Reef Central Online Community

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community > General Interest Forums > Lighting, Filtration & Other Equipment
Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

User Tag List

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 10/12/2009, 10:43 PM   #1
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
Should I upgrade to T5 or MH?

I have a 95g tank (48L x 18W x 28H) currently running on 520w of PC. Stupid move buying the PC's in the first place, but oh well. It's been over a year now and the stock bulbs are noticeably fading. Time to upgrade!

After reading countless threads, I still can't decide between T5's or MH's.
The two setups I'm considering are:

2x 250w MH DIY------
Undecided electronic ballast
Bulbs: probably these to start with.
Good reflector like lumenarc or similar.

OR

7x 48" 54w T5--------
Undecided bulbs
Parabolic reflectors
Either Workhorse or Sylvania ballasts

My current lighting can just barely support red monti, with virtually no growth and bad color. I'm wanting to be able to keep SPS like acro with good color and decent growth, along with LPS, rics and zoas. Of the two options listed, which would be a better choice if either? Other suggestions are welcome.



Last edited by black_ice_pc; 10/12/2009 at 11:10 PM.
black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 10:46 PM   #2
fox2589
Registered Member
 
fox2589's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 557
your tank is pretty tall..i would go with 2 250's with a lumenarc mini reflector..but thats just me lol-drew


fox2589 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 10:58 PM   #3
Reefbox
Registered Member
 
Reefbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Butler, PA
Posts: 1,045
mh no doubt, especially at that depth 28".


__________________
Jason
Reefbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 11:09 PM   #4
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
I agree about the height, but I'm planning on keeping mainly zoas and rics on the bottom. Then LPS mid to top, and SPS up top. Given that config, would you still say halides?
I also just realized that 7 T5's would fit over the tank. I'm leaning towards the halides myself, but want to see others' opinions.


black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 11:31 PM   #5
SaltFreek
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 200
MH for sure... and do yourself (and your tank) a favor and skip the eBay bulbs. I guarantee if you buy those first, you'll just end up buying quality bulbs soon after.


SaltFreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 11:35 PM   #6
MCCOOL
Registered Member
 
MCCOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,135
I think they are both good options, but I would go with the T5's personally. SPS would do fine on the top half of the tank and the zoas/rics and LPS would do great down lower.


MCCOOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 11:48 PM   #7
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
One other issue: heat. The tank is in my bedroom. We keep the house at 79 but my tank sometimes gets up to maybe 82. My current fixtures are sitting above the tank with ~1.5" clearance, and run for 9 hours. I would hang the MH's or T5's. If I hang the halides say, 8" above the tank and ventilate the pendants with fans, would I still have heat issues?

SaltFreek ---
Do you have experience with those bulbs? What would you recommend instead?
Cheaper the better lol.

MCCOOL---
Why would you go with T5's over halides?


black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 11:53 PM   #8
tcwoodrn
Moved On
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 153
Why not both? At 48" you can find plenty of fixtures that have dual 250w halides and also have 4 t5s. If you're doing one or the other I would go with MH.


tcwoodrn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 11:58 PM   #9
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
That would definitely be optimal, but I'm worried about keeping heat under control and I'm working on a tight budget. That's why both of the options I put are DIY lol.


black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/12/2009, 11:59 PM   #10
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
Thanks for the input guys, keep it coming!


black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/13/2009, 12:02 AM   #11
MCCOOL
Registered Member
 
MCCOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,135
You would save over 100 watts which would be alot less heat to deal with, also to get good colors with the mh you would need actinics or 20k bulbs but with the 20k bulbs the growth wouldn't be the best. With the T5's you can get great color and growth, all with minimal heat.


MCCOOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/13/2009, 12:04 AM   #12
MCCOOL
Registered Member
 
MCCOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,135
I'll admit I've only ever had T5's so I'm probably a little partial haha


MCCOOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/13/2009, 12:05 AM   #13
tcwoodrn
Moved On
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 153
If heat is a concern than I think you personally need to go with T5s. To get enough light for a solid reef in a 90 you would have to have at least 2- 250watts which make a lot of heat. You can always have a fan blow between the lights and the tank, but that only does so much.

I also fully agree that unless you do 20k bulbs you need actinics to help the color. I use phoenix 14k and they are just too white if my actinics are off.


tcwoodrn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/13/2009, 08:23 PM   #14
grigsy
Registered Member
 
grigsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 2,307
I would go with halides. I have always been pleased with my tank when using MH.

I have been running Hamilton Cayman Sun 250W HQI Pendants over my tank for a few months now and am very happy with the results.

http://www.hamiltontechnology.com/sh...w&cat=Specials


grigsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/13/2009, 08:52 PM   #15
James77
Registered Member
 
James77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 8,158
You could even go with 175w Iwasaki 15k bulbs, they give off as much PAR as some 250 watt bulbs. Color is a bright crisp white.


__________________
Jim

Current Tank Info: 120g Mixed Reef and 75g Freshwater
James77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/13/2009, 10:55 PM   #16
Reefun
Registered Member
 
Reefun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 534
I think you would get more light to the bottom of the tank with a GOOD T5 fixture or retro. I can grow anything on the bottom of my 75 including acros. The extra 6 inches deep your tank is would not make much difference. I have a 8 bulb TEK fixture. You could probable get away with 6 bulbs as long as you go with high par bulbs like Blue+ for the blue bulbs. And best of all much less heat.


