Mini Review: UniqueFire UF-2180

Sorry, I am no Foy, but I will attempt to do my best.

I have had my eye on this light for a while, now. I finally pulled the trigger and received it from Manafont last week. The following couple of photos re-enact the "unboxing":

As you can see in the next photo, the battery is not the blue one shown on MF's site but it seems to work well, it definitely lasts longer than the 18650, "3000 mAh" TF Flames in my Solarforce L2/L2P's (need to make an adapter to use in this light for a direct comparison) The battery has no brand markings only: "INR26650E 4000mAh 3.7V":

The following shows the pill, which looks like they could/should have made larger for better heat conduction to the body. The fins on the body look to be pretty functional, although while on high for a while, the light will get quite warm.

The next shows the profile of the reflector:

Size comparison with my black L2P (sorry, it got cut off a little at the top, but there is enough of the top to give a good indication of the relative size):

My impressions:

Overall, I think it has a very good build quality, even came with lubed threads. Not quite up to par of Solarforce, but not too bad. I noticed a couple of machining errors and very light machining marks, you have to look fairly close to see them. Lens is plastic. Not up to par, IMHO, for a $57 light, though.

Just like Manafont's description says, it comes with 3 modes, High-Low-Flashy. I wish it had a medium and no flashy, but I may mod it to the 2.8 amp driver everyone raves about.

It is similar in size to my 2 C cell Pelican light that I had, which this replaces (batteries leaked and destroyed the light beyond my wanting to toy with it anymore). That light was more throwy than this light (smaller hotspot), but the overall light output of this light is such that it lights a larger area at the same distance much brighter than the Pelican, although I cannot test each to see which has the best throw overall, since the Pelican is dead and gone. As you can see, the light is a little longer than a SF L2P, but is considerably thicker due to the larger battery. It feels good in hand, though is not really a good EDC because of the additional heft and size. Despite the lanyard, it does tailstand.

I bought this because, spec wise it was on par with the well regarded C8 sized light, but with a larger battery. I don't own a C8, so I thought this may satisfy my C8 urge and give me the longer runtime of the larger battery. I believe, in this regard, this succeeded, although I understand the reflector is longer than the C8, so the throw/spill is not exactly the same.

Beamwise, it is equal in brightness to the MF 3 mode drop-in that I use in my SF's. However, the hotspot is much better defined and it has better throw and very bright spill to light up a larger area brighter than the SF's I have. I hope to post outdoor and indoor beam shots for comparison later this week.

For anyone who is looking for an extended runtime bike light, I think this would be a good choice, however, I think modd'ing it with the 2.8amp, 3 mode driver should be done first, this way you could use the medium brightness as I am not entirely confident that the fins will keep the flashlight cool enough on high to use for an extended period (such as bike riding would require).

The Good:

  • Good throw with enough spill to brightly light up a good area.
  • Long runtime due to the 26650 battery.
  • Overall, good quality and fairly well made.
  • Fins should provide good heat transfer.

The Bad:

  • Build quality not quite up to a nearly $60 light, IMHO. More like in the $35 range.
  • Not good for EDC.
  • Pill could have been thicker for even better heat transfer (they had to machine it down to the thickness it is, probably could have saved a few bucks not machining all that ally away).
  • Takes a while for the body to warm up, on high, but once it does, it can get pretty warm fast.

The Indifferent:

  • Comes with charger, have not used it, am using my Xtar WPII charger plus $0.15 to charge the battery (literally since the battery does not fit the charger, I needed a way to get the positive on the charger to contact the battery and a nickel and dime worked great). Not sure that I can trust the charger that came with the light to not overcharge the battery, which I can trust the Xtar not to do.

The big question:

Would I buy this light again, knowing its faults? Answer: Yes. I actually knew going into the purchase some of the faults (i.e. non-EDC, its size, potential at having to upgrade the driver, etc.), so mainly the faults I did not anticipate, like the machining and the thickness of the pill, were really only minor, IMHO. Just that for a nearly $60 I had hoped the machining would have been on par with SF, and it really would not have taken much to make it so.

Let me know if there are any points that I missed that you'd like me to comment on. This is my first review, so criticism is encouraged (preferably constructive). I will try to get beam shots posted later this week or next weekend.


Edit: Sorry, I have not done the beam shots, yet. However, I have taken tailcap measurements. For what it's worth, I am getting around 3+ amps on high with not quite a fully charged battery, but close to it. Did not take readings on low.

Is it just me or does that emitter look like it's bent up away from the pill? Good review though! Always like reading people's takes on lights. Anyway you can check tailcap currents?

-Garry

jon -

Are you sure the lens is plastic? Manafont says it's coated glass but we all know how reliable descriptions can be.

My take on this fat battery beauty: My flashlight interests has steered lately toward 26650 lights so, this light briefly caught my eye as well. It has the potential for greatness but as you accurately pointed out, the the UF-2180 falls a little short as delivered. Machine quality for me, is one of those things that is unforgivable. Consider the MCU-C88. As delivered it is a Q5 yawner but because it is a quality piece with good lathe work, an emitter/driver swap gives it greatness.

