Daylight, a point and shoot does not have the same exposure settings each time. It has a computer chip that decides how to set the exposures. On my camera I set the exposures to the same standard Brad, trooplewis, and Rick use and both shots were from the same exact position.
And I have taken the challenge myself, now that I have done it and got conclusive results it is proven. One can easily disprove a theory (like I did) but it is extremely hard to prove it.
Wouldn’t it settle this once and for all if these shots were taken from a lot further than 80 feet since both versions can reach that distance easily?
I think if this were taken at 300 yards instead of only 80 feet and then measured with a camera that should clearly show which way throws further.
No matter what this light won't throw 300 yards, my STL-V2 couldn't do that. If you guys would like I will get out and take some at 100 yards tomorrow night. (Its 1 am here)
I dont accuse, I state a fact.
A proven fact.
I just threw out 300 yards. But 100 yards come to think of it makes a lot more sense. I can’t wait to see the results! 
What’s making this thread so confusing, not blaming you for it, is that the OP has two sets of experiments.
Set 1. Long EFL magnifier lens or fresnel lens to project spot to the wall near focal point,
that’s where my elephant story for, it does not increase flashlight throw.
Set 2. Sticking a telescope in front of a flashlight. This is a totally different optical system.
I am guessing that’s probably what the OP did in his latest 80 feet beam shot.
Telescope works similar to dual aspheric lens set-up, it’ll increase throw, which is dependent on the largest lens, 6” diameter front lens used by the OP? I never said telescope doesn’t work. I made no comments to telescope as it’s not not a flashlight mod, just fun play…
My elephant story has nothing to do with telescope set-up, it’s strictly for applying magnifier glass & fresnel lens in front of flashlight for a mod. My point was illustrated well by Scaru image, it’ll be even more obvious if he increase the distance further.
NZ shooter, look at my f*cking mouse over!!! It throws further without it, what is so hard to get about that? I swear the air in NZ makes you guys make exorbitant claims about throw.
I'll throw out a basic explanation of the scientific process for you, it might help you understand...
Since no one has said it yet, Welcome to BLF! As you can tell we sometimes get into heated discussions on this type of thing. ;)
Ok, so let's ignore the validated beamshots that are standardized! Who needs logic. :P Can you explain why you would want to ignore them? Because they disagree with you? 
What you are not realizing is that there are two threads here. One thread says “with my eyes it looks brighter” The answer is Yes it looks brighter, so if that is all you want, you are completely happy.
The other side is fact and proven science. There is NO optic that will make More Light from LED. It is Not Possible. Therefore, the scientific part says, even though your eyes deceive you, there is not as much luminance by adding optics in the path of the led.
For those of you who don't give a rats butt about science and only live by your senses, be happy! The light is brighter! For those of you who live to dispute by science, congratulations, you can prove the truth, But be forewarned, laymen are a Much Larger part of the population and we don't really want to accept something that says our eyes, ears or nose deceives us. If it looks like light, sounds like light and smells like light, it must be light.
What OL sed.
I’m learning little by little!
i will definitely take up the challenge… but i doubt it very much it will reach 300 yards… but i’m pretty sure it can throw a lot father than 80’
i wish there’s more people take this challenge and prove it to themselves.
if you don’t have trustfire WF 502B… use any flood light even those that using AA or AAA batteries to see it how much farther it can shoot.
but as far more pictures regarding the shot it will be pointless for me now, as the only camera i have is point and shoot camera.
like scaru said… the point and shoot camera isn’t always take a consistent picture.
and i’m not gonna buy a very expensive camera so i can justify this theory.
using the thrower flashlight for beam shot comparison is just unjustified, as i found out throwier reflector need longer distance between the magnifying glass and the flashlight, in order to achive a tighter beam.
using flooder light is the best way to test this theory
And he didn't get it... Yes??? Maybe you should look at something that was standardized... Yes??? See I can be obnoxious too. Yes???
Yes, but this has been disproven two ways now. 1st, by using a a camera with standardized settings. 2nd, by using science. I just don't get what is so confusing.
Yes, after is using the lens. It is quite clear, there is much less light. Look at it again.
Where do you see more throw? Post number please..
I just went outside with my L2P and a huge lens.. despite the ability of projecting a die image, there was no surprise. Ugly beam with a huge hole in the middle, significantly less light overall and less light in the hotspot. If the light in the hotspot had stayed the same, I would agree with the theory of "more throw" (although it would just be an optical trick, like aspheric throwers, more contrast and so on..). But it didnt.
Oh come on NZ, you got to be kidding us. How many times have we said now that these shots are misleading? Just look at the outer parts of the image, where the flashlight doesnt shine.. one is lighter than the other. Different exposure and aperture obviously.
As usual, I am talking about my pictures. Ya know, the same ones I'm always talking about...
It definitely would not, I mean a Lumatic 3 dollars AAA light has a focused hotspot and my L2 doesn't. Guess which one throws further?
And as nightcrawl pointed out, the exposure is drastically different. Look at the wall on the edge of the picture. In one it is lit up, and in the other it isn't. That is a sure sign of a different exposure.