's (which it's target audience, flashaholics, mostly use), and E40 is rated on crappy Alkalines as it's meant for general-purpose market?



I'm pretty sure Fenix always uses NIMH AA on their runtimes, regardless of their category.


----------



## tam17 (Jul 9, 2012)

E40 ANSI testing data are obtained using 2500mAh NiMH batteries, says the small print at the bottom of Fenix info page.


----------



## jonnyfgroove (Jul 9, 2012)

yliu said:


> I think very low modes are not a must in larger sized lights. They are mostly intended for general tasks which the 35 lumen mode should be low enough for close tasks.
> 
> Very low, night vision preserving modes are useful in pocketable EDC lights.



Good point, but I also think the upper two levels are too close. Something like 10, 70, 220 makes more sense to me.


----------



## kj2 (Jul 22, 2012)

Does someone know, if there is a review up already?? Can't find any YouTube video of this light,


----------



## Swedpat (Jul 22, 2012)

Low price, good throw and pretty long runtime even at highest mode with alkalines. A suitable light for having in your car, it's not a catastrophe if you lose it. Or as a gift to a non-flashoholic friend. For that price I think I will get one just for fun! Yes of course; ALL my flashlights I get for fun!


----------



## firelord777 (Jul 22, 2012)

Swedpat, i totally agree with you bud.

Currently, I'll post the review of the LD41 in a few hours. Hopefully when I get the E40 I'll give you guys a quick comparison

Cheers


----------



## SimulatedZero (Jul 22, 2012)

To be honest I'm surprised to see so many lumen junkies here. There's a lot more to a light than its lumens. Unlike the majority of XM-L lights being released these days, this light has some respectable throw to it. The only compact XM-L light that rings my bell is the new Streanlight ProTac HL which is 600 lumens at 15,000 lux. Not 5,000 lux and certainly not 2,000 lux. I don't need 400, 500, 600 or more lumens in the space of about ten feet. To me the Fenix E21 is a great light, it's built like a tank, fairly throwy without compromising the upclose usefulness, and it has a simple battery chemistry. The E40 looks like it will be very a _useful _light. Besides, knowing Fenix it probably has a beautifully flat runtime curve and solid build.


----------



## firelord777 (Jul 22, 2012)

SZ, I totally understand what you mean. Brighter doesn't mean throwier, that's a common misconception. Higher surface brightness does, however, increase throw per lumen, but, ironically, the LEDs with the highest surface brightness are the small LEDs between the range of 100-300 lumens. XR-Es are the throwier kind, next comes XP-Es, then XP-Gs and XM-Ls. 

Cheers


----------



## kj2 (Jul 28, 2012)

Does someone has a "overview/review" video of this light? Want to see, how it does in the dark 

edit; just ordered one. Comes in Tuesday normally.


----------



## low (Jul 29, 2012)

SuLyMaN said:


> Seriously xpe led and 220 lumens for 4aas? Zl is at 260 lumens on one aa. Seems like a joke post ;-)
> 
> Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2




Zebralight no use XP-E at that output.


----------



## Swedpat (Jul 29, 2012)

A few days and I will receive E40 and will compare it to Jetbeam PA 40 and Surefire P2X Fury. Yes; I will compare it to Fenix TK10/TA30 as well...

If it would be of interest I can then do some beamshots comparisons.


----------



## Ezeriel (Jul 29, 2012)

Swedpat said:


> A few days and I will receive E40 and will compare it to Jetbeam PA 40 and Surefire P2X Fury. Yes; I will compare it to Fenix TK10/TA30 as well...
> 
> If it would be of interest I can then do some beamshots comparisons.



any chance you can compare it to a TK20 as well?


----------



## Swedpat (Jul 29, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> any chance you can compare it to a TK20 as well?



Yes, I will do!


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (Aug 2, 2012)

I didn't know that U.S. online retailer brightguy.com now has flashlight reviews on youtube

"_Fenix E40 Flashlight Review_"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaFQf4xqebE


----------



## kj2 (Aug 3, 2012)

Got my E40 in last Tuesday, and I love it  -very throwy light, the hot-spot is much brighter then my TK21. At the other hand, you don't have that much a bright spill-beam. Light feels good- soft- lightweight in the hand.
Had it on me for two nights now, and it's a keeper


----------



## jirik_cz (Aug 3, 2012)

pinetree89 said:


> Is the XP-E really that much more inefficient than the XML at this level, or do we also have a much more inefficient "budget" circuit in the E40?



Lets assume that both lights have 20% loss on reflector and glass. Then the E40 needs ~264 LED lumens to achieve 220 ANSI lumens and LD41 needs ~228 LED lumens to put out 190 ANSI lumens. 

From the Cree PCT:
Cree XP-E R4: 262 lumens at 0,85A/3,45V (2,93W total consumption)
Cree XM-L U2: 228 lumens at 0,53A/2,84V (1,5W total consumption)

So yes, the XM-L U2 has much better efficiency and lower forward voltage than XP-E R4, which results in much better runtimes in LD41 U2.


----------



## MichaelW (Aug 3, 2012)

I think the xp-g2 has made this obsolete. It is time for an E41 already.
You could have 4 modes: 400 lumens, 200, 67, 17 (and still have excellent regulation on alkalines in the bottom three modes)


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 3, 2012)

Today I picked up the E40 from the post office. Short impression:

The plastic handle is nice but as I supposed, just slightly slipper compared to the composite handle of Jetbeam PA40, but not a problem. I find changing the modes works good with one hand.
The tint is very cool but I am glad it's no greenish in my example. As we understood this is a thrower, and a serious one. At 220lm mode it outthrows Fenix TK30 at 630lm mode! 
Hotspot is very focused similar to TK50 and with a slight corona. When I compare it to Fenix TK20 I found that the spill actually isn't much more brighter, very similar. The hotspot, however, is almost 4 times brighter. A much bigger part of the around 70% higher total output is consequently placed in the very intense hotspot.
Total spill width is exactly the same size as TK20. Compared to Fenix TK10 total output is slightly higher(but spill is dimmer) as one could expect based on the new ANSI lumen measuring.