As far as criticism goes; the one thing you did right that I think is important is successfully conveyed how you feel about this light. You were hoping for more at this price point but it certainly is not a train wreck. I ask about the lens because the other minuses you speak of are collectively niggling but combined with a plastic lens . . . . not a huge deal I suppose but it's hard for me to take any torch with a plastic lens seriously. Easily replaced so . . . .

Anyway - good job. Keep us informed about your upgrades and thanks for taking the time to share with us.

goodjobFoy

Thanks, Jon, very nice review. I'm always interested in lights that could be used for biking. One comment, usually airflow over a flashlight (or any bike light) is sufficient to properly cool it in my experience. We usually just shut them down or switch to low when stopped.

And I'm with Foy on the lense - hard to believe it's plastic on a light costing +$50.

Nice review there jonhobart!

That battery is the king kong 26650. Very very good... Able to do 10A discharges with not much dip in capacity, it can surely do 4000mAh with the 2-3A discharges for single XM-L lights. It's unprotected though...

If I did the tailcap readings, it would likely be inaccurate because of my MM leads, but I may give it a try this weekend. Since this would be my first time, it will take me a while to set it up.

The emitter is actually fine, my poor photography skills and an older digital P&S camera is the likely culprit. Those black tabs that are "bent up" are actually a gasket, for lack of a better understanding or term that protects the star the emitter is soldered to. I am not sure that the reflector actually touches the "gasket" on this light, but it looks, to me, that this pill may be used in another light where the gasket also seals against a different reflector. Just a guess on that, though.

Foy, yes, I just definitively confirmed it is plastic. Poorly cut plastic, too as the edges are a bit rough. You can't believe everything you read in descriptions. Smile Actually, I guess MF's description could be "technically" right as it appears to be a thin "Plexiglass", hence glass in the name, glass in the description. Wink

I also probably was a bit hard. When I look at what it cost to build an L2P with a MF 3 mode P60 drop-in, plus a TF Flame battery and an Xtar charger, it gets real close to the $50 mark (starting from scratch). So, if I were to buy the host alone, I would not want to spend more than what it would cost for an L2P based on how it is machined. Better machining and it is easily a $20 - $25 host, IMHO.

And thanks for the compliment. I have read a lot of your reviews and you are the big reason why I started my LED collection with the SF L2/L2P's.

Since it was gold, I had my hopes up that it might be a KK. Are you sure, though? Without any other markings, I am not sure if this is a mediocre battery or if it is a good battery. I know it outlasts my TF flames in my SF hosts, but with driver differences, I am not sure that it is really a good comparison.

Since I am using a P&S to take the beamshot photos, any recommendations on settings to look for to adjust to get accurate beamshots? I know on other threads someone recommend minimizing the white correction or something to that effect.

thanks for the review. I just got a similarly sized 26650 light - I think they make a lot of sense.

also, 3 of the last 4 lights I received were described as glass lens - all 4 had plastic lens - ok, they're all convex, so no big surprise, but come on...

Updated with tailcap readings.

Jon, despite my username, and having been a fanatical film snapper for many years, I'm still a novice with all things digital. However, from what I know, there is unlikely to be a straightforward answer to your question.

Some P&S cameras offer no manual over-ride facility at all, others give partial user control. A few offer full manual settings, but this is unusual in a P&S camera because, by definition, such cameras are aimed at happy snappers who usually neither want nor know how to use manual settings.

The one thing you must do - if your camera allows it - is to avoid 'Auto White Balance', which is designated on my Panasonic TZ9 as 'AWB'. This setting automatically 'corrects' any lighting tints to whatever the manufacturers have decided is 'right' for any given lighting conditions, and in any case, they all vary slightly. In other words, you will get a false result which is designed to look 'nicer' in your pics. By the same token, if you set the camera to one of the other settings such as Tungsten, Shade, Sunshine etc, you will get the same 'Factory Setting' syndrome.

That said, with beamshots, the light is the only subject. If the camera treats it as such, AWB MAY decide to reproduce exactly what it sees, which in this case would mean the tint itself rather than a main subject that is affected by the lighting that falls on it, but you'd have to be very lucky for that to happen.

So, AFAIK, you need a camera with a White Balance Off setting, or one which allows Manual setting. If your camera offers the 'AWB OFF' option, try a few shots and compare the results to what your eye sees in real life. It may or may not be a close match, since even with AWB off, you're still getting the factory set interpretation of the lighting tint. FWIW, colour film used to do exactly the same thing; photographers all had their favourite film types/brands which they would choose from to suit the assignment and shooting conditions.

If your camera offers a Manual White Balance setting option, set it to neutral and again check the results. If they don't match real life, tweak the settings until they do. How you do this will depend greatly on your camera controls, assuming it has any. Otherwise, if all else fails, you could try adjusting the images from your computer using Photoshop or similar, but you may find it's a lot of trouble. Bottomline is you're unlikely to reproduce subtle beam tints with any accuracy, but if anyone else can correct me on this, I'd be as glad of the info as you.

Sorry for the long post, hope it's of at least some use.

I sold my studio during the Digital Divide, and really miss shooting the Mamiya RZ/RB67s.

If anyone has a rec for a good four-thirds camera, I'm all ears.