Hi All,
This is my first post, but I’ve really enjoyed reading this site.
I want to buy one of these lights from CNQG, but I can decide which. Since the XML NW is older tech and NW is already not as bright as CW, will the XML NW be much noticably dimmer than the XML2 CW?
I’ve never tried a NW light. My current brightest is the Nitecore ec25. How will the King compare?
Thanks for your help and the great forum!
-Mark
Noticeably dimmer? Probably noticeable yes. But to consider it “dim” would be an overstatement. It’s still a King.
You’re talking about the difference between 2,000 and 1,850 lumens… 1,850 lumens is still damn bright! These are just example numbers to illustrate my point.
There’s probably a 15-20% difference, noticable if you had both side by side, but not enough to feel one was significantly dimmer.
If you don’t have a neutral then I would say they are well worth trying, but not to everyone’s tastes. So that could lead either way with which you want to get. Maybe check out some of the numerous tint comparison threads on here and CPF?
Oh, that doesn’t seem so much. I was thinking 20% from the XML to XML2, and 20% for the different color temps; so almost 40% different (36%).
Hey there, Mark
You’ll here a lot of people praise the NW as opposed to CW, but the praise it not deserved IMO. I guess if you’re needing photos or are police and working with fingerprints and fine details up close, then I’d be good, but I don’t think it would be otherwise.
Every thrower and non-thrower I’ve had look dingy and incan-ish compared to cool white. That said, you will NOTICE the brightness difference because of that factor alone. Go with cool white, I say. Nothing replaces sheer brightness.
Edit: I have no doubt the ec25 is very nice and usable, but not in league with the anything like the King.
Haha, I think especially in a high output light like the King I’d go for NW and not CW because you can’t distinguish a few lumen more or less in this class but when you have your wall of light that doesn’t reflect all this blue crap back off everything that’s what you need to distinguish colors better and simulate sunlight.
I’m not against CW but once I tried NW I chose my side after a year of experience with it.
I personally prefer cw lights. I own lights with different tints but find I mostly grab cw first. It’s a matter of choice.
my advice is to buy the tint you want… you will not be able to tell the difference between 1800 and 2000 lumen
you probably wont be able to tell the difference between even 1500 and 2000 lumen unless the lights are side by side either but im sure there are some here who will argue with me on this one
it might be easy. I’ve never tried NW.
The thing for me is that this is going to be my brightest light, as my brightest is currently a Nitecore ec25. I want this to blow that light away, so I don’t want to skimp on lumens. However, is the NW makes for a much nicer view, then I’m willing to skimp a little, as long as it still blows the ec25 out of the water.
I upgraded a SRK cool white with (alleged) T6 XML’s to neutral white T6/3C/XML2’s and copper sinkpads. Output went from 1500 lumens at 6500K color temp to 2100 lumens of 4800K light. Neutral white is the only way to go… it’s seldom quantity of the light that matters, but quality.
Edit: I found out that the batteries in my mod’ed SRK had not been fully charged. Actual output with a full charge is 2100 lumens.
I have CW emitters in my King (just received it) No doubt I will replace the emitters (with copper mounted XM-L2s, 4750K-5000K, or some better NW XM-L2s once something becomes available).
CW are usable for throw, otherwise the tint and CRI sucks (in my opinion). A SRK is a close to medium range light. You want color rendering to be fairly decent.
I would have waited for XM-L2 NW SRK if you don’t change emitters yourself. Get the best of both worlds.
XM-L T6 3C are a bit dated in terms of output when compared to XM-L2 U2 CW.
As curiousburke say. XM-L2s are brighter, U2 is brigher than T6, and perceived brightness of CW is higher. There should be a clear noticeable difference, not mainly because of lumens, but because of color combined with a decent step in lumens.
I speak from fresh experience comparing triple T6 CW (SRK) vs triple T6 NW with higher emitter current (TR-3T6 with emitter and high output driver) The T6s CW looks “brighter than it should”, despite lighting up less. Its a harshness/perceived output thing. Better light are easier on the eyes. The difference between 1700 and 2200 lumens are minimal to my eyes. But crappy CW makes things appear brighter. Its kinda like you are “squinting” with the eyes. Usually you do that because there is a lot of light. With CW, you do that because the light reflected back at you is so crappy 
And that gives it a brighter effect. At least that is the best way I can explain it.
There is a reason there is a lot of praise for NW.
If more people had the chance to try even better NW versions than 5000K (75 CRI) there would be even more praise for NW.
The amount of people who dislike CW seems to be growing once more are “enlightened”. I have yet to hear about many people disliking a 4500K, or even a 4000K NW.
5000K is a nice middleway when you want high output and fairly decent color rendering. Compared to maximum output and crap color rendering and light you get with CW XM-Ls.
Its a quality vs quantity question. Problem is, you are comparing slightly outdated quality vs latest shit quantity…
so I should wait?
i just did an emitter swap in my defiant 3c from a cool white xml to a xml t5 5c1
lost about 15% output - only noticeable with a light meter measurement and the tint is wonderful… colors look very nice and pleasing to the eye and arent washed out
but then again there is a time and place for 5 billion lumens of pure cool white light haha
JMPaul expressed what I wanted to tell you but with better words (or better with words? haha) so I say listen to him!
i had the skyray king t6 3c (neutral)
excellent tint and never regret not having ~10% more light (cool white)
too bad they dont offer the king in 4c or 5c
or even 3000k 90 cri xml2
Why is the XML2 CW the same price as the XML NW, while the XML CW is less?
The short simple story:
In many cases CW emitters are cheaper than NW emitters. (Especially when comparing similar bin)
Second generation XM-L2s cost more than first generation XM-Ls.
When that is said, based on LED emitter prices. I think the NW XM-Ls should be cheaper than XM-L2 U2 (CW) but about the same price as XM-L U2 T6 (CW).
My experience for your consideration:
I have both the older XM-L T6 1A “Cool White” SRK and the newer XM-L2 U2 1B “Cool White” SRK from CNQ.
The newer XM-L2 light has a very noticeably warmer tint than the older XM-L light.
Brightness appears to me to be the same for both.
I do prefer the warmer XM-L2 one, but it’s about as warm as I’d want to go.
On that basis I wouldn’t personally order the warm white version of the XM-L2 King.
I have both the EC25 and a SRK (actually a FandyFire UV-S5) and any version of the SRK will blow your EC25 out of the water. Don’t get me wrong, the EA25 is a fine little light but not in the same ball park with a SRK.
Oh, that’s interesting. That really makes it sound like I should get the XML2. Do you think that is a general property of the XML2 or just maybe your light? Has anyone else noticed this?