Question for zoom light owners?

For those of you who own zoom lights and particularly for those of you who own more than one kind do any of them have beams that are better looking than others?



I’m not talking about homemade lights where you’ve left in the reflector and now have artifacts due to that (disco lights) :slight_smile: I’m just wondering if some manufacturers have done a better job than others regarding eliminating rings in the beam at various settings.



I suspect that those who especially like zoom lights just get used to the rings but I’m also just curious as to whether any manufacturers do a better job in that area.



At one time or other I’ve had 3 zoom lights and they all had rings. With the XR-E there is going to be the “Cree Ring” unless it was painted out. There are usually one or two other rings however as you move out away from the center of the beam.



The last one (I believe but am not certain) is light leaking around the edge of the optic.



I’m just trying to positively identify the source of all the rings so that I can determine whether all or some could be eliminated.



Any feedback or ideas?



When I’ve made my own aspheric throwers I’ve had a little less problems in that regard but they weren’t variable focus. Painting out the “Cree Ring” took care of much of it. A few times I’ve sacrificed some throw by taping portions of the back of the aspheric.



It’s also possible to use light diffusion over the entire back of the optic if all you’re after is a more directed beam but not after maximum throw.



I’d like to be able to pinpoint exactly where each of the variations in the beam is coming from.

I have an older version Romisen RC-29 (KaiDomain AA 1-mode) and a Tank007 TK-737. They are both pretty ringy. The ringiness of the Tank007 is more pronounced on high compared to on low. That's about all I know about ringiness concerning my zoomies.

My freak ringy beam :D

Dedomed Sipik, Cree ring painted with black marker (before that first ring was about double thickness and brightness)

I have about a dozen zoomies… some are less “ringy” than others in either zoom or throw… but all have some sort of rings…

But let me suggest to you something interesting…

I just received this light 2 days ago and am so far VERY impressed with it… I have moded out some Q5’s to t6’s before in different zoomies and have not been impressed… but this is my first T6 purchase in a “small size” zoomie that even comes close to me being satisfied with.

http://kaidomain.com/product/details.S020028

What I like is the build quality and the MASSIVE bright flood (with absolutely no rings in flood mode –crisp and clean)…nice bright throw and focused crisp emitter, my meter is out on loan so I will give some load readings later… I will even try to do a review for BLF when I can… it has a “relatively” solid aluminum pill too for good heat resolution… plastic but great lens.

Here is what I thought was interesting… it has a machined cone screw in (brass maybe?) retainer for the front of the led star (where usually there is nothing in other zooms or a maybe just a silver plastic isolator)… when I shine the light in throw mode there is virtually no rings immediately around the focused emitter… (just one very slight ring where you can make out the dome edge) and then darkness and then an “overthrow” brighter starburst ring (bright to fade) out on the outer rim…but between the outer starburst and the emitter there is an ever so slight (not really visible beyond 3 feet against a wall) reflection of the groves from this brass or painted aluminum machined retainer…

So what this leads me to believe is the somehow the color (mine is a much darker copper color than the link above) or the concentric groves in the retainer cone are diluting any reflection from this area and you are left with a nice crisp reflection of the emitter surrounded by some good darkness and then the outer starburst… I would like to know if this could be thought of as some sort of “ring reducer”… -providing the opposite effect of the reflected rings we get from a silver retainer/isolator… I might try painting flat black some other silver isolators I have… I don’t know –could even the inner surface of the extension tube in throw mode be designed the same? - or at least painted flat black… just an idea??? Would that help at all? –my idea from the design of this light is maybe something other than the optic could remedy.. or at least somewhat help the ring situation we all have. -seems to in this case a bit...

I will get some pictures when I can…

What I have experienced is, not all black painting in the inside of the head work the same, when they got a brighter paint some rings may appear.

Another thing is any aluminium exposed without paint in the pill might also show some rings.

And the last one is the lens and how it is fixed to the head, same lens on different flashlights can differ.