When I try E40 around the house I got a similar feeling like with TK50: the brightness difference between hotspot and spill is so large, and the extremely intense hotpot makes so much attention so it isn't really comfortable at short distance. I actually had prefered a textured reflector to smooth out the beam a bit, the throw had been good anyway. 

I post some beamshots compared to Fenix TK20 with same aperture. TK20 to left and E40 to right.

*First 1/15s for comparing the spill and tint:*








*Then at 1/1000s which clearly shows the difference of hotspot intensity:*







*Updated:* I just finished a runtime test at 220lm mode. The batteries are IKEA alkalines, exp. date: 2017-01-30.
The light was standing in a cup shining up on the ceiling without any active cooling. I checked the lightmeter every 10 minute. During the first 30 minutes the brightness slowly dropped to 90% of initial and after that absolutely stable to more than 1 hour and 30 minutes. At 1 hour and 40 minutes the brightness had dropped to 58%. 
I didn't notice exactly were it went out of regulation but at the moment I noticed it on the lightmeter it dropped pretty fast so I think it had begun only some minute ago or so. The result is then practically stable output for almost 1 hour and 40 minutes. Actually I had expected slightly longer time. Considering Jetbeam PA40 did 3 hours and 50 minutes at 220lm mode it's very clear that the efficiency is far lower. Anyway this is a budget model and do you want a great 4AA thrower it's a cheap way to go! More than 1,5 hours regulated output with cheap alkalines at highest mode still makes E40 very useful if you don't have NiMh or Lithium cells.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Aug 3, 2012)

kwalker said:


> Why get this when a Jetbeam PA40 delivers 468lm and is structurally almost identical? > love my PA40






But if the OP is right, this light only costs $43, whereas the PA-40 is almost double that price at $79. The PA-40 is brighter by at least 200L, but it has an XM-L, which is much larger, and wont throw nearly as far, if throw is important to the buyer. But I agree that a light with 4 AA's should be brighter than 220L. I have an LED light that came out almost 3 years ago, and it only has 2 more AA's, but with over 3 time the brightness(700L)!


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Aug 3, 2012)

MichaelW said:


> It is meant for consumers who have no knowledge of anything better than alkalines.




I was just about to post that there is a Zebralight that runs on 1 AA at 200L, but you posted that there is a ZL light that runs at 260L on 1 AA.. Which light is that?


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 3, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> But if the OP is right, this light only costs $43, whereas the PA-40 is almost double that price at $79. The PA-40 is brighter by at least 200L, _but it has an XM-L, which is much larger, and wont throw nearly as far, if throw is important to the buyer_. But I agree that a light with 4 AA's should be brighter than 220L. I have an LED light that came out almost 3 years ago, and it only has 2 more AA's, but with over 3 time the brightness(700L)!



Yes, PA40 is very floody. Actually E40 at 105lm mode out throws PA40 at 468lm mode. But still it's just to state that apart from the throw E40 is a low performance light to be a 4AA model these days.


----------



## srfreddy (Aug 3, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> I was just about to post that there is a Zebralight that runs on 1 AA at 200L, but you posted that there is a ZL light that runs at 260L on 1 AA.. Which light is that?


H502


----------



## Ezeriel (Aug 3, 2012)

Swedpat said:


> Today I picked up the E40 from the post office. Short impression:
> 
> The plastic handle is nice but as I supposed, just slightly slipper compared to the composite handle of Jetbeam PA40, but not a problem. I find changing the modes works good with one hand.
> The tint is very cool but I am glad it's no greenish in my example. As we understood this is a thrower, and a serious one. At 220lm mode it outthrows Fenix TK30 at 630lm mode!
> ...





This maybe the TK20 replacement that I have been looking for...

Lovin' that photo 'n review !


----------



## firelord777 (Aug 3, 2012)

Awesome mini review there swedpat


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 4, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> This maybe the TK20 replacement that I have been looking for...
> 
> Lovin' that photo 'n review !



You will not be dissatisfied if you want a much better thrower, neither if you want more runtime with alkalines. Earlier I measured the runtime with TK20 and it was 30 minutes at 150lm mode, so even if E40 isn't that efficient as the XM-L models you still get more light-hours per battery than TK20. 
Just take in consider: if you have appreciated the warm tint of TK20 you will possibly not appreciate the cool tint of E40. 
Because of the brightness difference between hotspot and spill I described I will not consider E40 as an allround light, it's in the same category like TK50: mainly a thrower. However, this problem is solved if one find or build a diffuser to it!
You can also imagine the difference between TK20 and E40 this way: take TK20 and change it to cool tint, keep the spill brightness but increase hotspot brightness 4 times. 




firelord777 said:


> Awesome mini review there swedpat



Thanks for the kind words!


----------



## Ezeriel (Aug 4, 2012)

ok.. i'm dreaming about this light now... any chance of an outdoor beamshot or comparison?


----------



## rambo180 (Aug 5, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> ok.. i'm dreaming about this light now... any chance of an outdoor beamshot or comparison?



4xAA and it only puts out 220lumens. Am I missing something? I have an LED Lenser on 4xAAA (and Lensers are about 5 years behind in technology) and it does around the same.


