24" depth, who runs t5, who runs MH?

[gobytron]

I have recently bought a bunch of used systems in order to economically and expeditiously establish my 90 gallon tank.

I currently have 2 250W Phoenix 14k running over this tank and I have no complaints, however, I find the diversity in t5 bulbs intriguing and since my tank is host to many sps and a few clams; I thought I would query this great forum for peoples experience with a tank of this depth and t5 vs mh for sps, clams and other high light loving organisms...

Do you really get the same penetration and par with something like a 6 bulb tek fixture (this is the fixture I would try to find if I did switch to t5) or something comparable?

I know there is more to it than optics, but to me, I just can't see how something as bright as a mh bulb could compare to even 6 bulbs of something that is nowhere near as bright to the naked eye...


Thoughts?

links to this same question being asked by other curious newbs?

Pictures?

all appreciated, thank you.

[Myka]

Do you really get the same penetration and par with something like a 6 bulb tek fixture (this is the fixture I would try to find if I did switch to t5) or something comparable?

To answer the question very simply...ABSOLUTELY NOT.

This question has been debated to death. You will have the T5 diehards, and the MH diehards who will have differing opinions, and usually strong opinions at that. I used to be a diehard MH, then I switched to T5 and thought that was the cat's @$$, now I'm back to MH.

Depth penetration is a fairly straight forward answer even though you will get differing opinons which is kinda silly if you ask me, as there are numerous "case studies" that show T5 does not even come close to the depth penetration of MH when compared fairly.

Now, when people are comparing MH to T5 for PAR they USUALLY don't compare fairly as it is difficult to do. First, you need 8x54w T5s to fairly compare to 2x[any watt] MH lamps or 4x54w to a single MH lamp. Otherwise you are not getting the same coverage of sq ft of usable light. Next, you have to compare the same Kelvin. You can't compare 10000K to 14000K and say that you have compared fairly because the higher Kelvin puts out less PAR in comparison to the same bulb in a lower Kelvin. Then you have issues like reflector quality. And the biggest variable?? What bulb/ballast combination? If you pick a poor bulb/ballast combination you may get 1/4 of the PAR out of that setup as you would if you ran a different bulb/ballast combination of the same wattage. You can also get more PAR out of a lower watt than a higher watt just by choosing different bulbs/ballasts.

SO...if you want to compare fairly, or you want a more accurate answer you need to ask something more like this:

Will I get higher PAR from 2x250w electronic ballasts with Giesemann 13,000K DE bulbs and LumenMax 3 reflectors or a 8x54w Tek T5 running 3 Fiji Purples and 5 AquaScience 15,000K??

The answer to that would be that you would get higher PAR from the MH set up in this particular case. I'm going to take an educated guess and say you will get about 25-30% more PAR out of the MH at 24" depth. Although the PAR at the water's surface would probably be within 10-15% of eachother, with the MH still leading.

Another issue with lighting that many many people fail to consider is water clarity. There are many reasons for higher or lower water clarity, and generally people with less experience are less likely to have high water clarity. This HUGELY affects the amount of light penetration, and is not as easy to achieve as you may think. I'm not going to go into that any more though because that's a fairly large topic as well.

I thought I would query this great forum for peoples experience with a tank of this depth and t5 vs mh for sps, clams and other high light loving organisms...

Imo, there is no comparison in your case with the combination of significant depth (24") and the critters you are keeping. MH would be the ONLY option if I was in your place. Oh, and I am!! I am setting up a 24" deep tank, and am using 2x250w MH with supplemental T5 blues/actinics. I absolutely would not consider T5s for my tank, and I only keep LPS, a lower light clam, and a lower light anemone. Although I do plan to add a few SPS to the tank.

[tang daddy]

Good answer ^

And now from my own experience if you have a tank with low depth like say 18 inches a t5 54w fixture may grow sps however for a deeper depth it will keep stuff alive but not thrive!

I had a 6 bulb tek over my 120g with 2 extra single t5's full sps tank and in 3 months went back to 2x250w hqi. While some sps did well with t5 at the 8in and up mark the rest coloured down, so IMO mh hqi with sps FTW!!!!!

[gobytron]

Thanks for the diatribe, I appreciate your comments.

I'm amazed so much info can be received from someone who has a 33 gallon sumpless and skimmerless tank.


I would love to see your set up Myka, do you have any pics?

I have so many pieces of equipment that it's confusing and I was wondering if it were all necessary plus, I am looking to spend 400-500 on an new skimmer that I was under the impression was mandatory. I'd be sincerely interested to know about your maintenance schedule and if you have any problems with algae or organic waste build up etc...

I wonder what difference the usable light makes if my tank is only 18" wide?
wouldn't a 6 bulb fixture give me all the usable light I need where as a MH light might be spilling over the sides as i have read a MH bulb should cover about 2 square feet and thats about 6" too big?

I would love to see a comparison of the best and most advanced MH technology against the best and most advanced T5, regardless of differences in reflectors, ballasts and such, just a bare knuckles brawl between these two top offerings of these mainstays in this hobby.

Also, some links to those case studies you mentioned that set the record straight on t5 vs MH depth penetration would be really helpful, can you post the links to them please?

I apologize for not offering enough specifics on what mh I wanted to compare to what t5s for you to answer my query, I guess i was just hoping for some general info on the two and their individual benefits versus short comings, but maybe thats impossible, I am just a newbie:redface:

if anyone can even add anything after that, I'd still love to hear some discussion...

[gobytron]

Good answer ^

And now from my own experience if you have a tank with low depth like say 18 inches a t5 54w fixture may grow sps however for a deeper depth it will keep stuff alive but not thrive!

I had a 6 bulb tek over my 120g with 2 extra single t5's full sps tank and in 3 months went back to 2x250w hqi. While some sps did well with t5 at the 8in and up mark the rest coloured down, so IMO mh hqi with sps FTW!!!!!

