Budget throwers comparison

I just got back from outside with some new realisations/observations and some disappointment.

Ive tested HS801 (same reflector as hs802) with R2 and R5, cheap plastic reflector C8 Q5 and TrustfireX9 XML.

I had some expectations about HS801 with R5 bt that was utter disappointment. Belive itor not (and to be sure all lights are direct drive, and with similar batteries), it throws much less than ebay C8 Q5. Uf...

I think the reason is the angle in which R5 XPG bin is emmiting the light. To much light gets lost in this long narrow rflector and goes in the spill or who knows where.

Than I tested hs801 R2 against C8 Q5, and resuld is again on C8 side. C8 Q5 has usable beam (not to narrow), and HS801 R2 has narrower beam, much less usable, but throws about same length. Also dissapointment (I knew that before,and thats precisely wh thought with R5 I would get little wider and stronger beam).

Beam of Trustfire X9 XMl goes tooo wide for my taste for a thrower. Yeah it throws further than C8 Q5, but it also costs 3,5-4 times more...

So, essentially, only good throwers I have are cheap C8 Q5 from ebay and SkyRay STL-V2 T6 which is 2 times bigger, throws maybe 2 times farther, and its 5 times more expensive...

And I dont see any other light in between, which could throw further than C8 Q5, maybe some 20-25$ light. HS801-802 is somewhere in this ange but for me thats waste of money. To narrow beam and doesnt throw anymore than C8 Q5...

If anyone knows something in between please share. But Idont see anything...

PS: HS802 is maybe only interesting with XML T7, thought its nothing special too. I have that light here too, and now I compared it with C8 5 againd, and its a dod. Doesnt throw more than C8 at all :D hahhah. And I had so much fuss with modding these HS801 and HS802 just to established that in no configuratio thislight is better thrower than cheal (some here called it crapy, outdated etc) 10$ ebay light, hahaha.

The thing about throw is that it’s knowable in advance. You don’t have to experiement to find which combination will throw further.

I agree with Bob as well. An aspheric is going to throw further than a reflector of the same diameter.

A XM-L or XP-G in the same size (diameter) reflector is not going to throw as far as a XR-E. That’s knowable before doing any testing.

The HS 802 is designed as a pure thrower. Spill is not a desirable feature in many cases with a thrower. It just reduces contrast and in some cases creates backscatter.

The reflector is deep in that particular light to redirect some of the spill to the corona. An aspheric has even less (no) spill. All this is knowable before experimenting however.

If you want throw and spill then you need a XM-L in a larger diameter reflector. The beam angle for XM-L and XP-G do work in favor of a reflector since those beams are wider and therefore more of the beam hits the reflector.

In the same size reflector XR-E is going to win since the emitter surface brightness is greater than with the XP-G or XM-L.

If I was to make/mod a light with throw in mind I'd go with collimator lens rather than reflector.

The problem is that different people seem to mean different things when they talk about throw or in what they would like.

You can put a XM-L in a light with an aspheric lens. The aspheric will focus part of the light just as it does with a XR-E.

There are two problems however. The XM-L has a wider beam angle so relatively speaking it’s more efficient in a reflector than a XR-E is in a reflector.

The other problem is that the surface brightness of a XM-L is less than a XR-E so in the same size head it won’t throw as far.

If you really want a light that throws further the XM-L won’t do that. People who are telling you otherwise are doing so because of their own personal preference.

In other words they don’t care that it doesn’t throw as far as long as it throws pretty well and has a larger beam that is thrown.

That’s different than looking for maximum throw however. If that is what someone is looking for they shouldn’t call that maximum throw or imply that a XM-L will do better than a XR-E in the same sized head because it won’t.

I will put the EDI-T P4 up against any of my expensive lights and it will throw just as far, no joke.

This is one of the best deals going for $12 bucks and it has a hidden ramping mode you can set it to moon low and it will run for days on a single 18650. I have recently started using one as a bike light zoomed out of course and I am starting to wonder if there is anything this light doesn't do well.


Gorann, the only point that I’m trying to make that you’re missing (I think) is that in same sized reflectors or optics the XR-E will win.

Any emitter will throw further if you increase the diameter of the reflector/optic. The STL-V2 throws further than the C8 because the diameter is larger. If you put a XR-E Q5 in the STL-V2 it would throw even further than the XM-L.

That’s because the surface brightness of the XR-E is greater than the surface brightness of the XM-L. Throw is only about emitter surface brightness and reflector/optic diameter.

It’s not totally about the XM-L being larger. Even if it was the same size as the XR-E it’s not as bright.

When people talk about emitter surface brightness they are dividing the max lumen according to the spec sheet when driven to spec divided by the size of the emitter. When you do that the number you get is greater for the XR-E than for the XM-L.

I won’t belabor the point but the biggest problem is that the surface brightness of the XP-G emitter is less than with the XR-E so it doesn’t throw as far.

The overall output will be a little higher (it has to) but not stronger as you say if you are talking about throw.

Part of the problem with using the same reflector is that you have to position the emitter slightly different since the base of the emitters are different. One is a little deeper than the other.

My bank account hates you.......................

because i ordered one the first day i saw them on dx. i had the cr123 version in the past and it was great as well. it was pretty bulky though, for a cr123 light, and i'm trying to elimate those in favor of 18350 lights anyway.

I have the Yezl 5 mode version that takes a cr123 you would think a 18350 would fit it, but it doesn't anyways the P-4 is the same diameter. I have been getting 3.5 amps out of the new 18350 flames if you haven't tried them yet I suggest you do.


Ditto. My bank is hot wired to paypal & my mouse button. laugh

The DEFT EDC uses an XP-C LED @ 1.4A (max 0.5A according to the specs).

Taking advantage of bigger LEDs is not a problem at all - just use a bigger diameter. Not proportional to the dies size though... An XM-L U2 @3A needs about 20% more diameter to throw as well as an XR-E R2 EZ900 @1A.

You cannot combine a reflector and an aspheric to throw better than the aspheric alone btw. (keeping the same diameter).


I didn't remember writing that because I didn't write it. Robertkoa had a weird misquote happen on his post.

Yeah- I just wrote the part about the Deft EDC- don't know how the whole thing got misquoted like that.

Apologies to E1320 and members etc.- just a glitch I guess.

How about something like this ?


It throws quite good but it still has more than enough of usable spill and it's really well made.

Gorann, dX 50mm aspheric fits perfectly into the tr-1200 head. It delivers 35-60k lux with a T5 xm-l at 3.5A.

It depends where you measure the spot. If you measure the upper side of the spot (where are the wire bonds), you get 60k lux.

Did you mean tr-500 head?


Redirect Notice

Hmmm, maybe tr-500 and tr-1200 have the same size/type of head...