----------



## BLUE LED (Aug 5, 2012)

The Fenix E40 is a budget light with throw to compensate for the lack of output. The XP-E R4 is cheap and keeps the price down. Using 4 x NiMH low self discharge 2500mAh cells. I would expect the E40 to be well regulated and long runtimes.

Agreed this light is not for everyone, but then again no light is. It is matter of preference and what you want the light for. I generally prefer lights with throw


----------



## rambo180 (Aug 5, 2012)

BLUE LED said:


> The Fenix E40 is a budget light with throw to compensate for the lack of output. The XP-E R4 is cheap and keeps the price down. Using 4 x NiMH low self discharge 2500mAh cells. I would expect the E40 to be well regulated and long runtimes.
> 
> Agreed this light is not for everyone, but then again no light is. It is matter of preference and what you want the light for. I generally prefer lights with throw



I understand. Cheers BLUE_LED


----------



## Ezeriel (Aug 5, 2012)

rambo180 said:


> 4xAA and it only puts out 220lumens. Am I missing something? I have an LED Lenser on 4xAAA (and Lensers are about 5 years behind in technology) and it does around the same.


 It does seem like a joke of a light, but it's the only xp-e r4 light out there, and I'm intrigued. as far as I know the XR-E Q5 was the last nail-in-the-coffin for the XP-E, and yet here it is.. throwing for 17500cd.. which is better than most anything out there.... at $50


----------



## firelord777 (Aug 5, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> It does seem like a joke of a light, but it's the only xp-e r4 light out there, and I'm intrigued. as far as I know the XR-E Q5 was the last nail-in-the-coffin for the XP-E, and yet here it is.. throwing for 17500cd.. which is better than most anything out there.... at $50



Ezeriel, I agree,

The strength in the E40 is not its brightness, but it's throw. Sure, it's bright, but other lights aimed at brightness usually need much more power to have the same throw, because for example, we have a XM-L and an XP-E. While the XM-L is capable of producing much more light, it is a bigger diode with less surface brightness, therefore, it won't throw as good as an XP-E, which is a smaller diode but with higher surface brightness. 

That's not to say that XM-Ls will never beat XP-Es in throw, there are other factors and limitations. Reflector size (the bigger, the tighter the beam, which allows for more throwing power), power source limits, (2 18650 will obviously supply higher current than 1 18650, as an example), how many amps are being driven, to name a few. 

I'm thankful swedpat shared his impressions with us, good job bud!

Cheers


----------



## rambo180 (Aug 6, 2012)

firelord777 said:


> Ezeriel, I agree,
> 
> The strength in the E40 is not its brightness, but it's throw. Sure, it's bright, but other lights aimed at brightness usually need much more power to have the same throw, because for example, we have a XM-L and an XP-E. While the XM-L is capable of producing much more light, it is a bigger diode with less surface brightness, therefore, it won't throw as good as an XP-E, which is a smaller diode but with higher surface brightness.
> 
> ...



Hi Firelord, just a few short questions - is the XP-E and R5 kinda obselete now, surpassed by the XM-L? In terms of light output compared to power consumption (EFFICIENCY). 

Or, is the XM-L just more popular because its a more popular style of light (less throwy, wider beam)?

Also, how FAR does this E40 actually throw? The golden question!

cheers

(I think someone at post 30 also commented about the seemingly low output, thats for the responses on this - hope no-one else asks as it now seems like a silly questions.)


----------



## SimulatedZero (Aug 6, 2012)

rambo180 said:


> Hi Firelord, just a few short questions - is the XP-E and R5 kinda obselete now, surpassed by the XM-L? In terms of light output compared to power consumption (EFFICIENCY).
> 
> Or, is the XM-L just more popular because its a more popular style of light (less throwy, wider beam)?
> 
> ...



The XM-L is a more efficient diode capable of a much higher lumen out put. The advantage that the XP-E has on it, though, is it's small size. This makes it easier to throw the beam farther in a smaller package. That way you don't need a reflector the same size as the TK41 to get awesome throw. The big downside end sup being the runtime. A properly regulated XM-L could last for 10+ hours at 240 lumens in this set, where as you only get a couple hours of runtime with the XP-E. 

As far as how far the E40 will throw, I am going to venture the numbers 150ft to 200ft (approx. 45-60m) of useful light; at the outside most. I have a 438ft (133m) long drive way. I can just barely see the end with 30,000 candle power and I can see about a third of the driveway with 10,000 candlepower. Based off of that I would say the 17,500 candle power E40 would almost reach half way up my driveway.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 6, 2012)

I found that Fenix actually offer a diffuser for TK40, 41 and 60 lights.

Now I am waiting for a diffuser to E40 and LD40/41 as well. This would highly increase the usefulness especially for E40 with it's small and very intensive hotspot which makes it uncomfortable at short distance, especially against walls. *Fenix, are you reading this?* :wave:


----------



## SimulatedZero (Aug 6, 2012)

Swedpat said:


> I found that Fenix actually offer a diffuser for TK40, 41 and 60 lights: http://www.fenixlight.com/viewnproduct.asp?id=109



I Need One Of These....... Now.... 
I have no legitimate use for a diffuser, but for some strange reason I absolutely must own one...


----------



## Mr Floppy (Aug 6, 2012)

Swedpat said:


> Now I am waiting for a diffuser to E40 and LD40/41 as well.



I'm sure you can find something to use, drink bottle perhaps. Before the TK40 diffuser, I made one myself:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-TK40-part-3&p=2931473&viewfull=1#post2931473



rambo180 said:


> 4xAA and it only puts out 220lumens. Am I missing something? I have an LED Lenser on 4xAAA (and Lensers are about 5 years behind in technology) and it does around the same.