Ha, i see you have the fixture I am considering for sale....lol
what bulbs were you running tang daddy?
and you say you had 2 extra on there?
so you really had 8 t5's with individual reflectors all in all and were not satisfied?
what are the dimensions of your 120 if you please?
you're comparable experience is precisely what I was hoping to hear

[parkinsn]

Just putting this out there
http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=51991

Anyway on a serious note, great response Myka, that about sums it up.

[Powertec]

I use both MH and T5.
I can honestly say I can keep the same SPS corals on the bottom of my 24 inch deep tank and the color is just as good. IMO dont worry so much on lighting there is much more that influence color in a tank than just lighting.
You can drive yourself crazy there are many tanks on both sides of the debate that are impressive.

[lorenz0]

canreef is dominated by people who believe that MH is the only way to go. IMO MH is good for growing but color is a whole different story. Still can NOT get the same colors that you can with T5's (edit) unless you run 22k MH but than your losing your growth

Its all up to you really, personally i prefer T5's and will never own MH.... but the temptation has been there to try them out

[gobytron]

Myka

holy smokes, I just looked at your photos from yesterday.
That is one nice 33 gallon.

what do you have for fish in there?

did you decide to go skimmerless to have more nutrients since you're predominantly lps?

your fox coral look angelic....

[Doug]

Ha, trying to grow sps under T-5 lighting. Now thats a joke. :wink:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1083336&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

I usually dont like linking another forum but some outstanding sps aquariums in this thread. Not sure of the depths without reading it again but some I know for sure are that deep or close to it. :smile:

[Trigger Man]

Ha, trying to grow sps under T-5 lighting. Now thats a joke. :wink:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1083336&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

I usually dont like linking another forum but some outstanding sps aquariums in this thread. Not sure of the depths without reading it again but some I know for sure are that deep or close to it. :smile:

Great link, I never understand why people are so stuck on their ways on this topic. It has been proven time and time again that T5's can grow great thriving SPS tanks, yet somehow all those pictures of it occurring seem to miss MH users. I guess it took a long time for people to start believing the earth was not square, even after all the ship explorations and date that said it was circular.

As Lorenz0 said "canreef [and many of the other forums are] dominated by people who believe that MH is the only way to go. IMO MH is good for growing but color is a whole different story. Still can NOT get the same colors that you can with T5's (edit) unless you run 22k MH but than your losing your growth

Its all up to you really, personally i prefer T5's and will never own MH.... but the temptation has been there to try them out"

I feel the same way about T5's.

[mark]

I'm doing the mix as well. The 2x250w MH for the PAR, supplemented with T5s to help with the colours and that dusk/dawn thing. Some comparison pictures here (http://216.187.96.54/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50851).

[StirCrazy]

Another issue with lighting that many many people fail to consider is water clarity. There are many reasons for higher or lower water clarity, and generally people with less experience are less likely to have high water clarity. This HUGELY affects the amount of light penetration, and is not as easy to achieve as you may think.

Very good answer, the differance in PAR will be a little more at 24" though, more like 50 to 100% more depending on reflectors and such.

only thing I am interject into this is water clarity makes way less differance than people think. unless the water is so cloudy you notice it and have a hazy look to it, you are going to get less than 1% atinuation in a 24" deep tank, once there is a slight haze you get about 1 to 2% and if you can't see the back of the tank clearly then it gets bad. the only reason I know this is when my tank crashed due to a crapy heater I figured I would take something good out of it and did PAR readings at various stages of clarity. Had to get something good out of loosing over 7K replacment value in corals :cry: Also glass tops only make a differance of about 3% for 1/4" glass. acrylic would be less.

Steve

[Doug]

What fails to be mentioned many times when asking a question such as this thread, is the variety of T-5 fixtures.

Notice many of those, {not all mind you}, bulbs in that thread are over driven. Plus some of the fixtures are top end units. Thats a lot of difference when comparing what they will grow and depth penetration.

My 6 bulbs fixture is very good, IMO, but when it was on my 90, I think it may have not been enough for sps corals, except for higher up. But then its half the cost of the other units and with bulbs to boot. :lol: Try explaining that to lowballers when selling a unit like that. Sheez.

Anyways, I would not hesitate to use my unit on a 16in. high tank for sps corals. If I was doing a 24in deep tank and wished to run T-5,s I would use one of the high end fixtures, esp. the models that run the bulbs @ 80w or build my own and use the Icecap do it yourself kits. My friend has a 120g full blown sps tank that and it rivals any halide lit tank I have seen.

In defense of halides though, have a look at some of them in our featured section. Some blow your mind sps tanks there. When I look at my friend Mikes 5ft. tank running his three 250,s both 12K Reeflux and a centered 20k, there is no doubt in my mind thats part of the reason for the nice growth and outstanding colors in all his sps

So this basically says, more than one way to run the tank, just buy the correct product for your own needs.

[Snappy]

My tank is 27" deep and I run a mixture of M/H & T5 and really like the combo. 5x 250w 14k, 2x 150w 20k & 12x 54w T5 bulb mix. It's the best of both worlds. Lot's of colour, growth and still get the MH shimmer.:biggrin:

Another point about the MH is: are they HQI or single end moguls because between the two of them there is little comparison IMO. HQI all the way!

[StirCrazy]

Another point about the MH is: are they HQI or single end moguls because between the two of them there is little comparison IMO. HQI all the way!

ahh, here is another one I can dispell, :mrgreen: it isn't the DE bulb that is better than the SE, b ut rather the HQI ballast that is better. A SE bulb on a HQI Ballast has both more par and coverage than a DE bulb on the same bulb.

Steve

[Canadian]

T5 is only adequate for tanks 12" or less in depth. Anything greater than that depth and growth rate for SPS will be less than 1mm per month when using T5s.

Additionally, PAR values measured by meters such as the Apogee Quantum meter measure false high PAR values for actinic fluorescent lamps so the measured T5 PAR values are misreported (over inflated).

[ickmagnet]

My tank is approx 30" deep and I am running T5s (8 tubes) and before this, i had MH lights (750 w). My soft corals and anemones are responding just fine to my T5s and I don't have to worry about crazy electricity bills.