Here is some pics from lightmalls of the beam pattern... different from all my other zoomies

http://www.lightmalls.com/smil-shark-ss-a100-flood-to-throw-cree-xm-l-t6-3-modes-led-flashlight

But I got mine from the Kiadomain link above...

(EDIT) FYI 29mm optic... need my glasses when reading the numbers!

(Edit)... I see Manafont just posted their's:

http://www.manafont.com/product_info.php/sky-ray-1200-cree-xml-t6-3mode-floodtothrow-glass-optics-led-flashlight-black-186503aaa-p-8635

(EDIT) Note... it does seem to take advantage of the full width of the 29mm lens (true aspheric) too... as well the lens comes right close to the led in full zoom

I have 4 Sipik clones at the moment. 1 has an Osram LED in a pill and body that is identical to two of the others. Nearly perfect beam pattern. No visible rings to speak of. Very faint outer ring when zoomed full in.

The remaining one has a slightly different pill and lens. The fully zoomed LED is bigger and the light appears to be just a touch brighter than the other 2 Q5?s (How to know for sure if it is a Q5 or Q3?) All of the Cree's are noticeably brighter than the Osram, However, the beam quality of the Osram is much nicer.

So, I'm not certain how picky you are. But, from what I see, pretty much everything is a Cree ring and not an optic thing. The rings are so faint on the Osram as to be basically un-noticable to me. Not really visible unless zoomed in and then pretty faint. Full flood the outer edge is softly diffused "ring" of a slightly different tint. You really have to pay attention to even notice that though. Doesn't stick out like the Cree ring.

I don't see how it could be anything but the emitter itself as my comparison is directly between what appears to be identical pills in identical bodies. I can change the lens and bezel ring between the two and there is no difference.

Obviously I'm still a newb. Have never even heard of a cree ring. Just my observations so far. Am curious about another thing while we are discussing this. Is it the no reflector optics of these zoom lights or the XP/R-E / Osram emitters that make beams without an obvious hot spot like all my other reflector lights?

All my reflector lights are either XP-G or XM-L so all have noticeable hot spot. None of my zoom lights have a hot spot but they are all XP/R-E or Osram LEDs.

Thanks,

Wade

I have 3 EDIT P4s in my possession right no ring either zoomed or focused. I will tr to post beam shots later.

I have several flood to throw which seem to have pretty nice beams. Not perfect but not awful.

They are the ones that have the colored band near the end of the light. The idea is that it lets a bit of the light that would be lost out the sides so you can see that the light is on. It is faint in flood mode and brigher in throw since more lumens would otherwise be lost to the side. Found them on Ebay and they are distinctive due to the bands.

If you want a good one, Id recommend the shiningbeam.com's Romisen. They have a few with an XR-E with an actual R2 bin which does increase efficiency significantly compared to Q4 or Q5.

I’m thinking about getting a piece of black paper and punching a hole in it just larger enough for the emitter dome but not for the “Cree Ring” or for anything else that might be reflective on and around the pill.



I’ll just push that down over the emitter and see what the effect is on ring reduction and then further concentrate on the junction between the lens and the bezel. It would seem to be no different at first glance that the situation with a flat lens but since the surface is curved the light may be hitting the surrounding bezel in a different manner.

Let us know how you make out

The zoom lights don’t have a hotspot because there is no reflector. In a reflector the hotspot with a XR-E would be smaller, the XP-G would be larger and the XM-L would be the largest.



In zoom flood mode the beam is no unfocused it’s essentially the same as having no optic or reflector…just bare emitter.

br>
Regarding your other post (which I didn’t quote) you may be right. The rings may all (or mostly) be related to the emitter. I know the big ring just out from the hotspot (most noticed in throw mode) is the “Cree Ring”. That is the silver ring around the emitter in the XR-E. It’s not used on other emitters.



Since XR-E is otherwise well suited for aspheric throwers most zoom lights use that emitter so It’s hard to see what it would look like with different emitters.