Strangely enough, that LL probably uses a XP-E too.


----------



## rambo180 (Aug 7, 2012)

thankyou simulatedzero.


----------



## firelord777 (Aug 7, 2012)

SimulatedZero said:


> The XM-L is a more efficient diode capable of a much higher lumen out put. The advantage that the XP-E has on it, though, is it's small size. This makes it easier to throw the beam farther in a smaller package. That way you don't need a reflector the same size as the TK41 to get awesome throw. The big downside end sup being the runtime. A properly regulated XM-L could last for 10+ hours at 240 lumens in this set, where as you only get a couple hours of runtime with the XP-E.
> 
> As far as how far the E40 will throw, I am going to venture the numbers 150ft to 200ft (approx. 45-60m) of useful light; at the outside most. I have a 438ft (133m) long drive way. I can just barely see the end with 30,000 candle power and I can see about a third of the driveway with 10,000 candlepower. Based off of that I would say the 17,500 candle power E40 would almost reach half way up my driveway.



Thank you SZ


----------



## Ezeriel (Aug 22, 2012)

Bump-pi-dee, bump, bump
Bump-pi-dee, bump, bump
over the hills we go...

Bump-pi-dee, bump, bump
Bump-pi-dee, bump, bump
can we get some outdoor pics of the throw?


I keep thinking about this light and I just need more information
and the beamshots from fonarik just aren't doing it for me.... they changed the location for beamshots, and I can't tell what I'm looking at 

Argh!!! I'm gonna have to buy this thing out of curiosity


http://fonarik.com/test/indexen.php?model=269&scene=1&mode=2


----------



## kj2 (Aug 23, 2012)

Info; If you want a holster for the E40, the PA40 Jetbeam holster fits perfectly.  -Got mine Jetbeam holster of eBay.


----------



## TOJ (Aug 23, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> Bump-pi-dee, bump, bump
> Bump-pi-dee, bump, bump
> over the hills we go...
> 
> ...



I agree completely. Would love to see a real review of this. There is a youtube video from BrightGuy that lets you see the size and shape and modes pretty well, but no mentions of beams or runtime on Eneloops or stuff like that. It seems to be a great light at the $45 price point.


----------



## Ezeriel (Aug 23, 2012)

I broke down and bought one... 5-7 days from now I'll post some pics or a video 


Edit: It was the pics on this guys blog that pushed me over the edge... I figure the middle setting pic is about what a TK20 would be like
http://www.antary.de/2012/08/06/fenix-e40-review/


----------



## Mr Floppy (Aug 23, 2012)

Given that the E25 has 2 hour 20 mins runtime on 2AA and 187 lumens, which is quite good for the XP-E, I wonder if this is also the newer efficient XP-E?


----------



## Ezeriel (Aug 29, 2012)

So I got my E40, and had two night-shifts to test it out.

*....my camera is no good for beamshots at night, so no pics ;(


The E40 is good quality for having a plastic body. It's not going to handle a hard fall as well as a metal light, but all-in-all, I'm ok with it.
It's top-heavy with having a metal head 'n all... but it feels good to hold, solid. If you needed to, you could really swing it....

It's light levels are 34, 105, 220 and strobe.... the strobe is a variable one, it's brutal!!! ....but I would have preferred a 1-9 lumen setting instead of a strobe.

My lights beam pattern is a mess.. lol.. no wall hunting for me. 
I think the led might not be so much off-centered, as it seems to be tilted, and this is the only defect I can find.
The beam is laserbeam-like with the hottest part of the hotspot being about 6 inches at 9 feet. :huh:
At 100ish feet it's a 20ish foot hotspot...


My LD20 Q5 has about as much throw as my Shiningbeam neutral Spark, and my good ol' TK20 slightly out-throws them both.

At the 34 lumen setting, the E40 out-throws the LD20 at 90 lumens 
At the 105 lumen setting, the E40 out-throws all three of those lights
At the 220 lumen setting, the E40 has as much throw as my TK45 at 760 lumens!

now lemme add some perspective to all of this...

The LD20 Q5 is no slouch in the throw department, and even on medium the E40 puts it to shame
The E40 is more focused than the TK20, and although it nudges out the TK20 on it's medium setting, kicking it onto high
lights up anything you were squinting at, with a TK20, like flipping on a light switch.
The TK45 is no slouch either, as it is rated at 200 meters for throw, and although the E40 hotspot is much, much smaller,
seeing it edge out TK45 is impressive.


So I started walking....

I hate ansi ratings for throw. They aren't actual readings, they are a calculation, and they just don't tell you much.
So I shined the E40 down the road and started walking to estimate the distance of "usable light"
I consider "usable" to be lighting a hillside and seeing deer, not just their eye-shine.
I made it about 500 feet. 500 feet of usable light, and as I shined the light across the hillside, a max throw of 700-800 feet isn't unreasonable.



All-in-all, the E40 is a throw monster and anyone looking to upgrade from a tasforce 2c or TK20 should consider getting an E40.
500 feet of usable throw is all I think I would ever want.. any more and I think my neighbors would call the cops...
and for a light in the AA format, the E40 is second only to the TK41 (as far as I know)


----------



## TOJ (Aug 29, 2012)

I received mine yesterday. My review is going to sound a little brutal, but right up front: I am not returning it. 

I feel like, for relativity, I should list off my lights: ITP A3 EOS R5 Upgrade, 2x E01, E11, 2x E21. So this is my best/brightest/biggest/most expensive light now.

I do not like the plastic body. It feels almost like nylon. I really wish it were metal with some real knurling. As it is now, it's basically like tread on a car tire. Eg, recessed linear grooves. Not a big fan.

