SC600II may have questionable tint (XM-L U3 cw, identical as our greenish SC52, see cpf reports)
Under all circumstances TX25c2 will look brighter because of intense beam; and it is brighter
18.4mm ;) difference .. Eagtac can hosts Protected ncr18650b up to 71.00mm without problems
Eagtac. I convert the throw beam with the screw-on diffuser lens to a flood beam
Eagtac has better clip, and one can also use Deep Carry pocket clip by Foursebens.
instant turbo/strobe, momentary activation, 10yrs warranty, user-replaceable 2mm glass lens, (optional) SS bezel, lots of accessories, holster
Zebralight fans will always favor SC600II i guess and the lights don't have that much in common except for same form factor, same reflector size and being pocketable. I do care a lot about tint and with all the negative reports and my own experience i don't trust ZL's emitter picks anymore.
1. ZL don’t reveal what emitters they, use do they? If its the same as the SC52 (website says same tint) I’ll be very happy.
2. Don’t need intense beam as stated, happy for the same flood as the SC52. Throw isn’t as important for me as a firefighter.
3. Calvin from IS assures me any protected Panasonic cell will fit. ET however MUST be button top (or a blob of solder would do the trick)
4. Didn’t want or need the optional pack that ET offers, and YouTube vids show the beam with the diffuser looks pretty bad, I bet alot of OTF lumens are lost through that thing.
5. Can’t comment on the clip, if it’s the same as its little brother I’ll be happy.
6. 10 years warranty is very nice…
I’m a huge fan of the SC52, and if the SC600II is similar I’ll be a happy boy.
I’m doing so much OT I might even end up with both 8)
me too, am a *ucker for SC52. even got the nitecore titanium clip and the sunbayman holster for it. SC600II will definitely be similar, just other battery length inside. It's the same flashlight series. ZL does not have many series nor models, which is interesting. 1 headlamp H-series, 1 flashlight SC-series, and 1 S6330 triple X, that's all afaik.
i wouldn't mind owning the SC600II too, anyone's throwing money at me? ;)
well, since i already have the SC600-similar SC52, the TX25C2 was a no-brainer. yes the diffuser lens kills quite a few OTF lumens :O
Wallbuys stopped selling the SC52/SC52w. ZL doesn't supply more products to them. Tss.
EDIT: i am done with adding commented photos (many of them are mouse over pics, hope you like them!). To fully complete the review, i'll add Excel graphs/charts from the Fenix integrating sphere as soon as they become available, within 2 weeks i guess.
It sounds like ZL is a bit hit and miss with the “green tinge” to their lights. After a good amount of playing with my SC52 tonight I’ve come to the conclusion that mine must be one of the lucky ones to have no trace of green-ness in the corona or spill.
I’m not sure if it has anything to do with anything, but the SC52 is a much newer flashlight than the original SC600…
Brothers SC600 MKII has a very nice white tint. Nice floody beam. Truthfully a great light for an EDC. Now for us, we both like to play with our EDC’s a fair amount. Because of that, the TX25C2’s throwy manner makes it much more fun to play with. And the extra power boost helps. Take a TX25C2 out in a dark wood area and it will light up a very impressive area wide and far. Especially for its size. Though that stronger throw has a downfall since its spot is more concentrated and can be a little intense on your eyes on highest levels. That’s where the SC600 takes the lead with its excellent flood and moderate spot. Likely I’d say its a better EDC for most people.
I guess if you can afford it, get both and you’ll have two awesome and very different little power houses. Though at $80-100 each, that’s kinda hard for many to justify spending on EDC’s. And I understand that.
As a very recent new owner of both of these now (:D) I'm in full agreement with you.
The ET is much more impressive outside due to it's throw. Indoors though the SC600II takes a commanding lead, because of it's mode spacing... you can get exactly the amount of light you want, without killing your night vision by starting in high.
Personally now I will be waiting for a light that combines the properties of the ET (great throw in a tiny package), with a magnetic control ring for infinitely variable output, and ( I know this is a pipe dream) a built in flipped down diffuser cap, that you can just flip up when you want the throw for long distance use. A man can dream right? :)
I think those things are not relative, they’re big cons. Rubbish UI and mode spacing are huge flaws in a light that’s supposed to be more versatile due to its size. I don’t know why they changed it, UI in G25C2 is much better for all-around flashlight. Modes like this: 7-459-965lm are useless for most users that want to actually use it instead of showing off. I like the size, brightness, throw etc, I’d buy one in a heartbeat but because of this UI I won’t spend ~$90 for something basically useless.