I should note that most of my corals are closer to the top (about 2 feet away from light)

[Doug]

T5 is only adequate for tanks 12" or less in depth. Anything greater than that depth and growth rate for SPS will be less than 1mm per month when using T5s.

Additionally, PAR values measured by meters such as the Apogee Quantum meter measure false high PAR values for actinic fluorescent lamps so the measured T5 PAR values are misreported (over inflated).


So your saying all those in the thread I linked are wrong??

[fishytime]

So your saying all those in the thread I linked are wrong??

*ding ding ding* and in this corner
:fencing::laser::fish::boxing:

[midgetwaiter]

T5 is only adequate for tanks 12" or less in depth. Anything greater than that depth and growth rate for SPS will be less than 1mm per month when using T5s.


Trying to make a blanket recommendation for the light requirements of all SPS corals is pretty silly. Would a milli and a pavona really react the same to a given light level?


Additionally, PAR values measured by meters such as the Apogee Quantum meter measure false high PAR values for actinic fluorescent lamps so the measured T5 PAR values are misreported (over inflated).

T5 lamps have heavy blue output for a reason, some or maybe most the photopigments in corals respond to light in these wavelengths. Using a PAR meter designed for horticulture may not be the best tool to measure this but it's the best tool we have. However referring to this artifact of PAR measurements as "misreported" completely overlooks the basic requirements of these animals.

[Doug]

*ding ding ding* and in this corner
:fencing::laser::fish::boxing:


Just a question for Andrew. Not meant in any other way. :smile:

[gobytron]

great stuff everyone.
That thread on rc was great, some beautiful tanks there that are obviously quite deep and t5 based.

I'm really glad to see the different opinions, I left this thread yesterday afternoon thinking that I must have been daft to consider switching to t5 but now I think I just need to try it for myself and see what the results are.

[Canadian]

Whoops. My mistake. I thought this thread was the one where we make blanket bull$hit erroneous statements about lighting and then other members demonstrate poor critical thinking and regurgitate them while they make absolutely asinine comparisons between different lighting modalities.

Come on guys! Look at my signature and see what kind of lighting I have and what kind of system I run. Use your heads! Look at this thread and see what I have said about T5 lighting in the very recent past: http://canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=51194&page=2

Then go read this thread where some serious BS was spewed and several members gobbled it up and regurgitated it without putting on their "thinking caps" http://canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=51164&page=3

Time and again this stupid comparison is made and people puff up their chests about the superiority of MH lighting all the while completely ignoring the multitude of successful large T5 lit SPS tanks. Many of these large T5 lit SPS tanks are at least 24" deep - so there's your evidence. This BB is, unfortunately, sliding down a slippery slope of pouring out some really bad information of late. I also read posts where members denigrate other sites like RC for various reasons. People need to ensure they get a wider range of views on a topic from other sources before they develop such staunch opinions. There are thousands of SPS dedicated tanks running T5s quite successfully, and several of those are at or around 24" - go look it up somewhere else before your impressionable fledgling hobbyist minds are filled full of BS on this BB.

[lastlight]

A few of you need to spend a few min in my place when 12 80w bulbs fire up. I'm hoping t prove a few people wrong but like Canadian said thousands have otherwise I'd never have gone t5.

There are so many variables. Like it was said you needtocompare very specific setups.

[gobytron]

mods, you can close this thread, I have all the links and opinions I could ask for now to form an educated decision.

thanks very much for all the the strong opinions guys, all very helpful and definitely shows how much of a debate this issue is in this hobby.

I think I am just going to wait till I find a mid to higher end 6-8 bulb t5 fixture and try it out for myself....

My 250x phoenix don't leave much to be desired so no rush, but I'm looking forward to documenting my experiences when I do make the switch.

[lastlight]

*high fives the t5 guys/gals*

WOOT!

[Ryan]

mods, you can close this thread, I have all the links and opinions I could ask for now to form an educated decision.

thanks very much for all the the strong opinions guys, all very helpful and definitely shows how much of a debate this issue is in this hobby.

I think I am just going to wait till I find a mid to higher end 6-8 bulb t5 fixture and try it out for myself....

My 250x phoenix don't leave much to be desired so no rush, but I'm looking forward to documenting my experiences when I do make the switch.


No way dont close it this is a great debate thread. Leave it open a lot of information to be had, once it starts getting out of hand then lock it down.

[Aquattro]

Ya, there is no reason to close this, even if the T5 people are wrong...you NEED MH :)

[banditpowdercoat]

You know, threads like this make me change my mind more than Michael Jackson changes plastic surgeons.......Ohh, that was a bad one HAHAHA


But really, I just bought a used MH for my tank, waiting on bulbs to come in, to replace my T5. But now, I'm thinking of just keeping the T5, adding a fan on the ends. the tank is like 18" water depth. I'm gona try the MH, but thing they will be reserved for the new, Taller tank I'm gettin.


But anyways, I love reading the reasons each have for liking thier choice of light. No one light is PERFECT. Each person want's, has different needs. It is nice to see that BOTH will work fine. Just depends on how picky a reefer is HEHEHE.

[Ron99]

LEDs are better than either MH or T5. Sorry couldn't resist :razz:

But seriously, they are the future for lighting in our hobby. Only problem is up front cost. I am looking at eventually building my own array for my new 65 gallon and it will probably cost me $1100 to $1200 in parts. But that will come down over time as the LEDs get cheaper. Long term benefits are lower energy consumption and no bulb changes as the LEDs should last from 8 to 11 years depending on photoperiod. I'll have PAR as good as a 250W MH with no heat transfer to the tank. With more LEDS and tighter optics you can easily hit 400W MH PAR levels but then the build costs go up too. Final benefit is you can adjust the colour temperature anywhere you want it and the Cree royal blue LEDs generate great Fluorescence in the corals and if you can build and program a controller you can dim them for dawn/dusk or moonlight effects.

