Sofirn IF22A & IF22 beamshots and review [Update 2021-10-02]

For now just a few beamshots. The review will follow in a few days when I had enough time to test the lights. :slight_smile:

Update: I’ve posted my review in the second post of this thread.

Ordered the new Sofirn IF22A and IF22 for comparison. They are mostly identical, only that the IF22A uses a TIR optic and the IF22 comes with a classic reflector.

Package includes:

  • Flashlight
  • Two-way clip (attached)
  • Lanyard
  • 2x replacement o-ring
  • USB A-C cable
  • 18650 adapter tube
  • Set with 5000 mAh 21700 li-ion battery available


Length: 127 / 137 mm
Head diameter: 42 mm
Tube diameter: 28 mm
Weight (without battery): 119 / 131 g
IF22A with TIR is 10 mm shorter and 12 g lighter.


  • 1C: on/off
  • 1H from on: change brightness (low → med → high in stepped, down or up in smooth ramping)
  • 1H from off: moon mode
  • 2C: turbo; 1C back to previous level or off; 2C shortcut to moon
  • 3C: strobe
  • 4C from off: lockout; 4C to exit and go to previous level
  • 4C from on: switch between stepped and smooth ramping

Beam shape:

Both are throwers. The IF22 with reflector has a smaller inner spot and more reach, but IF22A with TIR has a nicer overall beam. Both have a glass lens without AR coating.

Spill: IF22A very even, floody spill; IF22 bright with hard cutoff

Spot: IF22A smooth spot; IF22 bright inner spot, second wider spot around it, then the spill and some more rings


Simple FET driver with 16 kHz PWM (except moon and turbo). Heavy oscillations from temperature regulation. Sofirn SP35 has a nice buck regulator, would be awesome in this light! LVP at 2.78 V. Quiescent current oscillates between 95 and 125 µA which is much higher than in older Sofirn lights. It might be related to the powerbank function which might keep the output enabled even without load.


  • Charging port recessed and with a nice chamfer – much more comfortable
  • Powerbank function
  • Fast internal charging with 2.3 A in 2.5 h via USB-C connector
  • Tailstand without lanyard possible
  • Clip almost deep-carry, single position, but tube can be reversed
  • Lockout, shortcuts to moon and turbo
  • Improved ramp shape (more linear perceived brightness); 4s from low to high
  • Charging status indicated via green/red LED in button


  • No manual included
  • Just one hole for the lanyard – tailstand not possible with lanyard attached
  • Nothing to prevent it from rolling away, only the clip
  • Button feels slightly mushy and hard to find by feeling (but risk of accidental activation is low)
  • Ramp direction starts downwards after power on
  • Simple FET driver


I really like the TIR version (IF22A) because of the smooth beam and the design, but the reflector version is also great if you want a bit more distance. Too bad it’s just a FET driver. The clip is more complex than necessary, but otherwise works OK. Overall it’s a great, inexpensive thrower.

Damn, I love the even spread the TIR produces instead of the hard circular look! If only the IF22A had Anduril 2, then I’d immediately buy it, but I guess I’ll pick one up anyway :innocent: Thanks for the great beamshots!

Yes, this one seems to rock!
Anyone here who has the manker u22 III and is keen on comparing beamshots? :smiley:

My if22a is also on the way, feels like I’m checking the mail is 7 times a day…

Great photos!

Thanks for the photos

I’ve posted my review in the second post of this thread.

Thanks for reviewing!

Does the spill of the IF22A appear to be brighter near the edge compared to the IF22?

I would’ve thought there’d be less spill with the TIR.

Very nice in-depth review. :+1:
I like the Sofirn IF22 and Thank You for all the pics, they really help determining their capability. :sunglasses:
I have a Manker U22 with a xhp35 led and it is my usual go to light, so maybe I need to get one of these, Thanks :wink:

The spill of the IF22 is much brighter than the IF22A. The TIR produces a very floody, low intensity spill while the reflector has the normal beam of a small thrower: bright spill with a sharp cutoff and small spot.

This picture shows a secondary “spill” which is caused by reflections from the glass lens and the rim of the reflector. With normal exposure you only see the “inner” spill and two spots (or one spot with pretty bright corona).

Just an outstanding review. Lots of cogent visual information without the ridiculous 900 useless and redundant glam photos that many reviewers tack in their reports. I love your brief, concise, yet thorough descriptions and observations. The quality beamshots and comparison presentation is stellar. Benchmark review material, right here.

Thank you for your time and effort. Reviews like this make it so much easier to come to a purchase (or not) decision.

:+1: :+1: :beer:

Would the Astrolux EA01 be similar in beam profile with the SST40.?

I don’t have the EA01 for comparison, but the optics looks very similar. The SFT-40 without the dome in the IF22A should have a smaller hotspot and can be driven harder (but I don’t think it is – haven’t done any current measurements except for quiescent current which oscillates between 95 and 125 µA, a bit high).

Very nice review!

I guess the spill from IF22 reflector is more usable at closer range in lower brightness.
The If22A needs to be cranked to turbo or higher current to be used at closer distance eventhough the flood is nicer.

So IF22 is better multipurpose light than the If22A TIR.

That is also my opinion. The IF22A is nice for large distances and the low spill helps to get some context to prevent tunnel vision. The IF22 is more universal but I prefer a second floody light.

Nice review! It looks like they throw about the same distance from the shots, though hard to tell. They are saying the IF22A throws a little better, but I see you noted the IF22 throws a little better?

Indeed, it’s really hard to see because there are so many trees in the foreground and no real target in the center. I tried to make better photos over an empty field, but the difference is hard to see on the photos (but visible in real life!).

I’ve just measured the intensity via my phone (not sure about its linearity, but I also use it for the runtime measurements, so …) and I got about 25% higher intensity with the IF22 (14200 pseudo lux) compared to the IF22A (11300 pseudo lux) pretty consistently. So the measurements support what I saw while making the beamshots.

Great review. I’d really like to see someone do a direct compare between the Thrunite Catapult Mini and the IF22A. Anyone here have both?

Nice review! it’s impressive. I like those photos!

Barry, I do not understand, why is such an inferior driver placed in this nice light? You have the driver of the SP35 available.
I like the review, and I like the IF22A in my hand, but it could have been near perfection with a better driver.