I know what you mean, it's been criticized more often by potential buyers than by final owners. I also referred to the many well-received "pseudo 2-mode" EDC lights on the market (4Sevens Quark, Nitecore MT-series, Klarus P-series, Jetbeam B-series, Armytek Partner-series, etc) and in practice it works out okay in many RL situations: 7lm (looks brighter because of focused spot) Low <-> 459lm Hi.
The 965lm could be considered 'extra'.
3 readily accessible modes makes operation of the light simpler than 4 or 5 modes because of the head position. G25C2 and SX25L3 have larger diameter heads .. so it's easier to distribute more modes to the head positions. i guess.
I love the simplicity of my Quark Tactical and Klarus P1A. I've been praising the Quark Tactical UI numerous times on this board. If the physical build quality and anodization were better, the Quark Tactical would be my top choice as RL light, EDC that is.
In the review i tried to make my point in case, so that potential buyers are not too deterred about the mode spacing. On the paper it looks drastic, in reality it's a fair design. I hear little serious complaints from adopters of the light, on the Russian and Geman folums it's been a very well-received light, on CPF too i think. Selling well, little complaints.
But i know what you're talking about. It's on paper.
Well its far from useless. If I’m outside and away from home, the TX25C2 is my EDC. I have no issue with the lumen spread. A fourth level could come in handy, but would likely complicate its easy to use UI.
Inside and around home I use my D25C clicky. It’s also a great little light. But the extra power and throw of the TX25C2 comes in handy when walking in nature & away from city lights.
My only issue regarding the modes is the lack of detent, physical or audible, to tell easily which mode you are in. So often I just start it in low and twist it to the desired level needed for the current application. Would be nice to start it in that mode from the get go though. Of course high(full tightened) and low(loosened over 1/2 turn) are easy to find before startup.
Because both groups are aware of the situation and potential buyers are the ones who found that mode spacing unacceptable. Actual owners are ok with it.
Not only on paper - on practice there’s no mode to lighten up objects 20-40m away. Low is too low, high is too bright with short runtime. 4 modes in G25C2 are easily accessible as well. TX25C2 may have just modes because of different design (but not different diameter - battery tubes have almost the same diameter) but that doesn’t explain why they got rid of the most useful mode and didn’t reduce high mode.
It was well received because it’s bright, throwy, small and well built flashlight light and actual owners were aware of mode spacing. But out of all aspects UI got the most compalints.
the first preliminary readings from the Fenix sphere are out!, and repeated measurements at different conditions (room temperature, cell model, cell quality, with SS bezel, without SS bezel) are carried out in order to ensure data integrity and reproducible data under the same conditions, and to guarantee definitive numbers to be published.
since the tests and results are very positive, already a heads up for the moment: Fenix lumens scale and EagleTac lumens scale are not too far apart, they are definitely in the same ballpark for the below so far tested ET lights! Well, the TX25C2 Hi-mode (40%) seems to be spec'ed too high but that's 1 outlier only.
In the review text i had called the light a "1000 Fenix lumen light" (before this very post) and that's true at 1sec after activation (996.6 lumens on the Fenix scale). After 30secs on Turbo, the output is 899.5lm on the Fenix scale, so Fenix would have printed "900 ANSI lumens" on the retail package, because ANSI measurement is taken 30secs after activation. In this sense, i should call it a "900 Fenix ANSI lumen light". It doesn't matter how i call the light. The point is that it is brighter than any Fenix light which is spec'ed with 899 Fenix ANSI lumens or lower. In the current Fenix catalog, the TX25C2 beats for example the output (at t=30sec) of:
The above numbers (blue boxed) may not be the very final numbers to be published in the review text, repeated measurements will show if they can be even bettered. Cell was protected NCR18650A.
selfbuilt had published "900 SB ANSI lumens" for the NW. The above (preliminary) table shows that Fenix would have spec'ed the NW with "821.1 Fenix ANSI lumens", which means that selfbuilt's numbers are
900/821.1 = 109.6% of the Fenix number.
On the one hand his "900" hit the (calculated NW) ET spec of "897" spot on, on the other hand both numbers are ~10% over the Fenix scale. Consequently, in his lightbox the CW would read 109.6%*899.5 = 985.9 SB ANSI lumens.
With this number, the TX25C2 CW would still be the lumens leader in the current table (with peak throw 109.6%*20,200 = 22,140 lux@1m):
That's today's info update. More to follow when more's available. Thanks for your attention.
