Manker PL10 ?
BLF review of Manker PL10 here

Lumintop yn365 is a very good option from the flashlights currently in production.

Oops . Sorry for the bad suggestion. Merry Christmas.
BLF 348 has a Nichia 219 led, but it’s a one AAA only flashlight.

Alcius wrote:

Oops . Sorry for the bad suggestion. Merry Christmas. BLF 348 has a Nichia 219 led, but it’s a one AAA only flashlight.

The BLF-348 is a great light with Nichia 219B and cheap too.
Unfortunately the (measured) output is only 50-60 lumens with a AAA.
Stronger cells can be used, but isn’t really recommended since the light quickly overheats with them.

A Manker E21 should do the trick though:
http://www.mankerlight.com/manker-e21-200-lumens-led-flashlight/

Your Brother is going to find out 200 lumen is way too bright when looking close up into someone’s ear, nose, or checking pupil dilation. 125lm might even be too bright. I’d be surprised if he needs anymore than 50lm. I would guess the BLF 348 nichia single AAA would be about perfect. Might be too bright with a 10180

RobertB wrote:

Your Brother is going to find out 200 lumen is way too bright when looking close up into someone’s ear, nose, or checking pupil dilation. 125lm might even be too bright. I’d be surprised if he needs anymore than 50lm. I would guess the BLF 348 nichia single AAA would be about perfect. Might be too bright with a 10180

My wife is a doctor and uses an IYP365 (Nichia), she usually uses it in medium and sometimes in low.

She uses sometimes also 348 (Nichia) with AAA, she have several. Also she gave several to her colleagues, they are all very happy with them…

The Nextorch Dr.K3 is high CRI and designed for pupil and similar examination but not so much for EDC use.
The Lumintop is probably better for both examination and general use. I think he will find the medium setting of ~25 lumens more than adequate for examination work and the low setting of 1.5 lumens is probably a good output for pupil responses. I can’t see 200 lumens being needed at all in a medical setting and at that output, battery life is quite short.

mrheosuper wrote:

Yeah, iyp365, but any other options ? Btw: is the glass of iyp365 Ar coated In some review, they didnt mention it

The features for the IYP365 on Lumintop’s website state that the glass is double-side AR coated.

mrheosuper wrote:

Yeah, iyp365, but any other options ?

I might be repeating myself, but:
A Manker E21 should do the trick:
http://www.mankerlight.com/manker-e21-200-lumens-led-flashlight/

mrheosuper wrote:

Btw: is the glass of iyp365 Ar coated In some review, they didnt mention it

Mine was just inches away so I checked for you on low -> the lens gives a slight purple tint under illumination so yes I believe so. But don’t hold me to it (Maybe my eyes have started to see purple or something?)

> Nextorch

I found an explanation of this:

Quote:

… photobiological safety of blue light hazard exempted RG0 rating

I know opthalmologists now filter the bright light used to examine the retina to reduce the blue light hazard.
This “RG0 rating” means “Risk Group Zero”

‘Oogled: https://www.google.com/search?q=blue+light+hazard++RG0

Briefly from the Osram page found by that search:
http://www.osram-os.com/Graphics/XPic9/00079436_0.pdf/Details

Quote:

The photochemical retinal hazard involves a
photochemical process in which highly
energetic short-wave radiation causes
damage, in some cases irreversible, to the
retina.
The main area of the spectrum of concern in
this connection lies between 400nm and
500nm (= blue light). The critical aspect in
terms of the potential for harm, however, is
not the blue component itself, but rather the
energy content in this range of the spectrum,
which depends essentially on the luminance
(effective blue light radiance).
Gazing up at a blue sky (very high
proportion of blue light, but scattered, so
luminance low), for example, is completely
harmless …
… direct sunlight, which has a very high
radiance, can lead to damage.
The radiation absorbed, which depends on
the intensity of the incident light and the
length of exposure, causes photochemical
decomposition of the pigments present in
the photoreceptor cells. The photopigment
fragments thus created act as free radicals,
leading to the death of the photoreceptor
cells.

Those old lights to examine the Eye can use HID bulbs so a filtering is needed
A tungsten light should be OK

It is more harmful to look in the sun driving at evening than in an LED flashlight
Blue light is not too bad, 365 are really dangerous
285nm LED are absolutely deadly at very low uW levels to sterilise water for example

mrheosuper wrote:

^well, he already have olight i3e silver(110 lumen) and he wants a light” little brighter and more like“sunlight”
So i guess 150 lumen is enough
I dont think he will only uses it to look at someone, but also use as EDC light

Cliwilnew wrote:

The Nextorch Dr.K3 is high CRI and designed for pupil and similar examination but not so much for EDC use.
The Lumintop is probably better for both examination and general use. I think he will find the medium setting of ~25 lumens more than adequate for examination work and the low setting of 1.5 lumens is probably a good output for pupil responses. I can’t see 200 lumens being needed at all in a medical setting and at that output, battery life is quite short.

mrheosuper wrote:

well. i think i will buy him iyp365, maybe 125 lumen is enough…

here is the difference

The advantage of the Nichia (on the right in next pic) is that it shows reds that the XP-G2 cannot.

an IYP w Nichia will be warmer than his i3e, but also opens up a whole new world of color, totally separate and unrelated to raw blue white brightness

to get 200 lumens from a Nichia, requires larger batteries than the IYP… and a heavier light than would fit comfortably in a shirt pocket

Probably a bit late for the OP now, but the Nitecore MT06MD should meet all your criteria. It has a high mode of 180 lumens and Nichia 219b.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?432937-super-focused-(thrower)-AAA-penlight&p=5086854&viewfull=1#post5086854