1 x MT-G2 or 3 x XM-L2? A debate? The better, the more potent, your preference?

LED Flashlights – General Info
1

Looking about at specs and current offerings, it got me wondering on the benefits and negatives of a triple XM-L2 light vs a single MT-G2 light, in same something similar physical size and power source.

For example there is the FourSevens MMU-X3 with it’s triple XM-L2 and single 26650.

It claims 1600 lumens max output.

And then there is the new Fenix PD40 that is almost identical size the FourSevens and also runs a single 26650.

It too manages 1600 lumens. Fenix quote the lux at 10,000cd while FourSevens don’t quote this, you’d assume a 3 x XM-L2 won’t be all that throwy either.

I know in this instance the Fenix is likely nicer tint/CRI. But XM-L2’s are available in better tints than CW.

Are the completely different lights that get very similar results?

How about moving up to larger power sources. We all know the MT-G2 really likes more volts and 2x Li-ion to really perform or more.

A bigger torch = bigger reflector and more throw too.

But wait more volts with three XM-L2’s also means easier to drive them harder. And while each reflector would be smaller, a larger torch means they would still be bigger than before and the XM-L2 being a smaller LED, is throw vs flood going to be massively different?

Looking at the spec sheets:
http://flashlightwiki.com/Cree#XM-L2

3 amps should net between 1044 and 1268 lumens for an XM-L2.

So if you had three of them at 3 amps. That’s 3132 - 3804 lumens.

What sort of lumens would the MT-G2 be capable of making on a similar setup? Guessing it would be more than the XM-L2’s, but by how much?

2

http://flashlightwiki.com/Cree#MT-G2
~2100 at ~18W
vs 3xXML2 ~3600 at ~27W - equivalent to 4.5A in case of a MTG2, that would be ~2700 lumens (More Emitter Test Results (xpg2, xpe2, mtg2) Updated 11-12-12)
Assuming similar technology, running one LED at high currents will be less efficient compared to running several at lower currents.

3

Looks like you already have a good pro/con list going and have answered many of your own questions.

While I have both of these setups I have never driven an MT-G2 at 9 amps so that comparison will be left to those that have.

When comparing the two at around 6 amps the triple out throws the MT-G2, we know that reflectors play a large role so a change in reflectors may change that outcome. The MT-G2 has greater spill but produces more heat at 6 amps than the triple XM-L2.

So choices come down to voltage, 3.7 or 6 volts, number of batteries, size of reflector dictates the size of the light, desired runtime, series or parallel, tint, if you want cooler than 5000k then XM-L2 would be the choice.

4

I would like to throw the XHP50 into this discussion.

It has a similar performance as the MT-G2, but from a much smaller die-area. So it will have -in principle- a better throw than the MT-G2 were it not that in order to get rid of the donut you give up some that throw by defocussing and using an OP-reflector.

5

That and the XHP70 are once again game changers.

6

Serial XM-L2 are (at 99 %) cool white; Serial MT-G2 is always, at least, neutral white. So, I prefer MT-G2; it will be better if MT-G2 where only warm white

7

I have a Trustfire X6 (80mm reflector) with a MT-G2 and a BTU Shocker and the Shocker will out-throw the X6 with a tighter hotspot and a dimmer spill, where the X6 has a relatively unfocused, smooth hotspot. It still manages to throw decently but the Shocker has the better die-reflector ratio.

8

What length of time did you want to use the light on high? An MTG-2 at 9 amps will more than likely create more heat problems than 3 XML-2 at 3 amps each.

9

You will not find a triple that will be "throwy", until you get the reflectors larger. Larger diameter reflectors will throw farther. When you go to a triple and want it to throw farther, you need to look to the BTU Shocker, with larger reflectors, or even an SP03. Small head, (50mm) triples and smaller will not be throwers. My preference between a small triple, (50mm dia or less), or a single 50mm dia MT-G2, will always be the MT-G2. It's not about lumens for me, but about the beam and how it looks. A single 50mm reflector beam, just looks better than a 50mm triple, to me.

10

I prefer a triple xml’s over mtg2.
I realized this a few days ago. Indoors , mtg2 is very nice, but it just doesn’t throw far enough.
And for some reason, a less bright triple xml’s seems brighter than my brighter mtg2. I’m guessing the intense hot spot plays tricks to your eyes.

The absolute best compact 26650 triple xml2 light is the shadow sl3!
Cereal killer built one for me that does 3800 lumens and 175kcd !
Xml2 were replaced with dedomed xpl

11

I know this is an old thread. But this brings up something that I’ve been thinking about for a while, especially simce I have both the MMU-X3 and PD40. Anyway, XM-L2s ARE available in better tints that CWs. But if a manufacturer is not willing to use them, then unless you are willing/able to mod the light, they might as well not even exist. Foursevens is well known for saying that they will NEVER sell a light with a neutral emitter(s). And I actually can’t think of a triple that DOES use neutral emitters (maybe there is, but it’s not well-known). Because of this, the MT-G2 is a GREAT emitter to have. Seeing that there is a light out there with this emitter automatically means that you will have a nice tint. The same can’t be said about the XM-L2. And given many manufacturer’s desire to dazzle buyers with the highest lumen ratings possible (even if the difference is not visually noticable compared to meutral white), not many manufacturers are actually going to use some of the good XM-L2 tints that are actually available.

12

XM-L2 always has a tint rainbow across the beam when used with a reflector. A nice tint bin on paper means squat if the beam is split into 3 distinct tints. MT-G2 is much, much better in this regard.