Kessil lighting - add A80 or A160?

[philly_rfa]

I have a 36 wide x 30 deep tank (about ~21" of water depth), currently only fish, but going to be adding soft corals soon, and LPS over time. Will keep the most light demanding corals closer to surface.

I currently have a single A160 hanging directly over center. The rock layout is a horse shoe shape, all around the edges (left side to back wall to right side) and sand in the middle and front. I am looking to expand lighting to allow for adding corals, but wondering which would be better option:

1. add 2 x A80, place them slightly to front of center and about 1/3 in from each side, with the existing A160 slightly to back on center, in middle from side to side. With this, I get a little better area coverage front to back, but less overall wattage. Possibly some dark back corners, but i wont have anything back there needing light intensity.

2. add 1 x A160 to the existing A160, place both directly center front-to-back, and 1/3 in from each side. This option I get better overall wattage, but will have about 6" coverage light gap front to back.

Cost is about the same. So comes down to which will perform better. Shy of getting even more lights, which do you think would work best?

 

[jayball]

Certainly wait for additional opinion as I have not seen the A80 in action but I do not think I would trust a 15 Watt LED to penetrate that deep. I would place my bet on the 160 given the two options, plus it would not look as good (over, not in the tank) with two separate styles of light over the tank.

 

[philly_rfa]

Certainly wait for additional opinion as I have not seen the A80 in action but I do not think I would trust a 15 Watt LED to penetrate that deep. I would place my bet on the 160 given the two options, plus it would not look as good (over, not in the tank) with two separate styles of light over the tank.

I am recessed under a stairwell and is totally covered by canopy... it can be as funky looking as it needs.

But point taken on depth penetration of the A80. I might go with another A160, then later maybe add a third in the same offset layout as i was going to do for option 1.

 

[Joche]

In my opinion, doesn't seem like two A80 would be a good idea for this application. Less powerful, less coverage and more expensive at $260 instead of for another A160 at $240. If you had an A360 then it would make a bit more sense to add two A80 rather than a second A360 for $400 as long as it provided the light requirements of your livestock.

 

[philly_rfa]

Given the feedback, I think i am going to do another A160... then if i still have too much dark area at the far front and far rear, then i might add two A80s toward the front and shift the A160's back a few inches... I plan on most of the corals to be toward the middle and rear, less to the front.

But will see first how well the coverage is with just the two A160's. Maybe it will be enough. I hope.

 

[ca1ore]

I'm using both. Max for the a80 in my view is about 12" of water depth. 160 would be the better option.

 

[moondoggy4]

I vote for the 160 I would put them so they over cross each other. Kinda like a X so it cuts down on shadowing.

 

[minus9]

Agreed, another 160 is the better option. Also, you can add T5's later on with the 160's and cover far more tank space. I have two 160's and two T5 bulbs over my 22g full of sps. Kessil and T5's are a great combo.
Just my two pennies.

 

[philly_rfa]

A curve ball... assuming money isn't an issue (i'll have to work on that), what if i were to replace the Kessil all together, and go to the XR15pro Gen 4. Would I need two to get ample coverage at the edges of the 36x30? If two, would i be better off with one XR30pro right at center, or the two XR15pro's to be able to space them out?