Review – Comparative: Nitecore TM16 – TK75 (4000) Fenix – Fenix TK75 (2900) – Acebeam K40M

Review – comparative: Nitecore TM16 – TK75 (4000) Fenix – Fenix TK75 (2900) – Acebeam K40M


This summer has created one of the biggest events in the world linternero. The Phoenix TK75 has suffered a clear evolution in its configuration, after several successful years in the market that just had been updated led, at least according to Andyeducation. When a “Holy Grail” undergoes an evolution as the TK75 has expectations that are generated are high. As if it wasn’t enough modifying one of the most famous flashlights on the market (i.e. not the most famous), the cake has been seasoned when Nitecore, one of the great rivals, is ahead on sales model TM16, seems a clone of the new TK75, being also a priori something cheaper.

This skillful play of Nitecore has meant him a high number of sales. Many thought that they took out a model “quickly” in order to move to Phoenix, I did it, but the reality is that when you have it, you use it and analyze it you realize that there are a very great job after she. This model has not been developed quickly and running, was intended to hit across the line of flotation of the Phoenix TK75, and I would say that if it were not for any policy of components of Nitecore which is not understandable, perhaps…

As it could not be otherwise, we will analyze these models with the deposed queen (TK75 2900), a veteran if you get a good price, gives a lot of war. I have to say in this regard that my 2900 TK75 lumen is rare, because it gives many more than there should be. When I calibrated my sphere with Phoenix models, I had to discard the data of this lantern to be extreme data in almost all modes. Later I discovered that it is something that happened to other fans. It was always rare win only 300 lumen led change, and reach 690 meters by 610 XML (data of candles if they leave enough accurate something below). I also bring lumen and runtime data to complement the review of the 2600 TK75 that exist in the Forum. Finally we will include another model 3000 lumen and more than 500 meters of launch, the K40 Acebeam, in order to analyze if this brand should update its model.

This review aims to be more comparative to review if same. There are comprehensive reviews of these models that I detail below if anyone wants to delve into something that becomes very lightly. The TM16 there review but a partner will prepare it. We will detail the differences observed with special attention to two new models.

Phoenix TK75 2600 Lumens of UPZ and Jaipe Beam
Acebam K40M by removal of Octopus
Phoenix 4000 TK75 by Jaipe


I mentioned in the introduction that Nitecore released the TM16 with a price more competitive “a priori”. I will start clarifying this issue. The lowest price I’ve ever met for the TM16 is $110, and for the new TK75 are $140. In other words, $ 30 of difference… To assess whether the price difference is worth is coldly analyse what comes. The TK75 comes in the known good plastic suitcase, and has a pretty quality lanyard. The TM16 comes in a cardboard box appropriate to protect the torch, but not for intensive use. The Lanyard is decent, but nothing to do with the Phoenix. Thus for some will be an element to value and deduct that the price difference is less that $30, and for others a couple of unimportant details. Everyone that values. The K40M can come in box of aluminum or cardboard (most likely at low price). Many members got it in turn by an amount around $85, and it also comes with cover.

Out of the box we find models of similar concepts. Analyzing the quality of the 4 models we see that they are taking care of all the details. The anodized are of very good quality. Designs are classic, or at least veterans. None of which surprises especially for design too risky or daring. The Knurling is well located in all of them, and while each model follows different criteria as regards the type of Knurling (fine in the K40, wide pictures in the TK75 and linear in the TM16), in all of them exercised their function rather than correctly. The prints are very showy in the TM16 and K40, while the TK75 not abused none of them being very scarce and small size. Broad heads are equipped with large long heat sink fins of the same. All of them have the abiselada head, changing color in the models of Phoenix.

As we are separating the different parts of the headlights we see greater differentiation in the details of its interior. Phoenix models can be separated into three parts, head, body, and tail. In the TM16 only separates the Tail and on the K40 separates the head of the body. The power system is also different. The Phoenix and the K40M are equipped with a battery of 4 batteries in the case of the TK75 and 3 batteries in the case of the K40M. Support battery Flat and Button, unprotected and protected (fair but well in my K40M). The TM16 is designed with battery, with system antiflat-cell compartment. Threads are of high quality in all models, deep and with good thickness, with the quality of the Phoenix in this aspect. The Tail are equipped with Knurling for easy unscrewing except the K40M which not unscrews.