Reefun is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/13/2009, 11:30 PM   #17
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
Ok so now the sides have split. The supplemental actinic lighting for the MH is definitely a con to me, and the lower power and heat of the T5's is definitely nice. That might be the deal breaker for me.
If I were to DIY a T5 setup, I'd most likely be using Ice Cap 2.5" parabolics, so I could just barely fit 7 bulbs over the tank, but the edges of the outer reflectors would probably just dump a good bit of light on the floor. 6 would be more practical, but that's less light.
If I got a TEK 8 bulb that would maximize the bulb count above the tank. Might be the way to go, although price is much more than DIY. I guess that's just how it goes.

I wonder what PAR readings I could expect from the T5's vs. MH.


Reefun-----
How wide are the reflectors in the TEK? I know they're individual parabolic, right? But I've never heard how wide they are that I can recall.


black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 01:19 AM   #18
divewsharks
Registered Member
 
divewsharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,905
you can use Aquatinic reflectors, at last check they were the narrowest available and are high quality. With those and IC ballast and high quality bulbs, you shouldn't have any problems with SPS quite a ways down in your tank.
My tank is 25" tall and i keep SPS right off the sand bed with clams on the sandbed.


divewsharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 07:31 AM   #19
Boyman
Registered Member
 
Boyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 327
I've used T-5s since the beginning, about to set up my new tank with MHs just to have the shimmer effect.

Going for 1x250s over a 40 breeder for now


Boyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 08:13 AM   #20
Jared J
Registered Member
 
Jared J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 431
I have this same dilemma. I'm planning a 120g now and I like the MH but I keep reading how people switched to all T5's. I think 8 T5's would be the max I could fit over a 120 but at 54w each I don't get how that's enough light without MH.


Jared J is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 09:12 AM   #21
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
Jared J-----
The way I understand it, T5's are more efficient at producing light, aka more lumens per watt. So even though there's not as many watts, there's more light for every watt of power used. Watts are a measure of power used (Watts = Volts x Amps) and lumens, PAR etc are a measure of light.
So if I went with 8 x 54w T5, I'd have 432 watts of power used. If I used the 2 x 250 unsupplemented MH, I'd use 500w of power. So that's 68w difference, which isn't much. But the T5's are more efficient. So now that I'm thinking about it this way, I'm seeing that, depending of the quality of bulbs, reflectors etc there might be more available light (at least mid-high) from the T5's. Any experts want to chime in here? Grim?


black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 07:24 PM   #22
Jared J
Registered Member
 
Jared J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 431
And this grows SPS's well? I'll have to try it. If I can keep the wattage down I may not have to run a new circuit. If I used a 2 MH fixture it would be 760w with the actinics. 432w sounds better to me. What about using the IceCap ballasts and getting 84 watts out of the bulbs instead of 54?


Jared J is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 07:53 PM   #23
E.intheC
Registered Member
 
E.intheC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by fox2589 View Post
your tank is pretty tall..i would go with 2 250's with a lumenarc mini reflector..but thats just me lol-drew
+1. Unless you go with a super high end fixture like a powermodule, but even then, I think that 250's will be better.

Good luck.


__________________
-Eric
E.intheC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 07:59 PM   #24
rtparty
Raise The Reef!
 
rtparty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 7,404
Alright I will chime in for you.

You will only need 6 bulbs over that tank. Squeezing 7 in will only light your floor and last time I checked the carpet doesn't grow too well!

Go to reefgeek and get the Aqua Illumination reflectors. You don't need the Ice Cap ballasts. Just get the standard High Output ballasts.

For bulbs do this:

ATI Blue Plus
UVL 75/25
ATI Blue Plus
KZ Fiji Purple
ATI Blue Plus
ATI Blue Plus

Also look at ordering an extra ATI Aquablue just in case the above combo is too blue for you.

Trust me, you will have no problem keeping any SPS down to 22" or so. I would bet low light SPS would grow on the sand bed even.

You have to remember that more of the coral is getting hit with light when using T5's. The light is spread out with T5 where as with MH it is a point source light which causes a lot of shadows. This is an easy choice in my opinion.


__________________
Ryan

Click on my user name and check out my homepage!

Current Tank Info: 50g Cadlights/Giesemann Spectra (250w Radium, 2 ATI Blue Plus, 2 ATI Actinic)/2 x Vortech MP10wQD/Skimz SN123/Eheim Compact 3000+
rtparty is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10/14/2009, 08:59 PM   #25
black_ice_pc
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared J View Post
And this grows SPS's well? I'll have to try it. If I can keep the wattage down I may not have to run a new circuit. If I used a 2 MH fixture it would be 760w with the actinics. 432w sounds better to me. What about using the IceCap ballasts and getting 84 watts out of the bulbs instead of 54?
I'd like to run the Ice Caps myself, but they run ~$150 a piece, whereas an Advanced or Sylvania ballast runs about $55. And from what rtparty's saying, it sounds like it wouldn't be necessary to overdrive the bulbs anyway. Plus at $20-25 a pop, I want my bulbs to last as long as possible lol. I admit that I originally wanted to go with the IC ballasts too, but they're just too much money for me.


black_ice_pc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ballast, diy, fluorescent, metal halide, upgrade

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2024 Axivo Inc.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef CentralTM Reef Central, LLC. Copyright ©1999-2022
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.