What does everyone think of T5's for reefs

[Doug]

Originally Posted by kaboom

Don't waste your money on T5"s. Get the real thing, metal halides. I don't know why people think it's cheaper to run t5's, the wattage of 8 x 54w is 440w, that's not much less than 2x250w MH, and you get the penetration that is essential for deep tanks and sps corals. The only time I would consider t5's is if I want going to keep LPS and soft corals only. Most people eventually migrate to harder to keep corals, and MH upgrade becomes the end result. Why not just start with MH and safe yourself a bunch of money and headache. I am speaking from personal experience and I've read too many of these "upgrading thread help". Hope this helps.

Thats a pretty bold statement. Are you saying my T-5 bulbs wont grow sps in my 16in. tall 30g? Not to mention the oodles of T-5 lit tanks I have seen elsewhere.

Now I agree with your view on costs & power and I have been a metal halide user since the 80,s but there are many ways of keeping corals.

[kaboom]

There are a lot of ways to grow corals and there are alot of ways to waste money. I've done them both. IME, T5 does not penetrate very well, therefore good for shallow tanks and corals that doesn't require intensity. To the naked eye it appears a littly hazy, like a slightly overcast day . MH on the other hand is a sunny day, and don't we all love sunny days.

The reason why I stated that is because most people start out with lighting, or other equipments, that are gearing for the current interest, and perhaps lack the future interest for keeping SPS(everyone's goal ). Investing in something for the long run is always wise and saves you money in the long run. IMO, T5 cannot bring out the vibrant colors of the corals that MH can, and that is truely the main objective, isn't it.

[Reefer Rob]

I recently switch from T5s to 400W MH, and I would say that with regards to light penetration the opposite is true. With metal halides light is much stronger at the top but decreases toward the bottom. T5s are a much more even light with a less noticeable difference top to bottom. The only thing I didn't like about T5s is the light is very flat, with no shadowing, which gives the corals an "unnatural" look. SPS corals do very well under T5 lighting, and there is way less of a heat issue.

[marcingo]

I agree with you reefer bob. I have recently been reading a lot about T5 lighting and there is a guy name Sanjay out there who tests all different types of lighting. Anyway he found that MH have stronger initial par but since they have to be raised so high above a tank due to heat issues they lose a lot of that initial par most of the time before they even hit the water. Another thing is they are point intensive so yeah you might get more penetration than T5s but only right under the light while T5s give you an even distribution. Another thing is that from what I have read in Europe most people are moving from Metal Hallides to HO T5's and its not like their tanks are uglier than ours. I think there is a big problem in saying that MH is the best lighting out there because really its not.

But this is just my opinion which I came to from reading alot on the issue. The problem with finding a concrete answer on which lighting is the best is that there isnt one. All the T5 lovers say T5 is the best while all the MH lovers say MH is the best. Just like BMW drivers think their cars are better than Mercedes.

I am looking forward to finding some objective stuff on the issue, more tests like this Sanjay gentlemen is performing to come to a good conclusion.

Anyway thats my two cents

[albert_dao]

http://zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9125

Zeo users switching to T5's for better color.

GG

[kwirky]

T5's vs. metal halides is allways such a heated debate

Honestly, I don't have any experience with MH personally, and to let you know i've only had a saltwater tank for about 7 months. Some of the other people on here have a LOT more experience than I do; I only talk loud

I decided on T5's because I'm usually not afraid to be an early adopter to a technology and it just sounded so cool at the time. Thankfully I don't have any regrets. Also where my tank's located, there's only 18" of clearance above the tank to the ceiling, so the extremely slim T5 fixture was quite appealing at the time.

If you're wondering whether it's HO or NO, maybe see if you can look at the manual and see the wattage requirements for the bulbs. That would instantly tell you what kind of ballasts are in there.

But, if you're crunching numbers and trying to get the lowest cost unit possible while still having something of good build quality that won't die unexpectedly, go with a PFO retrofit MH setup. Two PFO 250W mh ballasts with two XM 10k bulbs and two 24" pfo reflectors work out to about $550 all together at J&L online (go to the MH retrofit section). If you were to buy that no-name T5 unit, with your bulbs it'd run you about $500 anyways. I'd go with the PFO MH setup rather than the no name T5 setup. You'd have to build a hood or a pendant, but what's a little woodwork at a buddy's garage?

I'm always leary of no-name anything if nobody's bought it yet and given feedback whether it's half decent or not.

[Reefer Rob]

I'm thinking a combination of MH for texture, and T5s for homogeneous light, with 50% of the wattage each split between the two might be ideal. Has anyone seen this kind of hybrid system?

[kwirky]

Originally Posted by Reefer Rob

I'm thinking a combination of MH for texture, and T5s for homogeneous light, with 50% of the wattage each split between the two might be ideal. Has anyone seen this kind of hybrid system?

seen quite a few exactly like that on the zeovit forums, usually people upgrading their existing MH setups by supplementing with T5 actinic instead of PC. Seem some people using Iwasaki bulbs with T5 bulbs and ending up with a 10k colour. T5's are WAY more efficient than PC lighting.

Would be pretty expensive though, and I have a feeling marcingo has a budget to keep within Two MH lights plus 4 T5 bulbs with ballasts and fixtures to boot would run about $500-900 without the bulbs, I think.

I find the retrofit options available for T5's quite lacking ATM, and wish there was more available, as that would make such a lighting setup dooable without being outrageously priced.

Anyone know how long T5 bulbs last when overdriven with an icecap 660 ballast? Heard it's 6 months...

[Kronk]

I have researched the crap out of this subject as well and there doesnt seem to be a clear winner... to answer your original question though i would say just get a new ballast instead of investing a ton on a totally new system.

You could get T5HO's in combination with MH like reefer rob has suggested just keep the single working MH you have and get a 4 bulb retro kit this is the best price i could find with free shipping in canada just be sure to select the right size.

Cheers,
Ken

[Doug]

Originally Posted by kaboom

There are a lot of ways to grow corals and there are alot of ways to waste money. I've done them both. IME, T5 does not penetrate very well, therefore good for shallow tanks and corals that doesn't require intensity. To the naked eye it appears a littly hazy, like a slightly overcast day . MH on the other hand is a sunny day, and don't we all love sunny days.

The reason why I stated that is because most people start out with lighting, or other equipments, that are gearing for the current interest, and perhaps lack the future interest for keeping SPS(everyone's goal ). Investing in something for the long run is always wise and saves you money in the long run. IMO, T5 cannot bring out the vibrant colors of the corals that MH can, and that is truely the main objective, isn't it.

Just to add more thoughts. I dont follow the colour thing, as I have seen some pretty brilliant coloured sps T-5 tanks. And I think they are as bright or brighter than some of the higher "K" halide bulbs we use.

I feel they are correct lighting for many set-ups but not all. I do agree with you on the purchase of good equipment from the start. Now by that, I would not use the multiple T-5 set up on a larger tank. However if oneswishes to run a whack of T-5,s over a large tank, it should provide enough light but I would say, halides are much more simple for that and provide as good, if not better light, in that situation.

My friend chucked his T-5,s from his 180 after a year of use and went back to 400w halides. {I can say he would not use them again but still loves VHO lighting}. I sold my 4ft.s and just used my 175w halides. I now say that was a mistake, as the T-5,s were better lighting and brighter than the 14K bulbs I was running.

As I had access to several 3ft. T-5 fixtures for my new 30g long, I sold the halides and went with them for this particular situation.