- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- EC50 III vs TK72R
Acebeam EC50 III vs Fenix TK72R
What EC50 III does better (3) and where TK72R wins (1) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
EC50 IIITK72R
| EC50 III | TK72R | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length / height | 132 mm | 156 mm | −24 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 40 mm | 59 mm | −19 mm |
| Weight | 120 g | 411 g | −291 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is EC50 III better than TK72R?
- Maximum runtime1,200 h vs 50 h24×
- Weight120 g vs 411 g3.4×
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)326 m vs 286 m+14%
Why is TK72R better than EC50 III?
- Maximum output3,850 lm vs 9,000 lm2.3×
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 3,850 lm | 9,000 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | — | 20,450 cd |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 326 m | 286 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED emitter | — | Cree XHP70 |
| LED maker | — | Cree |
| Number of LEDs | 1 | — |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | 26650 Li-ion | — |
| Battery capacity | — | 7,000 mAh |
| Maximum runtime | 1,200 h | 50 h |
| Rechargeable | Yes | Yes |
| USB-C charging | — | No |
| Power bank function | — | Yes |
| Build & durability | ||
| Water protection (IPx) | IPx8 | — |
| Submersible to | 2 m | — |
| Body material | Aluminium | — |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 132 mm | 156 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 40 mm | 59 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | — | 50 mm |
| Weight | 120 g | 411 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Strobe | Yes | Yes |
| SOS / beacon | Yes | — |
| Colours | Black | — |
