Review: Wuben D1 [20% off coupon added]


20% discount code:


I’ve reviewed the D1 on the TLF and planned to completely translate it for the BLF. Fortunately, MascaratumB already did all the tedious work here :partying_face:

So, I’ll just add a few missing pieces and my measured data.

Thanks to Cindy from Wuben for sending me a review sample!

The D1 is targeted at hiking, camping, and general outdoor things. IP rating is ok for this (IP68, 2 m wc for 1 h), impact resistance (1.5 m) also. The ultra wide beam (spill 175 °) makes it imo more useful indoors, especially larger rooms/buildings, e.g. urban exploring.

MascaratumB did all the praise and critics already, so let’s stick to the facts:

Technical Data

LED XP-L Hi, 6500K
Max. lumen 1100 (ramping down to 400 within 30 s)
Max. const lumen 400 over 2 ½ h
Min. lumen 5 over 150 h
Max. range (ANSI FL1) 130 m (4200 cd)
Max. range at start 157 m (6200 cd)
Max. range at 400 lm 100 m (2500 cd)
Width of spill 175 °
LVP Yes, standby when battery voltage lower 2.8 V
weight (f/l and f/l+battery) 64 / 117 g


This kind of optics has been discussed on BLF already.

Wuben D1 on canvas:

Wuben D1 on canvas, slightly raised to see the spill:

Runtime graphs


The first few minutes show that the initial brightness is reduced within 30 s. After that, the D1 maintains constantly 400 lm.


The specs are not met here probably since the battery was not fully charged (stopped at about 4.18 V). Still, runtime with 300 lm is impressive.


Nice exponential ramp (cd measured).

Mode High Med Low Moon
Lumen 1100 - 400 300 100 5
Time 30 s + 2,5 h 5 h 30 h 150 h
Current 3 / 1 A 710 mA 165 mA 9 mA


None. There’s a little ripple, but not noticeable:



Finally … the breathing:


I think that’s about it for now. I’ll add outdoor beamshots probably tomorrow.

Thanks for reading,


Here we go:

Moon - Low - Med - High

ISO 800 / 0.7’’ / f 4.5

Focal length: 18 mm on APS-C

Edit: The reflector is 23 m away (thanks notta for your comment).

Isnt the used LED Osram P9?

Nope, it’s an XP-L Hi.

Just asking because MascaratumB mentions Osram P9 in his review

I know. I’ve contacted Wuben to get a definitive answer. Will post it here.

OK, thanks :+1:

You’re welcome.

Cindy checked back, it actually is a XP-L Hi :+1:

Hey, Unheard, thanks for your data and also the correction about the LED used in this flashlight. :+1:
I would never guess it is XPL-HI, always thought they would go for Osram.

I will correct my review :+1:

Also, thanks for the stepdown and runtime data :wink:

You’re welcome, MB. And thank you for your wonderful review and personal insights on this light.

Yes, the Osram is often used [in cheaper lights, right?], and Wuben is somewhat silent about it, except for the blog entry. Can’t understand really. No need to hide any information on this light. Seems to be top notch in every detail.

Thanks for your words, too, Unheard :wink:

Hum, the Osram seems to be used in several lights (E10, E12R, H3 but also L50, C3, the new T2, and eventually others), some of them are not “cheaper” although they are not their “top lights”.
I remember that someone commented that the P9 would be an efficent LED, so maybe Wuben opts for that one due to that (in combination with their already efficient drivers). Just like Olight opts for some CW emitters.

After all this time with the D1 I wasn’t able to open the flashlight bezel. I guess I may damage it hard while trying so I am not sure how much I will be able to dig into the head :smiley: But if I can, I’ll show it :wink:

Thanks again :+1:

Not that Unheard’s review is useless. It corrected a led mistake. Butt ya I much prefer Mascaratum’s review primarily becuz he doesn’t resort to MIT-style graphing in a guise to appear defacto more scientifically accurate and relevant. Also he doesn’t need to banter that he posted it on TLF butt is doing us a favor by translating (usually inferior) from his native language into our’s.

