- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- LD42 vs WF11E Intrinsically Safe
Fenix LD42 vs Fenix WF11E Intrinsically Safe
What LD42 does better (6) and where WF11E Intrinsically Safe wins (0) — every spec side by side.
vs
4.5Brightness & throw2.9
9.2Build & durability3.6
7.9Light quality2.6
5.9Features5.9
Dimensions
Size comparison
LD42WF11E Intrinsically Safe
| LD42 | WF11E Intrinsically Safe | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length / height | 159.5 mm | 167.5 mm | −8 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 34 mm | 49 mm | −15 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | 32.5 mm | 24 mm | +8.5 mm |
| Weight | 99 g | 159 g | −60 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is LD42 better than WF11E Intrinsically Safe?
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)350 m vs 185 m+89%
- Peak beam intensity30,620 cd vs 8,560 cd3.6×
- Maximum output350 lm vs 200 lm+75%
- Maximum runtime130.3 h vs 70 h+86%
- Weight99 g vs 159 g+61%
- Brightness levels5 vs 3+67%
Why is WF11E Intrinsically Safe better than LD42?
WF11E Intrinsically Safe has no measurable advantages in this pair.
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 350 lm | 200 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 30,620 cd | 8,560 cd |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 350 m | 185 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED emitter | — | Cree XP-G2 |
| LED maker | — | Cree |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | AA | AA |
| Maximum runtime | 130.3 h | 70 h |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | — | IP67 |
| Water protection (IPx) | — | IPx7 |
| Impact resistance (drop) | — | 1 m |
| Body material | Aluminium | — |
| Magnetic tail / base | — | Yes |
| Pocket clip | Yes | Yes |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 159.5 mm | 167.5 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 34 mm | 49 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | 32.5 mm | 24 mm |
| Weight | 99 g | 159 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Brightness levels | 5 | 3 |
| Switch | Rotary / scroll wheel | — |