Also, you can hear/feel the loaded battery cartridge when you shake it. The E21 is twice the fit and finish of this light, IMO.

This is my first light with dual switches. I find it uncomfortable to operate tactically. Eg, one handed, using thumb to turn on/off. The mode button is much more sensitive than the power button, and often has me switching the mode just before turning it off. Renders mode memory useless. If you rotate the light around to where the power button is on the bottom (so your thumb doesn't cross the mode button to hit the power), it is uncomfortable for your thumb. Might just be my hands. I would love the UI of the E21 in this light. On/off rear clicky, and a low/med/high twisty.

Those are all the negatives of the light. It has tremendous throw, even on low. I only played with it for about 15 in the dark yesterday (after checking out the light itself during the day time), but was thoroughly impressed. It seems like it is about twice the power of the E21. The throw is farther with wider hotspot. I lit up a tree approximately 100 yards away. 

Summary:
The UI / fit & finish definitely under-deliver at the $45 price point. 2.5/5
The performance on the AA platform definitely deliver at the $45 price point. 5/5
Again, using my small collection listed above for relativity. This is my most expensive light.


----------



## Ezeriel (Aug 29, 2012)

TOJ said:


> This is my first light with dual switches. I find it uncomfortable to operate tactically. Eg, one handed, using thumb to turn on/off. The mode button is much more sensitive than the power button, and often has me switching the mode just before turning it off. Renders mode memory useless. If you rotate the light around to where the power button is on the bottom (so your thumb doesn't cross the mode button to hit the power), it is uncomfortable for your thumb. Might just be my hands. I would love the UI of the E21 in this light. On/off rear clicky, and a low/med/high twisty.



Ugh.. i forgot all about that. You are right on the money there; that dual switch is horrible....
But after two days of fumbling around with it, I did get used to it, and I think I just forgot to mention how much I hated it when I first tried it out.


In the future, I can see this light having a side switch like the E25/E35



..and I forgot to say, the lanyard is funky enough that a person should need a boyscout badge in knot tying to use it.

I think what they intended, and I had to look up terminology for this, is that the small hoop be tied in a 
"larks head knot" to the big hoop and then the big hoop larks head knotted to the light...

that way you have a slipknot for your wrist.. or I totally flubbed up what it's supposed to be used for lol.


----------



## TOJ (Aug 29, 2012)

The lanyard confused me too. On the E21, you push the lanyard loop through the little hole on the flashlight and loop it around the on/off switch and then pull it tight.

On the E40, there are two small holes. What I did, was shove the small lanyard loop through one hole (from the outside, toward the switch), then through the second hole (from the switch, to the outside), then put the string of the lanyard through the remaining loop and pulled it tight.

Then, I took the lanyard back off because I realized I didn't want 9" of string dangling. Heh.


----------



## firelord777 (Aug 29, 2012)

Thanks for sharing TOJ


----------



## Kokopelli (Oct 29, 2012)

Haven't anybody put an XP-G2 led in one of their E40s yet? It should be just the difference of R5 vs R4 bins and an XP-G2 should still have wider die in theory but would it be more efficient or much more powerful, I don't know.


----------



## BLUE LED (Oct 29, 2012)

The problem is that the XP-G2 miight not focus well in the reflector. If it doesn't, then the beam profile will be ugly and not very bright. Then you will need to mod with an XP-E2.


----------



## Bwolcott (Oct 29, 2012)

Im happy with the led that it comes with


----------



## xlight (Nov 1, 2012)

wow, so many replies and views.


----------



## Bwolcott (Nov 1, 2012)

has anyone tested the lux on the e40? because mine seems to throw further then 17500 lux would be, it competes with some of my other lights that are over 20,000 lux


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 2, 2012)

Bwolcott said:


> has anyone tested the lux on the e40? because mine seems to throw further then 17500 lux would be, it competes with some of my other lights that are over 20,000 lux



That's a 12.5% difference in intensity, not much of a noticeable difference there. For the most part it would be fairly difficult to notice less than 30 - 50%. Even then it wouldn't be a big difference.


----------



## Bwolcott (Nov 2, 2012)

SimulatedZero said:


> That's a 12.5% difference in intensity, not much of a noticeable difference there. For the most part it would be fairly difficult to notice less than 30 - 50%. Even then it wouldn't be a big difference.



well then its even more of a difference because I notice it, im guessing the e40 is closer to 25000 lux


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 2, 2012)

Bwolcott said:


> well then its even more of a difference because I notice it, im guessing the e40 is closer to 25000 lux



17,500cd to 25,000cd, 43% increase. 



> For the most part it would be fairly difficult to notice less than *30 - 50%*. *Even then it wouldn't be a big difference.*


----------



## Bwolcott (Nov 2, 2012)

SimulatedZero said:


> 17,500cd to 25,000cd, 43% increase.




yea Im suprised I havent seen any measurements done on this light yet


----------



## martinaee (Nov 20, 2012)

Yeah... so many people still don't understand that the xp-e R4 is EXACTLY the right led for what this light accomplishes. This light is pretty small, uses 4aa, and throws better than most lights with xm-l that are the same size or even bigger. You have to get a huge reflector on an xm-l to get focused throw like this. It's almost like having a smaller TK41 but just shrinking the head and led at the same time. Obviously the TK41 blasts out more light so it will throw farther, but you get the point.

Walking in areas with larger open spaces and down streets this light is amazing. I can see so far with it and the beam looks like a light-saber in fog or dust


----------



## martinaee (Nov 20, 2012)

Actually I don't know if somebody wants to figure this out, but I wonder if the reflector size to led surface size is larger than the TK41. The TK41 has a larger smooth reflector, but isn't the xm-l also 4 times the surface area? You can see why the E40 is such a nice thrower for it's 4aa size.

