Is there really pretty much nothing between SC52 and SK68?

Output going by a side by side on the ceiling of my living room seemed much brighter, close to the 502b clone I have (3xAAA Eneloop XML T6).

I’m still REAL nervous about using LiOn, but charger seemed to work fine at 0.5 amp 4.2v charging first time for about 40 minutes or so. I’m going to look at another SK68 clone or two, this one side by side with the 502b had a touch of green I never noticed using it alone. I may get a XP-G and/or one of the claimed XML T6 versions of the SK68 and get a couple more less cheap 14500 cells. (Maybe the Nitecore, going to look more into it).

Funny that you mention Android tablets, Nexus4 just dropped to $199 so I stopped at the Tmobile store to check one out. Not an Ipad, but its a fully functional nice phone with a good display, 4 processors, only downside I see is battery life isn’t great, but I have religion about putting mine on the charger every time I walk in the house, and no MicroSD, an the smaller microSim.

That kinda defeats the purpose of a zoomie. Might as well get something like a TF R5-A3.

Dont see the point of a T6 sk68. Zurely the major upgrade would be a lens free from artifacts.

Now that I seem to be in 14500 waters, and less inclined to pop for the SC52 “soon”.

If you don’t want to do 14500 Lion batteries, maybe you’d be more comfortable with LiFePO4’s? They have a somewhat lower voltage, lower capacity, but they are safer than Lion. They take a different charger, too. I have a few that I have been playing with and they can source a lot of current. Have not tried them yet in my SK68’s or clones yet. Does fine in my Hugsby P2.

I tried the cheap Ultrafire 14500 pair I bought a few months back and still had sealed in the package. Very bright. Excited a couple hours then it dawned on me, not practical at all without a lower output mode for normal use.

I started a new thread to discuss best emitter etc. using the 14500 NEW THREAD

I was thinking about using unprotected cells, and decided not to so, no need for the lower voltage option.

Not unless you’re running a 14500.

You have to be careful with lumen ratings on 1AA lights. Many of them list peak ratings on 14500 as the maximum output. But they don’t state (or, at the least, don’t state clearly) the kind of battery that they are using to get this output. Unless they specifically say that it is with NiMH, you are guaranteed that they are giving the rating for a 14500. And pretty much ALL of these lights are basically at SK68 levels of brightness with NiMH. The SC52 seems to be the only one that is the real deal on NiMH.

Even the SC52 does the “turbo” one minute of 500 LM on a 14500, but nothing else seems to match the 280 with an Eneloop.

Now I am kind of sold on the idea of a “turbo” mode as well as a normal high, and low, but could do without a strobe.

Makes me wonder why I don’t just buy a SC52, then I look at the price. :wink:

They do have the turbo thing with a 14500. But at least they’re not using that to hide low output with NiMH. I guess their 280 lumens on NiMH is just too much of a selling point.

Anyway, if you want an SC52, Illumination Supply has a promotion running. Their normal price is $64. But with the coupon code ‘zebrastripes’, you get somewhat over $9 off the price of the light (which certainly isn’t too shabby). You WILL have to pay sales tax since you live here in California. But on the other hand, you won’t be going old and grey waiting for it to be shipped from China. You’ll probably get it in two days.

Stop trying to find a better option and just do it.

For the moment it's the best AA light out there period. If you're taking AA, and 14500 my vote would go to the Nitecore SRT3, but there is a HUGE size difference...

The SC52 is second from the right. The SRT3 fourth from the right. It also works on a AA battery but not as well.

I always thought the sc52 was too much money, but I bought one after hearing mostly positive comments. If I didn’t like it I could sell it and only be out 10 bucks. But I liked it and now feel it is worth the price. I’m using rechargeable batteries so saving $20-25 a year so it will pay for itself eventually. And the satisfaction/pleasure is priceless.

Sale outside Cal, maybe a new model soon, so busy I couldn’t play with it now anyway, so time is on my side.