[gobytron]

LEDs are better than either MH or T5. Sorry couldn't resist :razz:

But seriously, they are the future for lighting in our hobby. Only problem is up front cost. I am looking at eventually building my own array for my new 65 gallon and it will probably cost me $1100 to $1200 in parts. But that will come down over time as the LEDs get cheaper. Long term benefits are lower energy consumption and no bulb changes as the LEDs should last frmo 8 to 11 years depending on photoperiod. I'll have PAR as good as a 250W MH with no heat transfer to the tank. With more LEDS and tighter optics you can easily hit 400W MH PAR levels but then the build costs go up too. Final benefit is you can adjust the colour temperature anywhere you want it and the Cree royal blue LEDs generate great Fluorescence in the corals and if you can build and program a controller you can dim them for dawn/dusk or moonlight effects.

insert head spinning smiley here.

[mark]

LEDs are better than either MH or T5.

LED archaic, go plasma: http://news.cnet.com/1606-2_3-32509.html

[Aquattro]

Seriously, if you want light, move south and use solatubes! Or a SPS pond :)

[Ryan]

Setting up my own Coral reef pool would probably be one of the first things I would do if I liked on the Gulf of Mexico.

[gobytron]

speaking of solatubes, here's a link to one of my favorite systems....
uses almost all natural light and is 700 gallons in just the display, this guy actually built his house around his tank and even installed solar panels on his roof to make things a little more economical...
http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic70159-25-1.aspx

[Ron99]

LEDs are better than either MH or T5.

LED archaic, go plasma: http://news.cnet.com/1606-2_3-32509.html

I saw this some time ago. It is intriguing. But will probably be a while before anything is commercially available.

[Doug]

Whoops. My mistake. I thought this thread was the one where we make blanket bull$hit erroneous statements about lighting and then other members demonstrate poor critical thinking and regurgitate them while they make absolutely asinine comparisons between different lighting modalities.

Come on guys! Look at my signature and see what kind of lighting I have and what kind of system I run. Use your heads! Look at this thread and see what I have said about T5 lighting in the very recent past: http://canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=51194&page=2

Then go read this thread where some serious BS was spewed and several members gobbled it up and regurgitated it without putting on their "thinking caps" http://canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=51164&page=3

Time and again this stupid comparison is made and people puff up their chests about the superiority of MH lighting all the while completely ignoring the multitude of successful large T5 lit SPS tanks. Many of these large T5 lit SPS tanks are at least 24" deep - so there's your evidence. This BB is, unfortunately, sliding down a slippery slope of pouring out some really bad information of late. I also read posts where members denigrate other sites like RC for various reasons. People need to ensure they get a wider range of views on a topic from other sources before they develop such staunch opinions. There are thousands of SPS dedicated tanks running T5s quite successfully, and several of those are at or around 24" - go look it up somewhere else before your impressionable fledgling hobbyist minds are filled full of BS on this BB.



:lol:.. Yea, I was kind of thinking that after. Figured it was the meaning of your post but then one never knows. May have changed your mind. :mrgreen: Then I,m thinking, "did he not just order a top end T-5 unit". Hmmm. :lol:

[StirCrazy]

Whoops. My mistake. I thought this thread was the one where we make blanket bull$hit erroneous statements about lighting and then other members demonstrate poor critical thinking and regurgitate them while they make absolutely asinine comparisons between different lighting modalities.




hey!!! thats my job:mrgreen:

Steve

[StirCrazy]

LEDs are better than either MH or T5. Sorry couldn't resist :razz:

But seriously, they are the future for lighting in our hobby. Only problem is up front cost. I am looking at eventually building my own array for my new 65 gallon and it will probably cost me $1100 to $1200 in parts. But that will come down over time as the LEDs get cheaper. Long term benefits are lower energy consumption and no bulb changes as the LEDs should last from 8 to 11 years depending on photoperiod. I'll have PAR as good as a 250W MH with no heat transfer to the tank. With more LEDS and tighter optics you can easily hit 400W MH PAR levels but then the build costs go up too. Final benefit is you can adjust the colour temperature anywhere you want it and the Cree royal blue LEDs generate great Fluorescence in the corals and if you can build and program a controller you can dim them for dawn/dusk or moonlight effects.

Ron, have you been to that nano reef tank dot com site, some of the best info I have seen on leds and DIY leds is there, but there are some misconceptions. the first being is that LEDs do creat a whole lot of heat, but it is nopt radiated to the water as you already stated but needs a heat removal system which increases the cost as heat sinks are not cheep. also by saying 250 watt PAR levels or 400 watt PAR levels is not realy true, the largest PAR values I have seen were compared to a DIY probe start ballast SE bulb with no reflector, but to even get close to that one they had to use CREE LEDs (the brightest ones they make) and had to get after market 45degree reflectors and realy tight spacing. not even close to afordable on a large tank as it wasn't afordable on a 10 gal by most people standards. that was also at a fairly close distance, as the LED reflectors seam to have a limited optimization range. I have realy been looking into building an aray, and I have come up with my own ways to save a bit of mony but still for a 28 gal tank I am looking at 48 LED's to get 150wattish levels and 64 LEDs to get what I think would realisticly be 200 wattish levels. so for a price estimate for 64 Cree Leds you are looking at a cost of 1280.00 just for the LEDs, then you need reflectors, which I have see for 5.00 each so another 320.00, now heat sink material.. just a guess at 1 to 200.oo bucks. now you need 1 driver for say every 6 LED's at 32.00 each = 400ish and then misc stuff say 100.00.

so looking at 2300 to get the same or a little less light on a 28 gal as a 250 watt set up with a perfectly seamless coverage and blend of color.

now maybe you have a contact where you can get cree stars for less than 20 each, if so tell me please:mrgreen: but after you get them you still need to know how to do plate soldering (which can be done in a oven if you are carfull) Oh I for got the power supply so you can drive the whole system off 110 but only have low voltage at your drivers for saftey. so another 50 to 100.00

Don't get me wrong, I do think LEDs are the way of the future, but in afordability it is a long way off.