You know-- I just looked at the E40 on Fenix's site and they could do better with their on site advertising and description. The E40 is meant to be a medium powered light that competes with other higher powered lights because of it's throw, but no where do they really say that it throw so well except in the spec box. I know it's their cheaper series so I guess it doesn't matter as much but come on lol.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 20, 2012)

martinaee said:


> Actually I don't know if somebody wants to figure this out, but I wonder if the reflector size to led surface size is larger than the TK41. The TK41 has a larger smooth reflector, but isn't the xm-l also 4 times the surface area? You can see why the E40 is such a nice thrower for it's 4aa size.



It's significantly more complex than that unfortunately. The XP-E has a viewing angle of 110 degrees versus the XM-L's 125 degree viewing angle. This makes the XP-E a more efficient thrower from the word go. If you had an XP-E the same size as an XM-L it would still throw farther in the same size reflector. That's what made the XR-E such a powerful thrower, the potent combination of a very small die with a viewing angle of 95 degrees.


----------



## Verndog (Nov 20, 2012)

This new E40 is a little baffling in design IMO. I just bought an LD41, same shape, same (4) AA format, but over 2x brightness @520L, and the 190L med @7.5 hrs is very useful for general purpose outdoors.
I see no advantage in this light over the LD41, at least for me.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 20, 2012)

Verndog said:


> This new E40 is a little baffling in design IMO. I just bought an LD41, same shape, same (4) AA format, but over 2x brightness @520L, and the 190L med @7.5 hrs is very useful for general purpose outdoors.
> I see no advantage in this light over the LD41, at least for me.



One word, throw. If you have no need for a throwy light, then this one would seem pretty useless. On the other hand some people see the throw as a great advantage. It all depends on your philosophy of use.


----------



## Verndog (Nov 20, 2012)

SimulatedZero said:


> One word, throw. If you have no need for a throwy light, then this one would seem pretty useless. On the other hand some people see the throw as a great advantage. It all depends on your philosophy of use.



The LD41 has 200 meters of throw, that's 2.5 city blocks! no...I don't need more then that, unless I plan to open a 1 man airport someday. :twothumbs


----------



## K9Patrol (Nov 20, 2012)

I would have bought a couple of these lights to keep in my vehicles during the winter if they'd have done them with an xp-g or xm-l.. Xp-e?!? Huh? i would only want an XP-E in a light with a tiny reflector that ran off of one cell.


----------



## martinaee (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't mean to beat a dead horse or be snooty, but again... I don't think a lot of people understand that using the newest xp-e in this light makes for a beam that an xm-l or xp-g in the same size head/reflector just can't do.

After having this light for more than a month I would never return it. having everything lit up isn't necessarily good and can cause contrast loss in a person's periphery at night.

... I don't know. Everybody is a lumen hunter these days, but people forget how amazing even 200 lumens in led lights was just a few short years ago. Also the people who keep blowing this light off DON'T HAVE ONE. Get one then put your accurate views of the light on cpf  Lights really are tools and some are meant for long range and some short range. You don't use a powerful shotgun for sniping targets a mile away.


----------



## Kokopelli (Nov 20, 2012)

You're right on that. Even my old E21 R2 @150lm give out a light that is as effective as my other 280 lm rated 2xAA lights. I have an E05, E10, E11, E15 and an E21 and they all give out over the expectations.


----------



## Up All Night (Nov 20, 2012)

Verndog said:


> The LD41 has 200 meters of throw, that's 2.5 city blocks! no...I don't need more then that, unless I plan to open a 1 man airport someday. :twothumbs



You're quoting ANSI throw numbers, in real world use the LD41 won't come anywhere close to having *useful throw* out to 200 meters. I have lights with more than twice the lux rating of the LD41 that aren't useful at 200 meters. Factor in a city street with overhead lighting and 100 yards is a challenge.
I'm familiar with how well the XP-E can throw and @ $40 with CPF discounts this seems like a no-brainer for the "throwy" crowd. I can't resist much longer! I have a LD40, so I'm OK with the UI.


----------



## Verndog (Nov 20, 2012)

Up All Night said:


> You're quoting ANSI throw numbers, in real world use the LD41 won't come anywhere close to having *useful throw* out to 200 meters.



Sorry that is all the numbers I have. Real world numbers? How about more then I ever anticipate needing? I much prefer flood to throw for practical purposes myself...but that is me.


----------



## Up All Night (Nov 21, 2012)

Verndog said:


> Sorry that is all the numbers I have. Real world numbers? How about more then I ever anticipate needing? I much prefer flood to throw for practical purposes myself...but that is me.



Actually, I apologize if my post seemed crass in any manner. That was certainly not my intent, without the benefit of inflection the written word can be a little loose in its interpretation. 
ANSI distance ratings are measured down to .25 lux(I believe) which is of little use, unless you're standing on top of it. ANSI distance standards provide a base to compare lights that use the standard, but that's about it. The numbers don't reflect any of my actual experience. With that said, I'm a city dweller, ambient light abounds. XM-L based lights with anything less than a large head don't do well in my neck of the city! An XP-E emitter in a head the size of the E40 would be right in its element. 220 lumens in that set-up is plenty. I would definitely agree that the LD41 would be a more practical light for everyday use.
I have lights for every occasion, I hope someone doesn't make one that does it all! I'd be pi$$ed!


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 21, 2012)

Verndog said:


> Sorry that is all the numbers I have. Real world numbers? How about more then I ever anticipate needing? I much prefer flood to throw for practical purposes myself...but that is me.



