I have noticed the same thing. As unattractive as it might be on a white wall at one meter, it is not really objectionable in real world use. Even at closer ranges I don’t think it is a problem because my attention is always on the hot spot.
8 Thanks
Thank you, mickey10632 and Mandrake50 for the first impressions! The outdoor performance pics are great to see. I’m looking forward to getting one of these.
1 Thank
Thanks for the photos, looks like the TS10SG fulfilled its design goal of being a thrower. To complement the Floody TS10 triple LED.
Does the normal TS10 fill that role for you?
2 Thanks
Yes, that’s what I carry daily along with D3AA. Now I realize their objective. 
Thank you for the explanation.
2 Thanks
I also carry a TS10, more often than any other light, because the majority of my use is at very close indoor distances.
I also have a D3AA. Both have excellent beam spreads for my close range use.
Your Photo of the Tree with the TS10SG is Very Impressive!
And your photos of the TS10 and D3AA demonstrate how useless their beams are for Tree Spotting.
I hope it is OK w you, that I shared your photos on another forum, with someone that is very dissatisfied with his D4V2 outdoors. Your photos will save me a lot of words.
Do you know approximately how far away the tree in your photos is?
Enjoy your choices 
3 Thanks
The issue with the optic is not the artifacting, but how much throw it loses. Since it’s using a SFT25R, it should be able to outthrow a S6 with warm SFT40, since the head diameter is barely smaller but the emitter is 2.8x more intense. But it isn’t doing it because of how diffusive the optic is.
If people prefer more flood, switching to a floodier emitter as previous suggested just gains free output without losing throw. If people want throw, please switch to a clear optic.
2 Thanks
Or maybe many will be happy with it as it is. I kind of like it, even if it is not the ultimate design for a single purpose. But as I have said many times, I simply can’t get my head around expecting a small light like this to be a big time thrower. Nor do I need it to be.
I think that it is a nice compliment to the multi-emitter version. It certainly has a lot more “throw”. FWIW.
BTW, the optic is clear.
@QReciprocity42 do you have one to play with or test yet?
1 Thank
I don’t have one, nor do I intend to until things are better optimized.
I agree that it is unreasonable to expect such a small light to be a big-time thrower–in that case it makes little sense to use an LED that prioritizes throw at the expense of efficiency and CRI, and then couple it with an optic that completely negates its throw. Starting with a floodier emitter would make the light strictly better–it wouldn’t even lose any throw but would result in more runtime, more output, or higher CRI. In fact, using a slightly floodier LED would quite likely increase the throw, since the optic only has enough precision to focus large emitters well.
If many people are happy with it, then good for them. I’m personally bothered by such an obvious inefficiency of the design, knowing that it can be easily made much better.
Thank you for pointing out that the optic is clear–I meant smooth. Sorry for the imprecise language.
1 Thank
It’s ok to share my pictures.
It’s about 50 meters so it’s not that far at all. I will find a better location to do some more beamshot. (If the weather is good)
2 Thanks
I haven’t got the package yet, and I am not at home until Sunday. Hoped that I got the light before. I can give some impressions as soon I got the package.
2 Thanks
I think a 3000K or 5000K SFT40 would be a better balanced beam for this optic. Or is the optic designed for a round die emitter?
Round die LEDs behave better than square die LEDs with all kinds of optics, unless of course when you specifically need a square projection. A SFT40 would make for a bigger and less intense hotspot than the SFT25R, which kinda goes against the single LED TS10 idea, and it would be more expensive than the SFT25R, which is a very important consideration, given that Wurkkos decided to keep the original bezel instead of making a slightly longer version for proper throw optics, presumably for cutting costs.
I still think that going for a longer bezel for smooth optics is the way to go, and that going further and getting high CRI round LEDs made in fireflies fashion would be super nice, but that’s only me.
6 Thanks
I agree, perhaps the optimal emitter size is even larger. Right now if you look in front of the optic, only about half of it is lit by the SFT25, and with a SFT40 this proportion would be greater, but probably not 100%. Perhaps the XHP50.3 HI in high CRI would be a good choice. But also I’m not sure whether the optic can only take 3535 emitters, in which case the domed 519A would be good.
I am not entirely convinced that this is true–my guess would be that the hotspot size stays around the same, but the throw increases despite using a less intense emitter. This is due to a larger proportion of the optic being lit up by the larger die. With the existing SFT25R, as you can see there are huge patches in the optic that are not lit at all:
I agree that using a smooth optic is the best way forward. In principle this should be doable despite the short bezel, using catadioptric optics or TIR-fresnel combinations (like Sofirn HS10 below). But sourcing them might be challenging.
1 Thank
Can you take a picture from a larger distance like 1-2m? This optic should behave similar to a fresnel lens. It doesn’t matter what part is “lit up” as long as you consider the whole optic at one optical system. Every part will receive light independent of the size of the LES. And every tiny lens will focus that light.
3 Thanks
I think that the LED used is adequate, but they should use a clear optic, a smooth reflector and nothing else. What I have read here seems completely wrong to me… i read here that with the optics they are currently using, if a larger/floodier LED were used, throw it would be gained, for me it goes against all logic. And I maintain this is a completely erroneous reasoning. But I could be wrong, although I don’t think so.
2 Thanks
Sorry, that is not my picture.
That holds for a Fresnel lens, but not to this optic because the tiny lenses/pebbles are designed not to focus the light, but to diffuse it. If all the tiny lenses are focusing correctly then this lens should have the same throw as a smooth TIR, which is not the case.
The reason the size of the LES matters is that, in short, the lens does not have enough precision to focus an ideal point source. Think of an OP reflector: it fails for small LES because the OP bits are oriented not along the parabola, but at inclined angles, which means they are no longer in position to focus a point source that is precisely at the center of the LED, but are in position to focus light coming from some other, perturbed direction. Having a larger LES offers this tolerance and allows the OP bits to be lit as well.
You disagree with my conclusion but not with my reasoning. The implicit claim that a smaller/throwier LED improves throw of the whole flashlight relies on many assumptions, such as the secondary optic being close to perfectly nondiffusive, which does not hold in this case.
For a counter example: my laser pointer can easily outthrow my C8. But after applying a diffusive secondary optic (diffusion film) to both, the C8 easily out-throws the laser.
I will assess the light based upon what it is, not what I think it could be.
Many things go into the design of a light for commercial production that we likely are not aware of.
Of course, one consideration is that the TS10 has been very successful in it current form factor, A longer bezel /head would change this. Another factor may be the availability of the TIR versus design and construction of a new type.
In any case, it currently is what it is. So I will make decisions based on it current merit.
So far, It won’t replace my ts10 V1 for EDC. But I am not one of the ones that has been clamoring for a TS10 with more throw. They try to give people that (and do this successfully) and people are panning it just based on the thought that it might be better if …
5 Thanks
Your example is not worth it to me, you are talking about another technology, laser technology. In this case I still think the same, I still think that the sft25r gives more throw than a larger LED with the optics that are currently being used, I would like someone to do the test and see who is right. But I repeat, I do not agree with your reasoning and I do not agree with your conclusions either.
I look forward to hearing what you think!
1 Thank