I’ve never had a zoom light with anything in it other than a XR-E.



I’ll ask the others as well…how many of you have zoom lights using something other than the XR-E and how do those beam compare with the XR-E?

It turns out it rather hard to cut/punch a hole that is just larger enough for the emitter without the Cree Ring. My hole punch allowed the silver ring to pop through as well.



I then tried to just poke a hole using a pencil but it was too small and the process wasn’t all that controllable. I ended up using translucent Scotch tape and covered everything but a square in the middle just to experiment.



It really seems that all the rings are related and not just the Cree Ring. For example you can take a piece of paper and slowly cover the beam starting on the very edge and watch the outer ring to see when it disappears.



It doesn’t disappear until you are starting to cover the emitter so all the rings seem to be related.



The beam ring problem seems to be a bit worse in zoom lights on throw mode than on one of my fixed aspheric mods so I think there is something about the zoom light design that also contributes to this problem in addition to the emitter.



I’d love to see a zoom light using a XP-E so that I could see the differences. There would be no Cree Ring of course but I’d like to see if the other rings were as pronounced.

I haven't any with XP-E, but it should throw a bit less due to they got same die, and different dome, but XR-E has a narrower emitting angle, I do not know if it will not have rings problem now.

I got others with XM-L and Osram Oslon SSL-80, and both can have rings or not depending where you mount them.

The good news is that I think I’ve figured out why aspheric flashlights have rings. The bad news is that short of me designing one of these lights there may not be much I can do about the rings :slight_smile:



We don’t have these problems with flashlights with flat glass lenses because that glass isn’t focusing anything. Rather it’s just allowing (most of) the light to pass.



Aspheric lenses obviously are focusing the light and with zoom lenses that focused point is also a moving target.



Changing to a different emitter would only eliminate the Cree Ring but that is only a factor at full focus anyway. As you defocus (in the direction of flood) that goes away pretty quickly anyway.



All of the other rings are fixed and aren’t really specific to the emitter. Those rings are from the internal structure of the flashlight. The lens mounting system for instance.



In my latest light the lens is fixed atop a shiny metal cylinder with the LED on a movable platform below. The lens doesn’t move…the emitter does.



So, the outer ring is that top thick edge of the mounting cylinder. The next dimmer area is the vertical length of the cylinder. Then you have the pill and the various surfaces of that. Some have a hight dimension as well.



Some fixed structures are closer to the focal point of the lens and some are further away therefore some are sharper and brighter than others.



Other than black anodizing all of the internal structures to minimize this effect and designing all internal parts with the design criteria being to minimize reflection I don’t think there is much I can do.



I don’t think paint is the solution here although it’s judicious use would minimize the Cree Ring. On the other surfaces it would likely just pop off and prevent the smooth operation of the parts.



Of course diffusion takes care of the ring issue but it also takes care of (eliminates) throw!



The first step in any problem is always to understand the problem. I think (not positive) that I’ve done that correctly.



If anyone else comes up with any solutions I’d love to hear about them.

gcbryan,

A good black washer or similar around the led makes a difference with just aluminium pills where they might give some reflections in different directios wich is the origin of some rings.

Another thing as you said is how good the flashlight is designed to hold the lens, it has to cover 100% the external bezel, some flashlights are not well designed in that way and also add rings.

And the las thing I imagine could make some more artifacts is the lens quality itself, any internal imperfection will modify the image thrown from the flashlight, and the material it is made of, might also add another problem wich is the efficiency of it where part of the light instead of getting throw the lens is sent back to the head.

Many people don't like plastic / acrilic lenses just because there is a general thought glass is better than plastic, but that is not 100% true, there are much better acrilic lenses than glass lenses and vice versa.

Yavi, good points! I agree regarding plastic vs glass as well. I have some plastic lens that have less artifacts than the glass ones.



I agree with your comment regarding the coverage of the lens and the internal structure of the light.