Just to add a couple of objective numbers here for reference. I have found in my use that 10,000cd is useful to just under a hundred yards. By useful I mean it is bright enough at that distance to point the light in that direction and instantly get a good idea of what is over there. Anything past that and you have to start straining and focusing more to determine the details. Now, that is just my feel for that level of light, everybody has different eyes and different perceptions. Of course it also varies wildly by the amount of ambient light around, but I feel that 100 yards makes a decent reference number to go off of. In case you were interested.


----------



## Ezeriel (Nov 21, 2012)

I have said this before, and maybe even in this thread, but to my eyes, the E40 is roughly twice as bright as a TK20 or 2C taskforce.


... I don't think that sinks in for a lot of CPF'ers. The taskfore, when it first came out, blew people minds. Never before had such a good
thrower, been so widely available. I got one for my brother-in-law, and he's still in awe of it.

...and now we have the E40, and I can't even convince a guy, in the recommend a light forum, that it would be good for looking up a tree to find an owl.



I guess the 200 lumens rating just messes with peoples perception of what the E40 can do.


----------



## Torpedo (Nov 21, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> I have said this before, and maybe even in this thread, but to my eyes, the E40 is roughly twice as bright as a TK20 or 2C taskforce.
> 
> 
> ... I don't think that sinks in for a lot of CPF'ers. The taskfore, when it first came out, blew people minds. Never before had such a good
> ...



Well, you have convinced me. I love my floody lights inside or in the back yard etc, but when out camping or at the lake I like a thrower. Been looking at this one for a while and its next in line.


----------



## Ezeriel (Nov 27, 2012)

Tell me what you think of it when you get it.


----------



## Up All Night (Nov 27, 2012)

Could resist no longer. I popped on one last night, hopefully in hand by weeks end! 

*"E" is for everybody!*


----------



## Swedpat (Nov 28, 2012)

Ezeriel said:


> I have said this before, and maybe even in this thread, but to my eyes, the E40 is roughly twice as bright as a TK20 or 2C taskforce.
> 
> I guess the 200 lumens rating just messes with peoples perception of what the E40 can do.



I wrote earlier about my experience. While not really twice as bright as TK20, the main difference is the hotspot: the spill is very the same brightness but the hotpot is close to 4 times brighter. Due to the price and output E40 is a beast of a thrower!


----------



## Torpedo (Nov 30, 2012)

Had mine a couple days now.....hard to believe this this light is only 220 lumes. Feels comfortable in your hand, even though the plastic is a little slick. I use my index finger to switch modes, as the buttons are a little tight for my thumb. For anyone looking for a budget thrower this is a great option.


----------



## merc240d (Dec 1, 2012)

Toepedo,
I've had my eye on the E40 and the LD41 light for a while now. Good to hear that the 220L is powerful enough on the E40 for looking up a tree. The plastic that you speak of is it the case? The Fenix spec states "Made of durable aircraft-grade aluminum with Premium Type III hard-anodized anti-abrasive finish." Which is it, AL or plastic?:thinking:


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 1, 2012)

merc240d said:


> Toepedo,
> I've had my eye on the E40 and the LD41 light for a while now. Good to hear that the 220L is powerful enough on the E40 for looking up a tree. The plastic that you speak of is it the case? The Fenix spec states "Made of durable aircraft-grade aluminum with Premium Type III hard-anodized anti-abrasive finish." Which is it, AL or plastic?:thinking:



E40: plastic handle. LD41 aluminum handle.


----------



## merc240d (Dec 1, 2012)

Thanks Swedpat,

Shouldn't Fenix clarify what parts of the E40 are plastic, handle or grip? If the the whole handle is plastic I'd favor it over the AL in the saltwater enviroment. It is difficult to select the best for my use without a hands-on experience, but then why not get one of each.

Ref http://www.fenixlight.com/viewproduct.asp?id=168, slide #9 and slide #15.


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 1, 2012)

merc240d said:


> Thanks Swedpat,
> 
> Shouldn't Fenix clarify what parts of the E40 are plastic, handle or grip? If the the whole handle is plastic I'd favor it over the AL in the saltwater enviroment. It is difficult to select the best for my use without a hands-on experience, but then why not get one of each.
> 
> Ref http://www.fenixlight.com/viewproduct.asp?id=168, slide #9 and slide #15.



You are right. It is difficult to know which feels best in the hand without a try. I have both and would say that both are a bit slipper. Some kind of tape around the handle will help. But apart from that they have different beam characters. While LD41 has more than twice the total output E40 still throws better, but with a smaller hotspot. For allround use I would say go for LD41. But you can also do like me: get both... 

By the way: :welcome:


----------



## Bwolcott (Dec 1, 2012)

merc240d said:


> Thanks Swedpat,
> 
> Shouldn't Fenix clarify what parts of the E40 are plastic, handle or grip? If the the whole handle is plastic I'd favor it over the AL in the saltwater enviroment. It is difficult to select the best for my use without a hands-on experience, but then why not get one of each.
> 
> Ref http://www.fenixlight.com/viewproduct.asp?id=168, slide #9 and slide #15.





they do say the body is plastic right in the link you posted


----------



## Torpedo (Dec 1, 2012)

merc240d said:


> Toepedo,
> I've had my eye on the E40 and the LD41 light for a while now. Good to hear that the 220L is powerful enough on the E40 for looking up a tree. The plastic that you speak of is it the case? The Fenix spec states "Made of durable aircraft-grade aluminum with Premium Type III hard-anodized anti-abrasive finish." Which is it, AL or plastic?:thinking:



Well, I wasnt the one who wanted to look up a tree, but I could.... about a block away. I passed a long straight railroad track last night and would say it had a throw of about 150 yards,give or take. Thats real life throw, where my eyes can see.It could be more or less for others. The E40 and LD41 are really two completely different platforms, so you either have to deciede which you want ,or get both. Think I will get an LD 41 shortly.


----------



## InquisitiveInquirer (Dec 1, 2012)

I've been thinking about getting this E40 until i bought i LD41. Now though, i'm no longer considering it as the nitecore EA4 seems so nice and it's only about $30 bucks more. I'm sorry if i'm taking this thread off topic, but i just wanted to mention, though i'm sure most of you already know, that the nitecore EA4, at least according to the manufacturer's specs, has 860 lumens & 20000cd. For comaprison, Fenix LD41, which i own, has 520 lumens and 10000cd. Fenix E40 has 220 lumens and 17500cd. What's more, the price of the nitecore, so far at least i've seen, is about the same price as the LD41. It'd be really neat to see someone with beamshots of a Fenix E40 and Nitecore EA4. Maybe i should get an Fenix E40 as well and then compare it myself? hahah


----------



## Bwolcott (Dec 1, 2012)

InquisitiveInquirer said:


> I've been thinking about getting this E40 until i bought i LD41. Now though, i'm no longer considering it as the nitecore EA4 seems so nice and it's only about $30 bucks more. I'm sorry if i'm taking this thread off topic, but i just wanted to mention, though i'm sure most of you already know, that the nitecore EA4, at least according to the manufacturer's specs, has 860 lumens & 20000cd. For comaprison, Fenix LD41, which i own, has 520 lumens and 10000cd. Fenix E40 has 220 lumens and 17500cd. What's more, the price of the nitecore, so far at least i've seen, is about the same price as the LD41. It'd be really neat to see someone with beamshots of a Fenix E40 and Nitecore EA4. Maybe i should get an Fenix E40 as well and then compare it myself? hahah




the Ea4 definitely looks impressive by the specs, but I do think the e40 in under rated on throw visually I think the lux is higher then 17500


----------



## SimulatedZero (Dec 3, 2012)

Ok, this is one beast of a light. For what it is, the throw and use-ability of the light is unprecedented. I got a steal on it from amazon, picked it up for 25$ and I couldn't be happier with this light. I would definitely say that it is a solid value at 45$. Also, Bwolcott, I apologize for doubting what you were saying about the light being under rated. This thing is a lot better than the specs would have you believe.


----------



## Ezeriel (Dec 4, 2012)

^don't sweat it, SimulatedZero, it's rather unbelievable how good this light is, 
and it just goes to show how misleading all of our fancy ansi measurements can be.


----------



## TornroT (Dec 4, 2012)

Darn. Couldn't resist. Just ordered one. Your fault, guys! No semi serious thrower in the collection as yet. Serious throwers cost too much / are too big / use exotic batteries. The Fenix E21 (natural white) is wonderful in the woods. Thinking the E40 could be suitable in more open spaces, perhaps at sea too. And now for the long wait... Thread'll be old before I have it :-(


----------



## SimulatedZero (Dec 4, 2012)

TornroT said:


> Darn. Couldn't resist. Just ordered one. Your fault, guys! No semi serious thrower in the collection as yet. Serious throwers cost too much / are too big / use exotic batteries. The Fenix E21 (natural white) is wonderful in the woods. Thinking the E40 could be suitable in more open spaces, perhaps at sea too. And now for the long wait... Thread'll be old before I have it :-(



It's more of a Cool White than Neutral White so it won't be quite as comfortable in the woods. However, I do think that you will enjoy using. Especially in conjunction with the E21. The only thing you need now is a nice floody light with a low low for upclose stuff.


----------



## TornroT (Dec 4, 2012)

Yup. Got lot's of them luvvely small floodies: iTP A1 + A2, 47 Mini AA + Mini A CRI + Mini ML CRI, Xenos, couple of headlights... Working my way up to the big lights, taking it slow. Maybe one day there'll be a Sunway M40A or a Fenix TK41. Trying to keep it sane, though. Itching to go 18650 but resisting bravely - so far.


----------



## RemcoM (Feb 27, 2013)

Hi,

I have the fenix E40, and i get the Fenix TK41 and TK60 nowadays,

Whats the difference between the E40 and the TK41, and TK60, in throw, and brightness?

I hope they are much throwier, and much brighter.

Remco


----------



## RemcoM (Feb 27, 2013)

Nobody?


----------



## kj2 (Sep 1, 2014)

Fenix just confirmed me via email, they've plans to update the E40. Release-date unknown.


----------



## kj75 (Sep 1, 2014)

kj2 said:


> Fenix just confirmed me via email, they've plans to update the E40. Release-date unknown.



We'll see...
I use my E40 less than 5 times a year...


----------



## SimulatedZero (Sep 1, 2014)

Eh, I'm not so confident in said update. I would hate for Fenix to complicate a perfectly good workhorse in the name of putting new products out just to do it.


----------



## kj2 (Sep 1, 2014)

SimulatedZero said:


> Eh, I'm not so confident in said update. I would hate for Fenix to complicate a perfectly good workhorse in the name of putting new products out just to do it.


Well a XM-L2 or XP-L in it would be nice. The biggest reason I don't use my E40 that much, is the intense hotspot. The (big)plus is the plastic handle which doesn't get cold during the winter.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Sep 1, 2014)

Lol, that's exactly what I'm afraid they'll do.


----------



## martinaee (Sep 1, 2014)

Well just awhile ago we were talking about how they silently updated the E40 to an xp-e2. I wish I had that version, but it's not really a biggie.

It kind of would completely change the entire point of the light if they put an xm-l2 in there. Way less throwy for the size. An xp-g2 would maybe be more interesting for me.


----------