Steve

[Myka]

First of all, as this debate goes on, as they always do when someone asks about T5 vs MH the T5 people always jump on their high horse and say there are a million T5 dominated SPS tanks out there that are AMAZING. Well no shhhht. There are a million AMAZING skimmerless SPS tanks out there too. Just as there are a million AMAZING low-tech SPS tanks. There are many ways to light a tank, BUT there are ways that improve your chances and abilities to have an amazing SPS tank, just as there are ways to decrease maintenance.

Thanks for the diatribe, I appreciate your comments.

I'm amazed so much info can be received from someone who has a 33 gallon sumpless and skimmerless tank.


I would love to see your set up Myka, do you have any pics?

:lol: I don't know if I should be offended or not?? Haha! No, I don't get offended very easily. You are assuming that the tank I have now is the biggest and bestest tank I ever did have, which isn't true. Well in some ways it is, but my biggest and bestest tanks I had back in the early and mid 90s, and I have very few pics.

I'm glad you found the pics of my 33 to your liking. :) You may be interested to know that tank was lit by 2x39w T5s for 2 1/2 years, and I have just recently (in last month) added a short burst of 2x250w DE MH to the tank. LPS aren't SPS though. I don't have any critters in there that require intense lighting. The clam is a Squamosa which is the least light demanding clam out there (that is easily found in the hobby), and the anemone is a Bubble Tip which is one of the least light demanding anemones out there. Both the Squamosa and the Bubble Tip are known to do well even under VHOs and CFs with enough wattage.

I have so many pieces of equipment that it's confusing and I was wondering if it were all necessary plus, I am looking to spend 400-500 on an new skimmer that I was under the impression was mandatory. I'd be sincerely interested to know about your maintenance schedule and if you have any problems with algae or organic waste build up etc...

I have troubles with Valonia, but it came with the live rock, and persisted even when I was using a skimmer on this tank. I removed the skimmer about 8 months ago I think, and the tank has never been better. I take my time to make sure the powerheads keep detritus from settling, and I do run an AquaClear with some fitler media in it to catch the detritus which I change 2x a week. I also have a powerhead in there that I turn on everyday for only a couple minutes as it creates too much flow for the LPS, but cleans out the detritus from behind the rocks. I run about 1 1/2 cups of BRS HC GFO in a PhosBan reactor which I change out every 4-6 weeks. Skimmers aren't mandatory, but I would say that they are STRONGLY urged in a SPS tank which usually does best in a lower nutrient environment.

I wonder what difference the usable light makes if my tank is only 18" wide?
wouldn't a 6 bulb fixture give me all the usable light I need where as a MH light might be spilling over the sides as i have read a MH bulb should cover about 2 square feet and thats about 6" too big?

Not really...if you have a canopy over the tank, and the light is properly reflected down so you don't get much light spill then you aren't wasting the MH light, you're actually increasing it a little bit because you're taking the same amount of light and concentrating it a bit.

I would love to see a comparison of the best and most advanced MH technology against the best and most advanced T5, regardless of differences in reflectors, ballasts and such, just a bare knuckles brawl between these two top offerings of these mainstays in this hobby.

You can't disregard the reflectors, ballasts and bulbs though. That makes the comparison a moot point. If you chose the highest PAR T5 setup to the highest PAR MH setup, then you could have a decent comparison.

Also, some links to those case studies you mentioned that set the record straight on t5 vs MH depth penetration would be really helpful, can you post the links to them please?

Sorry, I haven't saved any links. I've just read some here and there surfing the net.

[Ryan]

Steve checkout LED Supply. Even with shipping, exchane and duties the Cee LED's would be 20 peice. Maybe closer to 14.

[Canadian]

Steve,

I should get you out to measure the PAR of my 6 x 24W fixture. I'm sure the PAR isn't spectacular given that we know 80W T5s are the most powerful and efficient. If nothing else I should buy my own Quantum meter so I can post some values.

[StirCrazy]

Steve,

I should get you out to measure the PAR of my 6 x 24W fixture. I'm sure the PAR isn't spectacular given that we know 80W T5s are the most powerful and efficient. If nothing else I should buy my own Quantum meter so I can post some values.

no problem, my schedual is a little hetic with me being Mr. Mom now, but I am off work at 3 every day and depending where you live I don't have to pick up kids till 4:45 in langford.

Shoot me a PM and we can figure something out, I even know where my Meter is as I didn't pack it :mrgreen:

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Steve checkout LED Supply. Even with shipping, exchane and duties the Cee LED's would be 20 peice. Maybe closer to 14.

hmm there actualy 39 each from that site.

you can get the dimmer ones for cheeper, about 12ish so you can take about 500 off my cost estimate of 2300. :mrgreen: still to darn rich for my blood. you could use the 9 buck ones which would take 650.00 off but then your only going to get less than T5 lighting levels :wink::mrgreen:

[Ron99]

Hi Steve,

I have read alot about LEDs on nanoreef. I may get in on the current group buy which will get the prices down as low as possible. You should check out what Evill66 posts. He has tons of experience with LEDs and PAR levels and knows his stuff. LEDs are able to compete with MH and will bleach corals if you aren't careful. I think some of the older comparisons were made with products like the Solaris fixtures that used older Luxeon III LEDs etc. The newer Cree LEDs put out alot of light and alot more PAR.

Which LEDs are you looking at? If it's the MC-Es then yeah, they are a bit expensive and probably overkill. If you put tight optics on an MC-E you will probably bleach any corals directly under it unless they are deeper in your tank. Also, I don't think there are any royal blue MC-Es yet. XR-Es put out alot of light and PAR and can be had for USD $6.00 each on stars. In the group buy they will probably end up around $5.75 a piece and then optics are $1 each. Luxeon Rebels are really good too but optics are more limited. I am considering a 68 to 72 Cree XR-E LED array with 60 degree optics which should give me more than 150W MH performance. That is more than adequate for what I want to keep as I want to do a progression of higher to lower light corals from the top down. But nothing really demanding or requiring really high light.

