dustin0479
Member
LOL. I knew this would be the best way to find it. I have googled EVERYTHING i could think it may be called and till now found nothing.
Think i already made a lighting mistake
- Thread starter dustin0479
- Start date
Pretty sure this should read "...T-5 should be better as it's likely to have more PAR..." as it would depend wholly on the tubes you put in. No?
In truth, if we can assume we're picking tubes/bulbs with good PAR, then watts actually is a fair number to use - pick your favorite technology (MH/PC/T5/...) from there. We still have to guesstimate the actual watts needed based on the tank depth though. I.e. 5w/gal might be fine for tanks 15" high or less, but a 30" tall tank really should probably have around 10w/gal or even more.
Any good links with recent PAR comparisons on T5 tubes, btw?
-Matt
ati70cutlass
Member
IM JUST HAPPY WITH MY GENERIC JUNK> i have had mine for two years. yeah i had to replace a balast. but it was money very well spend. oddysea has got a bad name but their light has been more than great. i am buying another for my 180 right now.
A T-5 HO bulb will have a higher PAR value when compared to the same wattage PC bulb throught the same water depth. There are many many comparisons and ratings charts out there. On top of that they run cooler and are more energy efficient.Pretty sure this should read "...T-5 should be better as it's likely to have more PAR..." as it would depend wholly on the tubes you put in. No?
In truth, if we can assume we're picking tubes/bulbs with good PAR, then watts actually is a fair number to use - pick your favorite technology (MH/PC/T5/...) from there. We still have to guesstimate the actual watts needed based on the tank depth though. I.e. 5w/gal might be fine for tanks 15" high or less, but a 30" tall tank really should probably have around 10w/gal or even more.
Any good links with recent PAR comparisons on T5 tubes, btw?
-Matt
dianezoo
Active Member
Interesting thread can I jump in with similar question while on the subject... I am considering buying a Coralife 48" long with two MH and four T5s I might get it for $200. for someone who is getting out of the hobby, bulbs are probly 6 month old. I really do not want the heat and cost of the MH and I found a light system at my LFS that has 6 T5s HO, for $375. The LFS expert advised me that these 6 will outperform the light fixture with the MH and its half the cost and less heat and powerbills. Thoughts?
dianezoo
Active Member
Ive heard that too, and I can forgo the shimmer, higher heat and energy costs of MH.
This isn't accurate !
Although it's true that T5 bulbs have outperformed most of the 150/175w MH bulbs in PAR levels this isn't the case with 250/400 watt bulbs of MH's. I do agree that with T5's if you have enough bulbs and the proper reflector you can keep anything you want MH still is king AFA light intensity goes.
BentMyWookie
Member
I have the current sundial on my 25 gallon tank and I absolutely love it. The built in timers and automatic moonlight is awesome and all on one power cord to boot!
All my corals look great with the stock bulbs!
I had a dual 65w PC on an old 50 (gallon) and even the corals that I placed close to the top of the tank always seemed to lose some of their color.
another benefit of the t5s is the bulbs only have to be replaced every ~12months compared to every 6 months as for PCs
As for the nem.... Dont do it! I made the noob mistake and bought a gbta for my 55gallon tank with the 2 65wpcs of light. The nem lost any hint of green under the weak lighting. When I bought the nem it was tiny (the size of a raquet ball) after a year it easily took up the majority of the tank (the oral disc alone was easily a foot in diameter). It would kill my other corals and its tentacles would get sucked up by my powerheads, not fun.
All my corals look great with the stock bulbs!
I had a dual 65w PC on an old 50 (gallon) and even the corals that I placed close to the top of the tank always seemed to lose some of their color.
another benefit of the t5s is the bulbs only have to be replaced every ~12months compared to every 6 months as for PCs
As for the nem.... Dont do it! I made the noob mistake and bought a gbta for my 55gallon tank with the 2 65wpcs of light. The nem lost any hint of green under the weak lighting. When I bought the nem it was tiny (the size of a raquet ball) after a year it easily took up the majority of the tank (the oral disc alone was easily a foot in diameter). It would kill my other corals and its tentacles would get sucked up by my powerheads, not fun.
dianezoo
Active Member
I have a 48" coralife with 4 PC and 8 luners, I'm trying to get replacement end connectors and one end has trashed connecters, However, Im thinking im going to just go with a new light, get the 6 VHO T5's and be done. lower heat longer bulb life, I can live with that. I think 6 t 5s over an 80 gals tank should be good for most corals. My local LFS has it a lower cost than on-line or Dr. Fosters.
Links for any of the many many?
Surfing a "par t5 vs metal halide" Google search I see lots of blanket statements and people "stating beliefs" but not much (zero so far) actual comparisons to look at. T5 vs PC, T5 vs MH and/or T5 vs PC vs MH would cool to see.
Thanks!
-Matt
Here on advancedaquarist.com is the only rigorous MH vs T5 comparison I can find so far.
It compares growth, coloration and viewing traits of 11 SPS frags grown out under XM 10K and 20K 175w MH as well as a 4xAquasun 160w T5 setup, then all three frags were photographed under all three lights as well. The mother colonies were photographed as well for reference. It may be interesting to see how the Aquasun compares with other T5 tubes.
Bottom line is that if growth is all you care about then all three lighting styles are fine, more or less.
If you also care how your corals look in the tank, then 20K MH is the only way to go. There are even a few cases where growth under 20K was superior in one way or another, but those were a minority of cases.
Of course it would be great to see more of these comparisons using more different bulb/ballast combo's, but this is a great start.
-Matt
It compares growth, coloration and viewing traits of 11 SPS frags grown out under XM 10K and 20K 175w MH as well as a 4xAquasun 160w T5 setup, then all three frags were photographed under all three lights as well. The mother colonies were photographed as well for reference. It may be interesting to see how the Aquasun compares with other T5 tubes.
Bottom line is that if growth is all you care about then all three lighting styles are fine, more or less.
If you also care how your corals look in the tank, then 20K MH is the only way to go. There are even a few cases where growth under 20K was superior in one way or another, but those were a minority of cases.
Of course it would be great to see more of these comparisons using more different bulb/ballast combo's, but this is a great start.
-Matt
Last edited:
True that T5's can put out respectable PAR. (I think that's the main point of your post, right?) I think the question of "which is better" has to take into account more than numbers - I'm sure you'd agree.
From what I can discern going beyond the advancedaquarist.com article, T5's do not save heat or power when compared to an otherwise equivalent (in terms of growing coral) MH system.
One of the biggest differentiators that I can see is bulb replacement costs.
The better T5's that people are using to get "similar to MH results" are not cheap - about $22 or more per each. People seem to be using these in sets of 8 or more for best results. That's almost $180 per replacement cycle for just over 400 watts of light. There is no 400 watt MH bulb that costs $180.
In fact $75 seems to be the avg replacement cost of (e.g.) a 400w XM 20,000K mogul based lamp.I know this is just more data, but as far as I can tell, T5's are fine for using, but are still more expensive than Metal Halide.
If ease of use is a factor, MH would have to be judge superior as well - dealing with as few as one bulb/fixture/power connection with MH vs. as many as 8 (or more) with T5 is certainly a difference. LED's would have to be king of ease of use, though. Initial cost is just very high in that realm.
-Matt
Agreed and the evidence suggests that corals do very well under both types of lighting but light isn't the only factor in coral health/growth.
Agreed and I've posted this before although some don't believe...
Yes I agree especially if your overdriving them, the cost could be considerably more than MH's.