Which like me more so far?. Certainly there is no missed comba at this point, but if it is true that I like more the Phoenix for the following reasons: it comes in a suitcase and brings a lot of quality lanyard, it is easy to get to the Driver (in the K40M also in the TM16 not). As all models of a superb quality, it is true that the overall quality of the TK75 looks a top hair (threads, anodized), and finally its holder allows the use of any type of battery, as well as the K40M, but allows the use of 4 batteries by 3 of the latter. The holder of Acebeam is more apparent, but Phoenix seems stronger. Finally the K40M should mention that it comes with a good case and Lanyard.

As aspect that I don’t like, I want to comment the TM16 batteries compartment. Battery holder or battery compartment? According to his tastes, I prefer the compartment… but what a mistake I think tremendous is putting a system that does not let you use without teton, or short batteries as the NCR18650BL. Why?… Why buy batteries Nitecore?. At the end we all have a battery with teton for what is a crucial element in the purchase, but seems a nonsense, unless someone knows me explain that very important function of this system.

Finally, in terms of the UI, commenting that in all of them is very good, and the criterion for choosing one or the other is purely personal. The 2900 TK75 denotes that your UI is more ancient, and an error is that it does not lock. The TK75 4000 solves this problem very well and adds extra features such as the voltage indicator depending on the LEDs which light up upon request to us. Nitecore does not disappoint in this case as in all their latest creations. The UI of the TM16 is if it is simple and with the same functions as the new TK75. However the magnetic ring of the K40M for me is the best UI, locking in the Tail. That if, it denotes some seniority and does not charge for example.


We have four models of very similar measures. Between the larger and smaller there just 4 cm. Although it is not relevant length difference must recognize that, in this case, Nitecore is the tighter. On hand are the three style by size, weight, and how is it partitioned. With installed batteries, the heaviest is the TK75 4000 and the less heavy is the K40M and is also without the batteries installed.


We have not spoken topic reflectors above. A priori, the K40M has a reflector that is narrower than the rest. It is a monoled, opposite multiled flashlight, and also its reflecto is quality, but simple. On the other hand the other models have reflectors elaborate, being designed with the aim of flood and releasing at the same time. This extra work in the design of the multiled is noted for good when designing. 2900 TK75 is to date for many fans the reference projection, and that is mainly due to its magnificent reflector. Hard work for Phoenix overcome in its new model to the previous. So difficult is that for this purpose it has included one led on your model, with a reflector very well worked, so worked as which has made its new TM16 Nitecore.
They are very similar, but eye, are not the same and therefore there are some differences in the projection. Nitecore reflector has 4 reflective zones, one for each led, and a central peak-shaped pillar. In the 4000 TK75 this central pillar does not end at peak and the reflective areas of each led seem more narrow and deep and most isolated among if.

The following are projections at different distances. They are subsequently discussed.

A few inches of the wall, in the lower mode of each model.

TK752900, K40M, TK754000, TM16

50 cm from the wall. Here we can see differences between the TM16 and the new TK75 that will give clues to the differences of projection that we see outside us. The differences in the reflectors already commented are appreciated slightly.


On a portaangulos… One might expect that with two reflectors similar, if the TM16 launches more, because it would flood less. At 50 cm from the wall images we have seen that the part of more diffuse projection is broader in the TM16, and also see that the exit angle is slightly higher.

4000 TK75

Projection inside. Almost 100 metres of distance up to the gate of the Fund. As we can see once again, the most inundadora a short distance away is the TM16, followed by the new TK75, the former TK75 (flooded the same, but there is more light in the new) and the K40M.

4000 TK75

External projection. On some ships to more than 230 meters. In the outside projection is where these cannons demonstrate what they are. If we speak of flood, the more inundadora would be the TM16 for very little, and if we talk about release, is intuits that for even less… but there are many meters lit differently we unearth subsequently between flooding on the first subway and launch 700

4000 TK75

Let’s start by comparing two classical models. As commented previously, the K40M has the handicap of a little elaborate classic reflector. If you look at the photo in about 100 meters inside we realized that the old TK75 has a similar conical projection, which in addition another more diffuse projection inundadora very close to, and to make matters worse a much stronger beam that makes you get quite more far. Of course, that it can influence the fact that commented at the beginning of the review that in gross horsepower my TK75 pays more, and my K40M pays slightly less than specified, but the obvious is obvious and the old TK75 is better to projecting. Not that is the reason why I deny that I love the K40M dye, and that medium-range flood a lot with a lot of light, TK75 2900-beating, but comparing, overall best TK75 2900 (the difference seemed less with the 2600).

The truth is that both models are overwhelmed by 16s exiting models. The new TK75 floods apparently equal to short distance than the previous, but with much more light (something that can be seen in the photos of outdoor, dark zones in the 2900 which is really of little light, very well illuminated by the 4000), halfway is as hot as the K40M and shines a lot of meters more ahead. I had difficult Phoenix overcome, but has done it, losing to change a number of invaluable metres… But if this TK75 you take away an amount of almost negligible lumen to the view halfway and those who typing system them placing a part in meters ahead, and another part to the sides close to, you have a projection a pinch more complete, i.e. the TM16 Imaging. My conclusion is that in this aspect, the TM16 is better by little, very little, but the best.


The first measurement that will be is the candelas and release m (the K40M are presented four modes only). In this regard, there are no surprises and the results are similar to what specified by marks. The more pitcher is ahead of the two Phoenix TM16 and the K40M. The truth is that you except in mode high differences are slim.

In terms of power and the distribution of modes, we started presenting the K40M. I said that your UI is that I like, and I must say that your distribution of modes would be too high if higher and 2 also. Always a success seems a Moonlight mode and a mode bass, although in this case I would prefer it to be about 100 lumen. From here the jumps of modes seem very well chosen. The delivered power in modes 1 to 3 quite match specified. From the room is somewhat below the official figures.

As for the 2900 TK75 as I said mine is a percentage above specified. Although there are fans who claim to have not noticed the change with the 2600, it is true that I if I noticed it. As I said I had to delete this model in the process of calibrating my sphere. Otherwise well distributed modes and change low mode for something higher and a moonlight.

The TK75 4000 is set as specified. The cast in this case very well, being superior to the previous model. I do the above observation on low mode and lack of moonlight.

In regards the TM16 results conform to specified except in high mode that is significantly higher (I see that this is true in almost all the review model). I believe that theoretically Nitecore has been the ideal, but I think that high so is not by chance. Why we will see when talking about the Runtime.

Regarding displayed power, the most powerful Ansi-Nema criteria is the TK75 4000, although we must also review the TM16 delivers something more in the boot. In general are 4 models with a lot of power and modes very well distributed, although I think the Nitecore is the best in this aspect too, although that is a purely personal opinion.

To analyze the regulation in turbo and its comparison on a single graph present all models. Here the TM16 which had shown as a tough rival for the TK75 4000 is when click and well punctured. While the TK75 is capable of offering us light above the high mode for more than two hours with his brilliant management system temperature, with an average of lumen on the 2200 lumen ranging from the 1600 to 2500 approx, the TM16 that newly lit is a dark beast goes down the intensity of way blatant in 5 minutes is placed in high mode and stays there. Later teorizaremos on why this can happen to the TM16.

In relation to the other models TK75 2900 which, in theory, hold 15 minutes floor almost at 17, and which has also surprised me is the K40M. Low very fast in the first few minutes, but it pierces the 2200-2300 lumen and endures as a champion, more than one hour. The problem is that one battery more would come her Pearl.

In order to better analyze the results we present a zoom of 25 minutes. Unfortunately the turbo mode the TM16… Expected in the TK75 2900 and we must emphasize that is going to be the model that more power from 10 to 17 minutes, give us very well the K40M and TK75.

Why happens this to the TM16 it may be due to several reasons, but I see clearly that the problem is transmission of heat to the body of the flashlight and the corresponding difficulty in dissipation. Curiously I’ve seen runtime by internet without forced ventilation that resemble my results, but I’ve also seen them claim otherwise… and that claim that the dissipation is very good… Beyond everyone. I believe that a basis of copper is essential for this model and it has it.

The following graphic shows the results of the measurement of the temperature in the head using a thermometer with datalogger. We see how the TM16 begins to rise very fast, perhaps due to its base of aluminum, but there comes a time that is not able to dissipate heat to the body of the flashlight to the appropriate speed and change mode. This may be because the temperature management system is very conservative, I doubt that, and may be because although the outside temperature is not too high, the interior if it is. It seems that it occurs as a buffer of temperature temperature system cannot manage and is not another that go down to the high mode. As curious note the body of the flashlight was not even tempered.

Against the new TK75 does not go up as fast, but as you can be seen in the graph makes it continuously, transmitting best heat by the body, and acting much later. Varies the amount of lumen delivered so that the user does not perceive the oscillation and controls the temperature suitable for all the runtime. The 2900 TK75 has a similar temperature transmission, rises more slowly because it has one less led, and because the temperature was lower at the beginning. There comes a time that gets very warm for several minutes before the stepdown to high mode. In the K40M the ascent is flatter motivated because from the first minutes the performance it descends 2300 lumen. With some pervasively in the performance you get to maintain stable temperature.

It is important to note that this is an indicator of how behaves each Lantern dissipating heat, but not made in real conditions of use. It has nothing to do being in sphere integrative with the head something introduced in it, without a hand that will help dispel that night outdoors, with temperatures different (to say nothing of when cold) and dissipating the heat in his hand. A priori the 2900 TK75 will behave in a similar way, but it will be less hot, like the K40. This lower heat can make them to give more lumen. However the TM16 possible temperature management system have to soon fall to high mode, although I do not think that their behavior changed radically, and the TK75 4000 will increase the average lumen delivered what still makes it more impressive. Truth is that largest number of lumen, reduced runtime on the other hand. In fact, with the forced ventilation the TK75 4000 it would not have had both runtime.

Beyond modes turbos, with such brutal deliveries of powers, seems to me particularly relevant high mode and its runtime, and here we can see some interesting things and different concepts.

That is going to offer less lumen is 2900 TK75, but it is the one that offers more runtime. The truth is that those official 1200 lumen, almost 1300 on my model seem insufficient in comparison with the new models, even though many will prefer those extra minutes offering. The K40M gives us less than specified, but not what little delivery. Penalizes it tremendously the runtime, scarce undoubtedly compared with other models.

In particular the new TK75-the TM16 war we see two different conceptions. I think that Nitecore aware that the turbo its TM16 isn’t very beyond in life decided to create a brutal high mode, and the official figure is “cooked down” to appear a better staggering of modes. Aware that this would affect the runtime volume a technical solution that well, seems to work. Rather than extended minutes more the runtime in this way, and fall dramatically into a sudden Step Down, he decided to cut a little earlier and make a long and gradual fall very progressive for many minutes, so that the perception of the user cost you see that your flashlight illuminates less. Besides this way you get to extend the runtime in this way for a good period of time. Since then he designed the UI of Nitecore note that it takes home the headlights to try them…

The TK75 4000 as you can see is very linear, and at the last minute also says that fall gradually, but to a lesser extent than the TM16.


When I bought the new TK75 of 4000 I dared not let go of the 2900. The latter is a piece of impressive flashlight, which however had to make updates. Indeed the TM16 surpasses it in most aspects. Now with the TM16 and the TK75, I think that I will put it on sale, although you have much esteem. Saying this, would sell it to buy one of the others if instead of a capricious it used it as a pure tool?. The answer is NO. It remains a stunning and quality bug. The new is not a revolution, but an evolution, an improvement but not so radical as to force us to change.

Intended to also sell the K40M, but is still different and with many things that have helped me to decide to leave it at home for the moment. It has a few very successful real modes. Also the arrival of the new Lumintop as a substitute does not convince me… have to have arms of Rambo to take it for more than ten minutes… I think that Acebeam should update something this Lantern without stepping on the K60M, and it must not be easy without increasing the size. But at least with the current thickness or a little more should carry 4 batteries, tweak a little upward under mode in keeping with the moonlight, insert a battery indicator, and aesthetic way promote it a bit, without involving cutting that capacity that has given us some 2300 lumen for many minutes. The question is if these few changes justify a new version…

The TK75 4000 is the natural evolution of the 2900 TK75. With 3 LEDs no longer can be taken over if you have got more flooding in all distances, losing just a few meters range. It carries the blockade which so much has been requested, a simple UI as the previous one, and voltage indicator. Like everything else in this world, they can never do anything perfect. Personally I like the TM16 modes sharing more. In relation to the Nitecore, they have done a great flashlight, and I am convinced that you had put some copper… It is more compact than the TK75, it has more modes, a UI as little as good but better, excellent electronics, and projecting is amazing… would that buy?, as it depends on the price, but with which I mentioned at the beginning whenever we get to that budget, if we value the suitcase carrying the lanyard, the overall quality, temperature dissipation, and the TK75 that you can use almost all types of batteries buy me But if you like the TM16, or think about it.