I'm not really sure what LEDs you're looking at and what prices you are getting but those prices seem awfully high compared to what I have found at LED Supply, Cutter, ETG Tech etc. LEDs , optics and drivers/power supplies for my array would work out to about USD $650 to $700.

Assuming your tank is something like 30 by 12 inches you could probably get away with a 45 LED array (15 x 3) with 40 degree optics and you would have at least 250W MH performance. Cost of parts would be around USD $270 for LEDs, USD $45 for optics. The Meanwell drivers are a great option as they incorporate the power supply and driver in one and run off 110V. You could drive up to 13 LEDs on each one so you would need 4 of them. If you buy them yourself they would probably run around $50 to $60 each but in volume with the group buy at nanoreef they will likely come in at around USD $33 each. They are also dimmable with a few extra inexpensive components so you could run blues and whites off separate drivers and adjust your colour temperature and brightness.

Also, if the LEDs are already mounted on stars there is no need for plate soldering or anything like that. Simply mount them to the heatsink and wire the proper pads on the stars. As for heat, yes, you are right. they generate alot of heat upwards, not down into the tank. I picked up a large industrial heat sink at a salvage yard for $40 which will be more than adequate. If I bought the heatsink commercially I would probably be looking at $100 or so for that.

So the prices for DIY are not cheap but when you look at long term savings in electricity and bulbs it works out to be cheaper after a couple of years use.

Cheers,

Ron

[StirCrazy]

I picked up a large industrial heat sink at a salvage yard for $40 which will be more than adequate. If I bought the heatsink commercially I would probably be looking at $100 or so for that.

Cheers,

Ron

I was looking at the MC-e stars for the white, then getting XR-E's for the blue and a few UV to throw in there. was going to use 60 to 80 degree optics on the MC-e's and 40 on the royal blues.

what was the heat sink you got from? I was thinjing of just getting a slab of aluminum and making my own but that is darn expensive.

Steve

[Doug]

"sigh". Nevermind

[Aquattro]

I have used both, and enough times on different tanks, to think I can post with some experience.

but Doug, you're really old now, and well, we gotta question your senility these days...:)

[Doug]

but Doug, you're really old now, and well, we gotta question your senility these days...:)


:faint:

[Aquattro]

So seeing as this thread talks about the immovable opinions of high horse riders, I'll modify my previous statements on the board.

Ok, you don't NEED MH, you can run a successful SPS tank, or any other tank, with T5s. I wouldn't, and it's not about color or growth. I've never used them other than for actinic supplementation, but for me, the value in MH is the point source lighting. This gives my tank a sparkle that is not possible with T5, at least not to a degree I'm happy with. I've been to real reefs, and want mine to look real, and for me, only MH can give me that. If you're happy with a flatter (less contrasty ?) look, then T5 will probably work just fine. I also don't need to tune my color, I want the color to look like a reef at noon, and mine does with 14k AC bulbs. I've never been to Fiji, so I'm not sure if Fiji really is purple, but boasting a lighting system based on Fiji purple or Tonga Tourquiose, to me, is not keeping a natural look. Again, not everyone is looking for the "look" I am, so use whatever you want.
Growth? Who cares? The coral is going to grow under any sufficiently bright light, and really, I've always tried to slow my growth, makes for more room on the picnic table.
As for coral color, there are so many factors beyond lighting, that most people ignore, it's not even worth discussing in a lighting thread. I don't care what kind of light you use, if these other items are not addressed, you're going to have brown coral. If these items are addressed, you're going to have colorful corals, regardless of whether you use T5 or MH. Sure, there appear to be some pigmentation differences between the two types, again falling to personal preference.

So sure, you don't NEED MH, but I do. It gives me what I want in a tank, regardless of any other concern (power, heat, cost, etc). The end point in this hobby is me coming home to look at my tank, with the look I want, and for me, this can only be done with MH. I need MH.

(oh, and Greg, you need MH too)

[gobytron]

So seeing as this thread talks about the immovable opinions of high horse riders, I'll modify my previous statements on the board.

Ok, you don't NEED MH, you can run a successful SPS tank, or any other tank, with T5s. I wouldn't, and it's not about color or growth. I've never used them other than for actinic supplementation, but for me, the value in MH is the point source lighting. This gives my tank a sparkle that is not possible with T5, at least not to a degree I'm happy with. I've been to real reefs, and want mine to look real, and for me, only MH can give me that. If you're happy with a flatter (less contrasty ?) look, then T5 will probably work just fine. I also don't need to tune my color, I want the color to look like a reef at noon, and mine does with 14k AC bulbs. I've never been to Fiji, so I'm not sure if Fiji really is purple, but boasting a lighting system based on Fiji purple or Tonga Tourquiose, to me, is not keeping a natural look. Again, not everyone is looking for the "look" I am, so use whatever you want.
Growth? Who cares? The coral is going to grow under any sufficiently bright light, and really, I've always tried to slow my growth, makes for more room on the picnic table.
As for coral color, there are so many factors beyond lighting, that most people ignore, it's not even worth discussing in a lighting thread. I don't care what kind of light you use, if these other items are not addressed, you're going to have brown coral. If these items are addressed, you're going to have colorful corals, regardless of whether you use T5 or MH. Sure, there appear to be some pigmentation differences between the two types, again falling to personal preference.

So sure, you don't NEED MH, but I do. It gives me what I want in a tank, regardless of any other concern (power, heat, cost, etc). The end point in this hobby is me coming home to look at my tank, with the look I want, and for me, this can only be done with MH. I need MH.

(oh, and Greg, you need MH too)

Nice....

[Canadian]

So seeing as this thread talks about the immovable opinions of high horse riders, I'll modify my previous statements on the board.