I edc’d a SK68 for almost a year. It’s a excellant economical little light. The SC52 was always on my mind though. I never could justify the price. After a less than spectacular deal with a certain vendor. I traded a XinTD X3 for a Zebralight SC52. There’s a trade I’ll never regret. The Zebralight SC52 & its other variations IMHO are the best EDC lights out there. If you have the patience for it, wait & watch for a trade or private sale.

The newer Spark SD52 that has the XM-L2 will take 2 LiFePO4 cells, or one 14500 and one dummy. Mine (that is the T5 emitter) appears to give >300lm in Turbo mode. I guess it has not been considered due to the price. But with the flood and spot lens, plus the tripod and mag mount adapters, I had no choice. I had to have something that was compatible with my AA devices: Steri Pen, avalanche transceiver, camera, SPOT, GPS, and VHF Radio batteries.

I think you're giving 280 lumens too much credit .

the difference between 200 and 280 is pretty minimal .also ask yourself how well a light that small handles heat .

I don't like either light so imo there's a ton of lights between the two

Would that be about 40%?

I didn’t know size was a factor, I thought it came down to interacting factors with regards to heat sinking, current draw, etc. My own had no issues at all at 4.2V on Turbo. Maybe seat of the pants observations are not a good idea and I have more to learn on this topic?

@Boaz, can’t really tell what lights you’re reffering to, but clearly you have a strong opinion on some lights that are reffered to in this thread. I would assume it is based on owning or having used those lights. Would appreciate it if you could share your experience with them.

So is the sc52 a good outdoor light or it loses too much by being too floody? How far does a normal ZL sc52 throw?

It varies depending on who you ask, but the difference probably works out to something around 20%. The SC52 is pretty floody, so the difference would be even harder to notice.

I measure the SC52 at a genuine 210 OTF on eneloop and 480 on 14500. It’s all relative though, Zebralight do use OTF ratings but could be described as more generous in those than some other companies. It’s hard to say for sure who’s readings are most accurate, but they are on slightly different scales. If you take a look at selfbuilt’s reviews and his lumen readings then they are generally in accord with Zebralight’s scale and you find Foursevens and Fenix lights often show output higher than their claimed ANSI specs.

The jump from 200 to 280 is an absolute difference of 40% but brightness is perceived logarithmically, so that difference will not be perceived as a 40% increase. This basic idea is explained quite well here: richardbrice.net. The next link goes into it a bit further, and contains a nice graph showing the actual exponents for different senses according to Steven’s power law: Psychophysics | in Chapter 04: Senses. A more complete list can be seen here: Stevens's power law - Wikipedia; the exponent differs whether it relates to a point source, a lit target, or a brief flash, but for what we are considering the exponent would be 0.33.

The way I understand it this means that in practice you have to multiply a light output by 3 (well actually 3.3 but I have rounded to 3) in order to give an incremental increase in perception. For instance if 1 lumen was viewed as 1 brightness (arbitrary unit), then you would need 3 lumens for brightness 2 and 9 lumens for brightness 3, i.e.

1 - 1
2 - 3
3 - 9
4 - 27
5 - 81
6 - 243
7 - 729
8 - 2187
9 - 6561

This idea is explained quite well here: http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/log_r.htm, which concludes quite nicely: ‘The reason the senses are built this way is the enormous range of stimulus intensities to which our senses, especially vision and hearing, can respond. Full sunlight produces an intensity of reflected light that is 10 billion (10,000,000,000) times as intense as the faintest light that a human can detect. Because brightness is related to the logarithm of light intensity, the range of brightness is much smaller than the range of stimulus intensity. For the same reason many instruments that measure physical quantities that vary over a very large scale are also equipped with logarithmic scales.

Further to this, when you take into account the massive variances in beam profile between different lights as well, and the fact that we are poor at estimating light output in terms other than lux at a point, the brightness differences that you will actually perceive become even more difficult to predict.