Hello,
I am planning to purchase a 48" wide tank, preferably in the 90 G minimum size range. I was just looking, and although I want to keep cost reasonable, I was curious as to other reefers actual experience with tanks in that size range. I think a 70 G will be too shallow to get reasonable live rock and sculpting room. That is why I think a minimum 90G is my benchmark. However, I just started looking at some suppliers, and it seems there are some 48" wide options that are deeper (about 24") and or taller than a 90G that will fit in my available space in the 100G or 105G, and up.
I don't want this to turn into a thread about people and what size tank they dream about, but instead reefers who either purchased a 90G and the positive or negative conclusion they developed over time with experience, or perhaps reefers that went 100/105/ etc at 48" wide and any positive/negative experience they acquired over time.
My 48" wide dim is locked in, I can't fit a wider tank there. But the depth and height are negotiable, however it must be a rectangular tank, I can't go square.
My plan is to build a stand and canopy. W/Sump in the stand, still undecided on that size, likely 55- 75G.
For what it's worth, I've been in and out of the hobby for about 20 years, so I am not starting with zero experience, but I am definitely no expert. Over the years I have acquired rock, sand, and equipment (heaters, lights, skimmer, etc). Although my system won't be state of the art, latest and greatest, I should have enough equipment to successfully handle fish, soft corals, and even some hard corals if I want to.
Is there a reason why you liked or disliked your 90G/100G/etc 48" wide tank ? I'd be appreciative of any feedback from reefers who kept fish and/or soft corals, and/or hard corals in 48" wide tanks.
I am planning to purchase a 48" wide tank, preferably in the 90 G minimum size range. I was just looking, and although I want to keep cost reasonable, I was curious as to other reefers actual experience with tanks in that size range. I think a 70 G will be too shallow to get reasonable live rock and sculpting room. That is why I think a minimum 90G is my benchmark. However, I just started looking at some suppliers, and it seems there are some 48" wide options that are deeper (about 24") and or taller than a 90G that will fit in my available space in the 100G or 105G, and up.
I don't want this to turn into a thread about people and what size tank they dream about, but instead reefers who either purchased a 90G and the positive or negative conclusion they developed over time with experience, or perhaps reefers that went 100/105/ etc at 48" wide and any positive/negative experience they acquired over time.
My 48" wide dim is locked in, I can't fit a wider tank there. But the depth and height are negotiable, however it must be a rectangular tank, I can't go square.
My plan is to build a stand and canopy. W/Sump in the stand, still undecided on that size, likely 55- 75G.
For what it's worth, I've been in and out of the hobby for about 20 years, so I am not starting with zero experience, but I am definitely no expert. Over the years I have acquired rock, sand, and equipment (heaters, lights, skimmer, etc). Although my system won't be state of the art, latest and greatest, I should have enough equipment to successfully handle fish, soft corals, and even some hard corals if I want to.
Is there a reason why you liked or disliked your 90G/100G/etc 48" wide tank ? I'd be appreciative of any feedback from reefers who kept fish and/or soft corals, and/or hard corals in 48" wide tanks.