Ok, you don't NEED MH, you can run a successful SPS tank, or any other tank, with T5s. I wouldn't, and it's not about color or growth. I've never used them other than for actinic supplementation, but for me, the value in MH is the point source lighting. This gives my tank a sparkle that is not possible with T5, at least not to a degree I'm happy with. I've been to real reefs, and want mine to look real, and for me, only MH can give me that. If you're happy with a flatter (less contrasty ?) look, then T5 will probably work just fine. I also don't need to tune my color, I want the color to look like a reef at noon, and mine does with 14k AC bulbs. I've never been to Fiji, so I'm not sure if Fiji really is purple, but boasting a lighting system based on Fiji purple or Tonga Tourquiose, to me, is not keeping a natural look. Again, not everyone is looking for the "look" I am, so use whatever you want.
Growth? Who cares? The coral is going to grow under any sufficiently bright light, and really, I've always tried to slow my growth, makes for more room on the picnic table.
As for coral color, there are so many factors beyond lighting, that most people ignore, it's not even worth discussing in a lighting thread. I don't care what kind of light you use, if these other items are not addressed, you're going to have brown coral. If these items are addressed, you're going to have colorful corals, regardless of whether you use T5 or MH. Sure, there appear to be some pigmentation differences between the two types, again falling to personal preference.

So sure, you don't NEED MH, but I do. It gives me what I want in a tank, regardless of any other concern (power, heat, cost, etc). The end point in this hobby is me coming home to look at my tank, with the look I want, and for me, this can only be done with MH. I need MH.

(oh, and Greg, you need MH too)

I don't think any of the T5 advocates get on a "high horse" - we simply defend against unsubstantiated claims and general ignorance. You rarely see a T5 advocate claiming that T5 is better than MH. T5 users recognize that it is simply another type of light capable of producing good results. We also acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both MH and T5. And yet MH advocates make blanket ignorant statements over and over again based on use of a substandard (at best) T5 fixture (Tek).

I can't get over the ignorance about T5 lighting on this site though - there seems to be a relentless use of a Tek light as a gold standard for T5 lighting. This comparison simply speaks volumes about the ignorance about T5 lighting. Holding a Tek light up as a model for comparison in the T5 debate would be like using a Coralife pendant to compare MH to other lighting.

[Myka]

I don't think any of the T5 advocates get on a "high horse" - we simply defend against unsubstantiated claims and general ignorance. You rarely see a T5 advocate claiming that T5 is better than MH. T5 users recognize that it is simply another type of light capable of producing good results. We also acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both MH and T5. And yet MH advocates make blanket ignorant statements over and over again based on use of a substandard (at best) T5 fixture (Tek).

I can't get over the ignorance about T5 lighting on this site though - there seems to be a relentless use of a Tek light as a gold standard for T5 lighting. This comparison simply speaks volumes about the ignorance about T5 lighting. Holding a Tek light up as a model for comparison in the T5 debate would be like using a Coralife pendant to compare MH to other lighting.

I'm pretty sure Brad was making fun with my comment about "high horse". T5 users don't claim T5s are better because they aren't, and they know that! That's like comparing a Ford to a Cadillac...the Ford will probably get you there, but the Cadillac will do it so much more comfortably. Oh, and a Coralife pendant would probably still out PAR a Tek provided they were compared fairly. :D




I agree with Brad...kind of. :lol:

T5s can definitely improve the look of all corals whether they are colorful or brown. BUT, that's just the look of the coral, not the color it actually has. Just like you can ue a 20000K MH bulb to "improve the color"...why do you think coral merchants use 20000K??? Because it instantly improves the look of coral no matter how nice or how brown it may be. I'm with Brad in that I like my tank to look fairly natural as well, although I do like a slight blue tint to improve the color of the corals, but not much blue. I think a blue tank (like 20000K) is like fluorescent pink lipstick on a 70 year old. It makes me cringe. :eek:

Oh ya, and shimmer. T5s get some shimmer, but nothing comparable to MH.

[Aquattro]

Ya, the horsie comment was just in jest, people need to relax a bit and enjoy a debate that will never end. In the end, use what you like, if it makes YOUR tank something YOU are happy with, screw all the other opinions. If I say you NEED something, who the heck am I to say anything about your needs? Zactly. What I like is what I like, if it's different than what you like, great, when I'm bored with my tank I'll come look at yours, cause it's different. Not better, not worse, just different.
I like shimmer, others like softer light, I like contrast colors, others prefer pastel. This is like arguing about what the best color to paint a living room is, and what type of roller is best. Really, if you like the color, and I really don't care how it got there, good for you. I like my colors and light, so good for me. Nobody NEEDS to be right here, there is good and bad in everything in life, not just lights.

[banditpowdercoat]

Shimmer, I'm liking the shimmer I am getting from the 175. Only run it one night so far, but I think there may be a 4 tube, 24w TEK for sale soon.

I got a 14000K bulb from ebay. I know... But it was $19.99. Couldnt pass it up for testing. Couldnt see paying $80 for a bulb that I wasnt sure if I was going to keep. But, I do notice the difference. The lack of Actinics, I guess. Not quite blue enough for what I am used to. Might try to build a canopy for it, but the tnk is curved. I cant bend wood worth a crap LOL.

[Ron99]

I was looking at the MC-e stars for the white, then getting XR-E's for the blue and a few UV to throw in there. was going to use 60 to 80 degree optics on the MC-e's and 40 on the royal blues.

what was the heat sink you got from? I was thinjing of just getting a slab of aluminum and making my own but that is darn expensive.

Steve

Steve,

From what I have read the MC-E is overkill for aquarium lighting unles you have an extra deep tank. The XR-E whites are more than up to the task and are a fraction of the cost. You will also get a better balance between white and blue if you stick to all XR-E emitters. You can probably get similar PAR using all XR-Es with 40 degree optics at lower cost. With 40 degree optics you will need to keep the LED spacing between 1.5" to 2" apart. Going to 60 degree you are only increasing the spacing to maybe 2" to 2.5" so you won't save much in number of LEDs but given the 4 to 5 fold greater cost you will save alot going to XR-Es instead of MC-Es.

One thing that people don't realize is that PAR is not directly dependent on lumen output in LEDs. LEDs emit their light in a fairly narrow spectrum compared to other lights so from my understanding they produce more PAR per lumen (a crude description). in other words, they may not look as bright as some MH but they are producing as much, if not more, PAR.