To wit……“I’ve reviewed the D1 on the TLF (link is external) and planned to completely translate it for the BLF. ”

Geez I can hardly wait. I think I’ll just learn German. Who needs inherent translation inaccuracies which then I gotta double check on cuz it doesn’t read quite right? Ya know German into English is no easy feat. Especially German. :laughing:

There’s a human touch there in MascaratumB’s which gives the reader the sense that he actually really handled the flash in a real-world diverse environment and not in some confined apartment or out in some back alley with no distances or heights indicated to give an idea of proportionality and perspective. Those kinds of details are important in a quality review. This said in hope Unheard benefits from constructive criticism.

The current extreme over use of impressive looking graphs describing the attributes of a given flash when instead using a simple direct informational statement is better, goes something like this……

“The flash ran for approximately 5 hrs at approximately 300 useful lumens then suddenly dropped off to where Vf kicked in and then it died was nonetheless especially impressive from a single cell.” No large essentially sometimes confusing graph necessary taking up bandwidth trying to “scientifically” say the same. Save any graphs for truly complex notions.

Well, just being Notta here I guess. :wink: :open_mouth:

PS. Watt’s the TCR look like? Oh that’s right TCR doesn’t enlighten. Ok, how about CRI specs vs watt ya see? Oh that’s right ya can’t trust watt ya see color-wise butt ya can trust reading PWM in a random apartment’s hallway. Gotch ya.

Thank you for your comments, Whacky. I’ll see if I can find better locations for beamshots.

Sorry if that sounded arrogant. It was not meant to and I had no idea you’d see it so. Keep in mind english is as difficult to master as german. Grammar is easier, but expressions are likewise critical. Wrong wording can (obviously) turn a neutral statement into something harsh.

So, to explain: I really thought people could see this as addition to MBs review, find here some data that might be interesting. Cindy never asked for a review on BLF, my only intention was to show some additional information.

Hope you understand.

Oh I understand alright. Nice snark. Ya know, “Whacky”. Actually my comments were meant to show your true demeanor. You try to sound nice and demur after yer nailed but in effect it’s just snarky retaliation, right?

PS. Just post yer TLF review in German here. One can use Google translate which will prolly be almost as accurate and maybe moreso in certain cases than an inferior English translation attempt to begin with. I mean unless you’re a professional German to English translator. I can only imagine how hard TLFers would laugh if someone took an English review and tried to amateur-translate it into German. No offence butt us Yanks kinda do the same cuz it just doesn’t come across quite right to our ears, ya know? :laughing: :open_mouth:

Re your edited posting: I measured CRI 72 with substandard equipment. Can’t tell by eye.

I have two classes: Acceptable for the intended application or not. The D1 belongs to the former.

Edit: Calm down, mate.

How about you do the same instead of constantly calling me insulting disparaging names then? That’ll improve things right off the bat.

How do you come up with CRI 72? Watt does the manufacturer internal specs say? Your CRI equates to something like a 6.5 on a TCR rating. Sounds too sh*tty to me. Or 7 total TCR flaws. I doubt it.

Promised. Peace.

Measured with an Opple Lightmaster III, which is not a true spectrometer, but uses color filters and CCD, probably just a regular Bayer-matrix.

I have no part number of this LED, so can’t tell. It is likely a ‘Minimum CRI 70’ version.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Not a ‘conclusion’. Conclusions have to be anchored beyond guesses which this was. Totally. Just took .5 x 7 = 3.5 + 6.5 = 10 TCR. Pulled it outta my a*s just to illustrate watt if. :laughing: Butt was hoping ya had a least some kinda Reference Standard flash in hand that CRI’s well enuff to your eyes so that ya could reasonably assess to compare. Substandard equipment is no way to go through flash analyzing life. Butt I digress.

Ya havta have a Reference Standard to start with, right? The best most affordable way is through a flash. If you could get an Ozark Trail OT 50L which Reference Standards to a TCR ‘10’ for example you’d have that for an investment of $1.00. You must have something around over there that compares to the OT 50L’s TCR capabilities I would imagine?

PS. The true litmus test for determining TCR is shining off the color White. If your flash because of color-temp or tint influences pure White to look other than what it is in sunlight then ya got a TCR problem that could be important depending on its application. Like for instance reading all the colors in electrical wiring. The OT 50L shines off white just the way the white looks in sunlight. No flaws. No tint pollutions, etc. Just plain white is white. And that’s why it’s a TCR ‘10’. :student: