- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- PD35 TAC vs PD35 V2.0
Fenix PD35 TAC vs Fenix PD35 V2.0
What PD35 TAC does better (0) and where PD35 V2.0 wins (3) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
PD35 TACPD35 V2.0
| PD35 TAC | PD35 V2.0 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length / height | 137 mm | 138 mm | −1 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 25.4 mm | 25.4 mm | = |
| Weight | 88 g | 88 g | = |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is PD35 TAC better than PD35 V2.0?
PD35 TAC has no measurable advantages in this pair.
Why is PD35 V2.0 better than PD35 TAC?
- Maximum runtime140 h vs 430 h3.1×
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)200 m vs 250 m+25%
- Peak beam intensity10,000 cd vs 15,620 cd+56%
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 1,000 lm | 1,000 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 10,000 cd | 15,620 cd |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 200 m | 250 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED emitter | Cree XP-L | Cree XP-L HI |
| LED maker | Cree | Cree |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | 18650 Li-ion, CR123A | — |
| Maximum runtime | 140 h | 430 h |
| Rechargeable | Yes | — |
| Battery level indicator | — | Yes |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | — | IP68 |
| Water protection (IPx) | — | IPx8 |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 137 mm | 138 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 25.4 mm | 25.4 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | — | 23 mm |
| Weight | 88 g | 88 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Brightness levels | 5 | 5 |
| Switch | — | Dual switches |
| Strobe | Yes | Yes |