As for the heatsink, I have no idea what it came from. It is 5 inches wide and it was something like 15 feet long. I had them cut some off and I will run two strips side by side so it will end up being about 10 inches wide and I'll probably go around 40 inches in length.

Anyhow, this is all a bit off topic to the MH vs. T5 debate. We can keep it going if others are interested to or just PM me if you have some more questions etc.

Cheers,

Ron

[Doug]

Ya, the horsie comment was just in jest, people need to relax a bit and enjoy a debate that will never end. In the end, use what you like, if it makes YOUR tank something YOU are happy with, screw all the other opinions. If I say you NEED something, who the heck am I to say anything about your needs? Zactly. What I like is what I like, if it's different than what you like, great, when I'm bored with my tank I'll come look at yours, cause it's different. Not better, not worse, just different.
I like shimmer, others like softer light, I like contrast colors, others prefer pastel. This is like arguing about what the best color to paint a living room is, and what type of roller is best. Really, if you like the color, and I really don't care how it got there, good for you. I like my colors and light, so good for me. Nobody NEEDS to be right here, there is good and bad in everything in life, not just lights.


You're correct Brad. Its to bad some others dont see it the same way.

Anyways, I edited mine for that reason. Tired of banging my head on a wall and then seeing posts that are just plain wrong and dont make any sense.

[digital-audiophile]

(oh, and Greg, you need MH too)


LOL!!!! Brad, That still gives me a chuckle, It never gets old :p


My two cents - I've used both MH and T5, I've read all the threads here and otherwise and everyone good experience and bad in both forms of lighting.

Why do I run T5's?

1.) Variation in colour, it's nice to fine tune the spectrum to find something that is pleasing to the eye
2.) Cost of the unit vs MH
3.) Cost savings in electricity
4.) Heat.. I won't burn myself on T5's like I did with MH


But this is just my own opinion.

I was planning on building a bigger tank but my current one is ****ing me off so much right now that I'm not even sure if I am going to keep doing this hobby..... but that being said if I do go with a larger tank I think I am going to run MH with a little T5 to tune the colour.... I like the way that T5's colour up my coral and fish... but I am just finding that I get very slow growth... then again is that just part and parcel of the lighting I am using or a combination of my other reef keeping practices? Tough to say really.

[lastlight]

I think some users of each style of lighting sometimes come off as preachy. I thought long and hard about leaving the shimmer behind and after seeing enough T5 lit tanks my mind changed regarding it. I sit like 3" from the glass and peer in...watch my tank for hours each night without exaggeration. The shimmer starts to hurt my eyes after a while. Yes it looks more natural tho.

One thing I've noticed (in my empty tank) is that my fixture gets stove-top hot on its top. I'm pretty excited about all that heat that's not entering my tank directly. My experience with mh leads me to believe that T5 has the edge for heat but I did have an enclosed canopy before.

I also think with T5s that having a properly designed fixture/unit is a lot more important than with mh. And the TEK isn't that and everyone uses it as a comparison.

Brad I do like how you said you use what you like. It's my tank and I spend WAY too much time staring into it to use something I don't find ideal.

[Ron99]

So what do the T5 users consider a good benchmark fixture? I was looking at Tek or Nova Extreme Pro 6 bulb fixtures.

[Aquattro]

Brad I do like how you said you use what you like. It's my tank and I spend WAY too much time staring into it to use something I don't find ideal.

Well, ya, that's what it's all about. Even if it's proven beyond any doubt that product X is better than MH, I like mine and I'm happy. I have the colors I want, the shimmer I like, my corals grow, my fish can see, everything is good. It also lights up my room pretty good, so all in all, I'm happy.

[Canadian]

So what do the T5 users consider a good benchmark fixture? I was looking at Tek or Nova Extreme Pro 6 bulb fixtures.

If I had to choose between those two I would go with the NEP and swap out the stock lamps immediately.

Based on testing to date I would say the benchmark for T5 fixtures would be the ATI Powermodule. There hasn't been enough testing or time to say how the Sfiligoi Stealth and Fauna Marin Star Fire compare with respect to PAR.

Ultimately, make sure any fixture you get has high quality individual reflectors, active cooling over the lamp cold spot, and a protective shield for the lamps (in that order of importance). Then note that the Tek doesn't have active cooling while the NEP does so go with it if that's what your only two options are. For a more affordable, higher quality option I would suggest the poor-man's Powermodule (the ATI Sunpower) if the maximum number of lamps you need is 6. If you want to be sure that you get the best then go with the Powermodule, Star Fire or Stealth (especially if you need more than 6 lamps).

[Ron99]

Thanks but I think the ATI fixtures are out of my budget. I am looking for something decent at a relatively affordable price to do the job until I can build my LED array. The ATI fixtures are several hundred dollars more than the NEP or Tek.

[Ryan]

For a quick fix I think the Tek would be the way to go overpower them with a IceCap660 Ballast.

[TVR]

My tank is 25 deep too (should be more than from the light to bottom of the tank) - And I am lighting it with T5's :fadein: Let see how's thing doing in there.
It was a big debate for me when choosing the light but I finally go for T5 after reading some articles about the MH related to over heat and chances of fire :sad:
I love MH though but have to stic with T5's for the sake of safety and summer's heat concern.

[Canadian]

Thanks but I think the ATI fixtures are out of my budget. I am looking for something decent at a relatively affordable price to do the job until I can build my LED array. The ATI fixtures are several hundred dollars more than the NEP or Tek.

Then like I said above, go with the NEP over the Tek for sure.

[Ron99]

Then like I said above, go with the NEP over the Tek for sure.

Okay. Thanks.

[Piscez]

I went from a Coralife PC to my NEP, I'm a newb but I can tell you myself, my corals and fish are all much happier.

There's even a fan quite mod available:

http://www.bderen.com/DIY/

I don't mind the fan noise as I don't find it annoying, but I may do it in the future if I've nothing better to do or a fan burns out.

I would like to go with a little more blue lighting when it comes time to change, and I certainly like the custom variations we can have.