Why no (or so few) XP-G zoomies?

The XR-E still seems quite popular in zoomies, of course most notable the SK68’s and clones of. And there seems to be an entire heap of XM-L zoomies. But I don’t think I can recall seeing any XP-G ones? Would an R4 or R5 XP-G not offer better overall performance than most of the XM-L zoomies? Less total lumens maybe, but more throw and almost as good flood?

While on the subject of zoomies, are there any budget XR-E/XP-E 18650 ones about? The SK68’s are AA/14500 and the 18650 look alikes tend to be XM-L versions….

There’s one right here under $6:

https://www.fasttech.com/products/1133700

I don’t know why XP-Gs are not so popular in zoomies. My guess would probably because XR-Es work so well for cheap, too little performance increase to change to XP-G.

XM-L is different, they can put out three times more light, so there’s a reason there.

agreed, though I’m sure i’ll try xpg2 at some point

Poster of this thread was reading my mind. I’m not a fan of the Sipik68,98/clones w/XML emitters personally.

Thanks Pulsar13 that light looks like one I’d def wanna buy. :slight_smile:

The XR-E or XP-E are easier to focus with optics because of the smaller die size and the narrower beam angle.

Zoomies project focused illuminated LED die to distance.
XR-E has high intensity per die size which make small bright spot than XP-G which has large die.

Yep. I had an R5 “Police light”. lol Not worth it in zoomies. Not as throwy, and the brightness (just as with the XM-Ls) is largely wasted.

I bought one of the ones pulsar is talking about and it’s a great light. The throw is tighter than the sk68 and brighter, the flood is just about perfect. No rings. The tint is on the blue/purple side. Even the backed off from full throw is great at a distance. It gets hot to the touch fast but I guess that means it’s transferring heat fast. It’s only a little big longer than the 68 and it takes an 18650. I don’t think they are even in the same league. The ZB-006 beats it hands down.

XP-G isn’t that big though and a lot smaller than an XM-L.

There's one of those coming in the mail for me too, I intend it as a host, not sure what for yet, but I'm curious of the performance of a XP-G in a zoomie as well. A sensible mod could be XP-G2.

Oh, by the way, first thing to do when it arrives is sanding off the medieaval battlements from the bezel, that leaves a rather good-looking light already .

I went to order one last night - out of stock :frowning:

The wide beam angle of the XP-G wastes a lot of light. Aspherics can only project the light that directly hits the lens. Here’s a rough diagram.

As you can see if you count the light rays even though the XP-G on the right outputs more light, the fact it does so over a wider beam angle means less light makes it to the lens. The XR-E projects a narrower beam angle but it’s all caught by the lens and projected out. XP-G would need quite a large lens and the extreme angles on the edge would degrade the projection quality making the projection very blurry due to abberation. You can partially solve this by increasing the focal length of the lens which would narrow the beam but it would require an even larger lens thus it becomes impractical

So simply put the XP-G just isn’t well suited for aspheric use, same goes with XM-L.

The XP-G is kind of a compromise that nobody wants to make.

The XR-Es have the smallest die size and work the best. The XP-E is second best, a bit brighter and only slightly bigger.

An XP-E has a die size of 1 square millimeter, vs 2 sq mm for an XP-G. Thats double the surface area, in exchange for just a bit more overall lumens. Thats not a good tradeoff.

An XM-L is a fat 4 sq mm, but it can be driven so much harder that it is worth the size gain for pure floody goodness.

I can see the arguments against using an XP-G in a Zoomie but I love the one I have. The throw is very good for a small light and the flood is excellent. Of course I only have two cheep zoomie lights to compare. The sk68 clone and the ZB-006. The sk68 has terrible rings on it while in flood or throw. It’s an XR-E Q5, three mode. Still a cool light, but it’s not as cool as the 006 in my opinion and they were both around the same price. The 006 does not have the rings or much spill at all when throwing and the flood is large with no rings at all and next to zero hot spot. Halfway between flood and throw is also very usable.

I don’t know if this particular light or design suits the XP-G, but whatever the reason it works. If they get them back in stock I will buy a couple more. It’s just a great pocket sized light and with the 18650 the battery life is pretty good.

I guess I will have to check out a better XP-E R5 zoomie to really make a fair comparison. Any Suggestions?

I certainly don’t deny the logic or physics. All I can say is I have an XP-E and an XP-G drop in for my D cell MagLites. I originally ran the XP-E with my DX aspheric lens but just couldn’t get the result I expected, so I tried it with the XP-G. It’s certainly a long way from perfect (but it was cheap to do). With the XP-G it focuses a lot better and generally seems to work better than the XP-E did.

There is quite a halo affect around the LED projection and it’s no where near as clean as an SK68, but it focuses just fine so that you can see the wires in the LED, although you need to shine it at something 20 feet away to see them.

In terms of throw this XP-G aspheric is my current champ and beats my Crelant V9CS and my Small Sun ZY-T13.

I’m currently making an XP-G zoomie (Thanks to Troutie for sending me the LED)

I’ll let you know if it beats my XR-E zoomie :slight_smile:

I’ll be running it at approx 1.4 amps vs the 1.6 amp XR-E

Ok quick update.

XP-G zoomie is done and this is ONLY my opinion. This is what I discovered

1. The XP-G even though only driven at 1.4 amps (Tailcap reading) overall is brighter than the XR-E driven at 1.6 amps (Tailcap reading)

2. Both spots zoomed in so the die is projected on a white wall (I also tried this over a 50m range) - The XP-G has a very marginally larger image. But having said that I would definitely state that the XP-G is Equal in surface brightness compared to the XR-E despite the slightly larger die size (so from that perspective, I don’t think there is any downfall in using the XP-G emitter for throw).

3. Here’s where the big difference is - In flood mode when beam widths are set to an equal size, the XP-G absolutely annihilates the XR-E, it’s quite substantially brighter.

My conclusion is that changing over to an XP-G emitter really doesn’t have any drawbacks that I can see. It’s nice to have clear cut edges without rings (a little disconcerting at first lol) and with the ability to drive it at a marginally lower rate, will increase runtime and reduce heat.

Hopefully you’ll find this info useful - cheers

Thanks Spasmod. That is very interesting. As I stated earlier I really like the one I have. It sounds like it was cost related and not function wise that there are not as many XP-G Zoomies around.

I have put an xpg in an edi-t p-4 .. the tint on the q3 xre was too purple . So I swapped it out for a xpg 3D neutral .i think it's a viable option ..It obviously has less throw but to say that we are only concerned with maximum this or that is just silly ..the tint alone made the light much more desirable and used much ,much more . the obvious answer at this point would be the xpg2 or the xpe2 and at the same time getting a better tint .

I'm not much of a xml zoomy fan ..seems they are almost all really cheap and a joke .I can't stand a trashy build.If the body sucks ..the light sucks.

Beyond price I don't think you can compare an 18650 and a AA light .

Many thanks. :slight_smile: