Lighting: T5 vs Metal Halide???

[moppy]

I have been trying to figure out which type of lighting to go with???

Any ideas which is better?

Does depth of tank matter?

Cost? T5 is cheaper but...

Anyways, opinions would be appreciated...

Thanks

[mark]

been a few others threads on T5 vs MH (here's one (http://216.187.96.54/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=47005)) but basically what you can do with MH you can do with T5 with pros and cons on each. There's also T5/MH combo units.

[e46er]

Im fairly new to salt but from my reading on here people swear by both
both bulbs seem to last a year or so and replacements generally run the same cost.
6-$30 T5
or 2 -$80 MH (in my case)
t5 have more control over color and variation


i went with MH as i got a good deal on the fixture and i just love the shimmer


also depends on what you want to keep a fish only tank lights are for viewing purposes only and sps dominated tank your gonna need a good t5 fixture with good bulbs and a bunch of them
depth is a big part of the equation as light penetration is much better with MH as far as my understanding goes
anyone feel free to correct me if im wrong

[StirCrazy]

ok, first, T5s are not a replacement for MH.

T5s are a upgrade for VHO, or PC, but thats where it ends.

can you grow SPS with T5s...yes. can you grow SPS with NO shop lights....Yes.(a guy on the board did it for quite a while)

so lest stop trying to say T5s are better than MH (one of my pet peeves)

now the real question is what are you going to do, as in what kinda coral are you going to have? How deep is the tank and how wide and long is it. are you going to have a sand bed and if so how thick? are you going to have a chiller? are you happy with normal growth or do you want accelerated growth?

lights should be one of your last decisions as they depend on everything else, or your first, if you are going to build a tank around your lights.

Steve

[moppy]

So I should really figure out what I am going to do first?

Ok, I will do that, although I don't want to have to buy a chiller and I already have an overheating problem in my tank room.

Thanks for the advice and opinions. I will read that other thread and take it from there.

[Myka]

So I should really figure out what I am going to do first?

Ok, I will do that, although I don't want to have to buy a chiller and I already have an overheating problem in my tank room.

Thanks for the advice and opinions. I will read that other thread and take it from there.

I agree with StirCrazy. T5s are not equal to halides, they just aren't.

Ya, you should at least figure out the size of the tank, and what types of corals. clams, anemones you may want to keep as they will determine how intense the lighting must be. Maybe an a/c unit will help your fish room temp?

[moppy]

Already have to use AC in the room (which is not cheap to run as I'm sure a lot of you know)

Right now I have 150W MH on my 90 corner tank and I'm not sure it is enough.

I want to move the 150 W to my 40 breeder and get a 250W for my 90 corner. Hoping that that will be enough but I've just heard a lot of talk about T5 and wasn't sure whether to upgrade to 250W or a combination of T5. I don't have sps right now but would like to try...

[Myka]

For a corner tank, you would probably be happier with a MH as you will get better coverage in that shape of tank than you would with T5s. If you want to try T5s the 40g would be a better shape to try it on.

[lorenz0]

aww i love these threads

by saying t5's your just saying a type of bulb. unless you state the t5 fixture than you can compare them to t5's. I think alot of people a mislead by these threads and think that the general idea of t5's is comparable.

imo if your comparing a TEK or powermodual they are basically the same as MH. I did a par test comparing the 2 and they both put out similar numbers. Personally i prefer t5's because you can customize your light spectrum (you can do the same with MH... by adding t5's lol) and they produce less heat, but you loose the shimmer from the MH.

It all comes down to what you enjoy. I ended to going to a friends place to check out his t5 tek set up which is what sold me on them. but to each their own... btw the die hard MH fans are already trying to lead you to the dark side lol.

[Aquattro]

btw the die hard MH fans are already trying to lead you to the dark side lol.

It's not the dark side, we have really bright lights here!! You NEED MH!! :)

[JDigital]

It's not the dark side, we have really bright lights here!! You NEED MH!! :)

I said the same thing... :lol:

[Myka]

imo if your comparing a TEK or powermodual they are basically the same as MH. I did a par test comparing the 2 and they both put out similar numbers.

It's not all about PAR in the end. IME, it seems like the quality of the light that comes from MH exceeds that of T5s. I don't know why as all the little numbers we can test for seem to indicate that they are essentially the same kind of light. I have definitely noticed that newbies have an easier time accomplishing great color and growth with their corals using MH lighting than T5s. I really can't explain, but it's a trend I have really started picking up on in the last couple years as T5s have become more and more popular.

I used to be a diehard MH, then I was diehard T5, and now I think there's a place for each type of lighting.

[Aquattro]

I used to be a diehard MH, then I was diehard T5, and now I think there's a place for each type of lighting.

I agree. MH over you tank, T5 in the garage for shop lights :)

For me, there is no alternative to MH. To replicate the lighting you see on a real reef, T5 doesn't cut it. The sharp contrast and the glitter lines make the reef, IMO.

[fkshiu]

MH for me if only for the glittering. Numerous tanks in Europe have proven that you can grow anything well under T5HO provided you've jammed enough tubes under your hood.

Why not just get the best of both worlds? MH with T5 supplementation?

[StirCrazy]

imo if your comparing a TEK or powermodual they are basically the same as MH. I did a par test comparing the 2 and they both put out similar numbers.


weird, I have never found a T5 that puts out anywhere near at 250 watt MH, but I am doing testing through water at a distance of 18".

and yes I have tested a Tek. problem is if you are testing a 10K MH then you need to have 10K bulbs only in the T5. actinic give a false high reading pn PAR meters.

Steve

[lorenz0]

weird, I have never found a T5 that puts out anywhere near at 250 watt MH, but I am doing testing through water at a distance of 18".


well the fact that in our house we have a strictly T5 tank and (during the tests) a 2x250watt MH set up. The t5's were slightly lower in par but comparable. Personally, i prefer the look of t5's. And imo, t5's bring out the color of sps. I could care less about growth in my tank as long as the color's produced are amazing.

but this isn't another t5 vs MH thread. let the OP say what they want for lighting

[lobsterboy]

i found that when using MH, i had deeper and shimmering colors on the corals.
with t5;s the corals have great color, but are more pastel, so it depends on what colors you are looking for.
myself i wouldnt mind trying the combo of t5s and MH, but for now i just have t5;s, and....THEY RULE THE DINOSAURS, YEAH! :lol::lol::lol:

[hslee]

*disclaimer - I've never tested numbers personally and am basing my entire post on the countless threads on this topic that I've read recently as I'm setting up my first SW setup... take what I say with a grain of salt*

It really does depend on preference - depending on what your particular needs are, one may be more suitable than the other.

MH definitely is better for depth, T5's for length (MH sort of has a spotlight effect, where as T5 spreads light more evenly). You can still get around this using T5's with good aquascaping and planning, if you place more light loving corals closer to the top.

As Myka said, for a deeper corner tank MH might be more appropriate just because of the shape of the tank.

I don't really buy into the cost savings idea with either fixture, since this'll depend on how often you actually change the bulbs (some change T5 bulbs every 6 months religiously, some let them go for over a year) and how many bulbs you decide to use (T5 fixtures go up to 8 bulbs, so changing them every 6 months makes it hard to have any savings)

As for power savings, yes T5 fixtures generally use less power, but this isn't a concern to everyone and I really don't know how noticeable of a difference it would be on your bill.

More choices in bulbs for T5 could be a blessing or a curse - there's a chance what you end up with after many different combinations (and $ out your pocket) could be the same or close to what you would've gotten with MH. With so many options, there's also the risk that you're running a combination that isn't ideal for your stock, and never knowing what you're missing out on.

As fkshiu said, it's hard to argue against using both, you can get the best of both worlds. If you weigh out pros/cons in your situation and decide you can't choose which one, choose both! :)

After all that... I could've summed it up with - either/or works, it's your choice and there are plenty of people happy on both sides

[loveless]

I am currently in the process of building a 330gal tank in wall. Atm I have a 180gal lit with 2x400w MH. and plan on using these same lights with better reflectors and light movers to light a 90x30 tank. If this works well enough then I am thinking on going to 250watt lights and seeing what those can do. This will give me MH lighting for less consumption than an LED setup, but not the initial cost of thousands of dollars. Will see if it works but this is and has been used for years in the hydroponic grow industry with great success.

[Myka]

weird, I have never found a T5 that puts out anywhere near at 250 watt MH, but I am doing testing through water at a distance of 18".

and yes I have tested a Tek. problem is if you are testing a 10K MH then you need to have 10K bulbs only in the T5. actinic give a false high reading pn PAR meters.

Steve

You make some very good points. When you take away all the variables, and actually compare them on fair grounds T5s just won't keep up to MH - especially when you get a bit of depth to the water.

Why do actinics give a false high reading on PAR meters?

[StirCrazy]

You make some very good points. When you take away all the variables, and actually compare them on fair grounds T5s just won't keep up to MH - especially when you get a bit of depth to the water.

Why do actinics give a false high reading on PAR meters?

PAR meters are calabrated for either sun light or electric light, and at a base spectrum. the longer wave lenght of the blue light in an actinic bulb is way out of perportion for either calabration as they are done based on 5500K(if I remember corectly). so when it recives a higher level of actinic than the calabration set had it thinks it is more powerfull and reads acordingly. the same holds true for say 3000k, it will report less PAR than there actualy is.

they pick the middle for the calabration and then it is only out a bit on the ends so you get a happy medium. I think at 400nm mine is 2.7% higher than actual ouput. so it isn't a lot, some meters are scewed by as much as 10%.

this is why I don't like to compare different colors of lights with out a disclamer, for an example, my AB 10K 250watt SE driven by a M80 ballast and my special home made reflector, would put about 550 to 600 units of PAR on the bottom of my 24" deep tank, so that is through 22" of water and 7" of air (I don't run the water 2" below the top, only 1 but my sensor is 1" tall also) for a total distance of 29" A tek unit with a 10K bulb load (4 bulbs) placed directly on the top of the tank for a distance of 24" from the sensor (22"water 2" air) got a max reading of 295 units of PAR. Still a respectable amount of light. now as for the disclamer, a 10K ab is actualy 12600ishK so a bit more actinic than the 10K T5s. so lets use the 10% which is the worst I have heard of and take that off my ABs it would still come to 495 to 540 Units, but seeing as there is only a 2000K difference in the bulbs I would guess it would be a lot close to the actual reading, as it takes some good actinic, as in 20K bulbs or pure actinic bulbs to get the meter to over estamate.

Steve

[Myka]

Thanks for the explanation Steve!! =]

[Dolf]

Wow- I was going to ask for a reference link as I don't like to just be told that basically actinic produce a false reading without knowing why. I always like sources- but in this case that explanation was good enough that I could easily quote it as a source. Thanks for the post.

[TheMikey]

That makes a lot of sense. I was doing some PAR readings on my tank last night and was getting about 680 PAR on the bottom of my 15G (about 16" from bottom of light to bottom of tank) with a 4x24W T5 setup. I'm using 1 x 15K, 2 x 22K (all aquascience), and a stock Actinic. I thought that was WAY too high.

Regardless, though, all I really care about is if my SPS has nice polyp extention (and they do!) and good colour.

[StirCrazy]

That makes a lot of sense. I was doing some PAR readings on my tank last night and was getting about 680 PAR on the bottom of my 15G (about 16" from bottom of light to bottom of tank) with a 4x24W T5 setup. I'm using 1 x 15K, 2 x 22K (all aquascience), and a stock Actinic. I thought that was WAY too high.

Regardless, though, all I really care about is if my SPS has nice polyp extention (and they do!) and good colour.


yup and like I have stated in other posts, I now believe that given the right water flow and water quality you can grow SPS under a 60 watt bulb, but the growth will be slow and the color not the greatest.

when I first started out I had 10K PC's and overdriven NO actinics, and I grew SPS, they were close to the top, and only had ok color and slow growth. I added a 175 watt 10K bulb and I got sa little more color and a little more growth. then I changed out the NO actinics for VHO actinics, a little lore of each again. so I decided to take the plung. got two 250 watt AB bulbs for a steal (1 month use on them) found a source for two advance M80 ballasts, bought a full sheet of spectral aluminum and made reflectors and or sold 1/2 the board at that time material to make there own, and I came up with a nice design that pumped out the light.

with this set up I couldn't add Kalk fast enough so I added fans for more evaporation, and kicked the Ca reactor into high gear.

from testing T5's I found out they put out about 1.5X the light that a same lenght PC does (a lot better than I expected) and a PC puts out about 10% more light than a VHO of the same lenght and color, unless you running and IceCap ballast on your VHO then it is way less but thats another story)

I do believe there is good use for T5's. I use them on my FW planted tank and am very happy, if heat is a concern then ys use them, but I think the cost is prohibitive personaly

just to put out my thoughs, lets pick a 48" sunlight supply 8 bulb unit. so the fixture is 494.00 and bulbs are 25-35 so we'll say an average of 30 each X 8 = 240. so for 1 year you need 480 worth of bulbs for a total of 970.00 for the first year of operation.

If we go MH we can get a 48" sunlight supply Maristar metal halide fixture which come with the two 250 watt MH HQI bulbs and two T5 actinic bulbs for 814. sence the T5's are only being used for color suplementation I would run them at least a year and from testing my MH bulbs over a few years I can say I have no problem running them for 16 to 18 months, but I will say for the pourpose of this compararason 12 months.

so initial year the MH is 150ish cheaper., now ongoing bulb replacment every year for the T5 will be 480.00ish and the MH will be 260.00 using 100 buck MH bulbs. power consumption wise, just in bulb rating the MH will use 612 Watts plus about 3% for the power factor of the ballast so say 494ish watts.

The t5 will run 440ish with the power factor. so for power savings it is not as much as people think.

anyways it is supper time..

Later

Steve

[Canadian]

I'll go on record stating that I think MH is the best simple option for reef aquarium lighting.

With that said, I'll play devil's advocate and post a link where the exact opposite consensus about this topic was reached elsewhere:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1609217

Every time this topic is discussed the recommendations become so dogmatic and obstinate it's painful (and I mean from both camps).

[Canadian]

PAR meters are calabrated for either sun light or electric light, and at a base spectrum. the longer wave lenght of the blue light in an actinic bulb is way out of perportion for either calabration as they are done based on 5500K(if I remember corectly). so when it recives a higher level of actinic than the calabration set had it thinks it is more powerfull and reads acordingly. the same holds true for say 3000k, it will report less PAR than there actualy is.

they pick the middle for the calabration and then it is only out a bit on the ends so you get a happy medium. I think at 400nm mine is 2.7% higher than actual ouput. so it isn't a lot, some meters are scewed by as much as 10%.

this is why I don't like to compare different colors of lights with out a disclamer, for an example, my AB 10K 250watt SE driven by a M80 ballast and my special home made reflector, would put about 550 to 600 units of PAR on the bottom of my 24" deep tank, so that is through 22" of water and 7" of air (I don't run the water 2" below the top, only 1 but my sensor is 1" tall also) for a total distance of 29" A tek unit with a 10K bulb load (4 bulbs) placed directly on the top of the tank for a distance of 24" from the sensor (22"water 2" air) got a max reading of 295 units of PAR. Still a respectable amount of light. now as for the disclamer, a 10K ab is actualy 12600ishK so a bit more actinic than the 10K T5s. so lets use the 10% which is the worst I have heard of and take that off my ABs it would still come to 495 to 540 Units, but seeing as there is only a 2000K difference in the bulbs I would guess it would be a lot close to the actual reading, as it takes some good actinic, as in 20K bulbs or pure actinic bulbs to get the meter to over estamate.

Steve

If that was the case wouldn't you expect an actinic T5 lamp to produce greater PAR values than a "whiter" lamp - given that you're suggesting 420nm wavelength is some how misinterpreted as being more "powerful"?

Here are measured PAR values for various T5 lamps:

http://tfivetesting.googlepages.com/par

[Canadian]

Steve,

Can you please explain how actinics produce "false high" PAR readings despite the fact that measured PAR values for actinic T5HO lamps are considerably lower than whiter lights?

For example:

ATI
Sun Pro 357
Aquablue 336
Blue Plus 311
Actinic 137

How does that actinic lamp running at 137 PAR some how artificially create "false high" PAR readings when the measured PAR is less than other lamps surrounding it?

[StirCrazy]

Steve,

Can you please explain how actinics produce "false high" PAR readings despite the fact that measured PAR values for actinic T5HO lamps are considerably lower than whiter lights?

For example:

ATI
Sun Pro 357
Aquablue 336
Blue Plus 311
Actinic 137

How does that actinic lamp running at 137 PAR some how artificially create "false high" PAR readings when the measured PAR is less than other lamps surrounding it?

dimmer bulb, who knows how they are made. anyways I am trying to get my house painted so I can sell it so I don't have time to explain it again.. Go to APogee's site they tell you what there corection factors are and such. wanna buy a house?

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Ok, re read my stuff, between painting rooms.. I made a mistake, yes I know.. imigian that, not that it happens a lot but yes even I can make a mistake.:mrgreen:

the meters do not over estamate actinic, the under estimate actinic and overestimate the higher end. in a rounded out bulb this will all work out in the pudding (6500K ish) but in a actinic bulb it will give you a lower reeding than you should have and in a 3000K bulb it will give you a higher reeding than you should have.

reasons are due to the spectral responce of the meters to the wave lengths, and to get a unit that reeds good all over you need to spend over 1000.00 bucks.

anyways sorry if there was any confusion Mr Canadian.

Steve

[Canadian]

Thanks for the correction Steve. That makes a lot more sense now.

[StirCrazy]

Thanks for the correction Steve. That makes a lot more sense now.

no problem, I was painting and something was striking me as funny about it.. so when I finnished painting the laundry room I took a short break and check my referance and found there error. then I went and painted one of the kids bedrooms, but on the good side, if this last coat coveres good, then tomorrow I have to do some trim and I am done painting my house:lol:

Steve

[Canadian]

no problem, I was painting and something was striking me as funny about it.. so when I finnished painting the laundry room I took a short break and check my referance and found there error. then I went and painted one of the kids bedrooms, but on the good side, if this last coat coveres good, then tomorrow I have to do some trim and I am done painting my house:lol:

Steve

Are you still planning on moving to Kamloops Steve?

[Myka]

no problem, I was painting and something was striking me as funny about it..

I do this too...except usually when I'm trying to sleep, and I'm haunted by reef questions. Or what my next upgrade should be... :lol:

[sask]

For your overheating problem? If your tank is on an outside wall you could do as I have (not if you are a renter tho, landlord might not appreciate). A 4-6 inch hole thru the canopy and wall (check for stud location to avoid), insert a piece of ducting with an elbow pointing down on the outside put in an inline booster fan available at Princess Auto, hook up a plug to the wiring and viola, no more condensation inside your canopy or on your windows, and much, much less heat. they run silent when on the outside, consume very little energy and solve a lot of issues relating to heat and moisture. you can install the whole thing for under $50.:biggrin:

[sask]

A note on MH bulb cost. I buy my hqi bulbs from an ebay store called trust_deals lights ( it goes by a couple of names, you should be able to find it from that name). All the hqi seem to be $20 us each plus $7 for shipping. If you order 2, 3,4 bulbs etc, it is still only $7 for shipping. The bulbs are awesome. I had some brand name bulbs from JL Aquatics and the colour of the trust deals bulbs was much better. They last just as long, and at $20 a piece, it is way easier (mentally)to replace and discard once a year (like you should to get the best spectrum out of them) than when you are paying $70 plus +taxes I went from 10k to 14k then up to 20k. My tank looks great under 20k. They also have LED, UV, double and single end HQI and everything in between. Good luck.:razz:

[StirCrazy]

Are you still planning on moving to Kamloops Steve?

yup, the wife has to leave sunday to start work up there, so it is me and the kids till school is over then I will follow in september.

Steve