POLL: Which size tank would you get?

[edsbeaker]

Well the poll didn't come up, but still I could use some help. Considering my space limitations and price, I've decided that my only two options on tank size are 120 Gallon (48 X 24 X24) or 120 Gallon HX (60 X 18 X 26).
I like the aquascaping benefit from the deeper tank, but the longer tank, even though it's still not long enough for most tangs, maybe a large angel would fit. So please give me your thoughts on advantages and disadvantages of both.

Also, I know that a 60 X 24 X 24 would satisfy both, but just not in the price range.

 

[fshaqrmman]

I like the 120. I am actually getting ready to upgrade from the 90 to the 120 in the next few months.
I like the added depth and the 24" height.

 

[KafudaFish]

The standard one and would buy a smaller tang for the tank.

 

[Sugar Magnolia]

I'd choose the tank dimensions based on your fish selection. If you plan on keeping a tang, the 60x18x26 would be the better choice.

 

[buckeyereefer1]

definitely the 4'x2'x2'. can't ever go wrong with more depth.

 

[usmc121581]

I would go length vs depth.

 

[Mr.Tan]

save a bit more money and get the 60x24x24 ... if thats what you REALLY want, you will be much happier if you save and get it.

 

[freeswimmingfis]

I have a 60x24x24.
I went from a 90g to the 156g and love it! Big but not HUGE. Plenty of room for aquascape and for fish.
I agree, wait and save for the 60x24x24.

 

[d2mini]

I don't know about you... but even though I like fish, I like coral and other stuff AT LEAST as much if not more. So in this case I would go with the deeper tank. 18" is just too limited when it comes to aquascaping a reef tank. My cube was 36x36 and the depth was awesome. I had a Scopas Tang and a Kole Tang in there with no problem.

 

[edsbeaker]

save a bit more money and get the 60x24x24 ... if thats what you REALLY want, you will be much happier if you save and get it.

Really don't want that large, but thanks. I've had a 180, and I want to limit the size this time. It's not just the initial cost, but the upkeep cost as well. 120, or 120 HX are really the only two I'm considering.

 

[saltyair]

+1 100% of the time

I would go length vs depth.

 

[ACBlinky]

24" width is wonderful for aquascaping. My tank is 48" x 24" x 30"H (150g); we can't fit anything more than 48" long in our living room (unless we get rid of furniture!) so this is the biggest thing I could possibly get. My arms are shorter than the depth of the tank, but with tools I manage just fine. I love, love, love having a 24" width to work with, and the added height is fun too (I made a big column on one side).

Buy what appeals aesthetically to YOU, what fits in your space, and what works for the fish you want to keep.

 

[bpcardona]

i would go length vs depth.

+1

 

[DHyslop]

Get the 120. The extra depth will facilitate a creative aquascape with visual depth. It will also be easier to keep clean because there will be more space between the rock and the back pane. Finally, the proportions of the viewing pane are closer to the "golden rectangle" which is most pleasing to the eye.

 

[edsbeaker]

I'm so confused what to do. For those that are saying length over depth. Considering I would be going from a 4 ft to only a 5', what additional benefits would that give me? I know that the depth would limit my aquascaping, but I'm not sure if there are benefits to 1' longer. It seems like all the tangs and larger fish need a 6' tank. Could you elaborate on why length over depth in relation to this size?

 

[mcgrawjt]

I would go length vs depth.

I also agree with this statement.

My first tank was a 90gal bow front tall. Then I upgraded to a 210. It is 30" high as well. Looking back now I would probably would have preferred a 125 or maybe 150 - same length shorter height. I love having the space as you can never have enough right? From a maintenance standpoint this tank can be a pain to work with. I have it on a bit af a high stand so don't have to bend down for viewing and it is tall so reaching in stinks. A shallower tank would be easier for maintenance and also wouldn't need super intense lighting for lower corals or clams and such. Besides the more length gives more room for reef as well as being better for fish to swim the length versus depth.

If I could do it over again I would cut down on the stand a little and get a shallower tank. So at least I would not have to get on a ladder for maintenance!

Just my opinions and obervations with my tanks. Good luck choosing!

John

 

[smoothdog]

I've had a 110g 48x18x30 tank for quite a while and have to say the only thing I hate about it is the depth. Absolutely terrible for aquascaping. If you are concerned with keeping a tang between the 2 tanks go with the 48x24. If you do the math you will find that it actually has a marginally larger foot print giving more horizontal swimming room than the 5' tank. I've never seen a fish swim back and forth in 2 directions in nature so I don't see where people get that a tank needs to be 6ft long to have a larger fish. I think overall footprint is a better rule of thumb. It obviously wouldn't be advisable to keep extremely large tangs and angels in a tank this size, but there are many smaller varieties that could be kept easily.

 

[celamb89]

I like depth for aquascaping... I would go 48 X 24 X24

 

[edsbeaker]

I've decided on the 48 X 24 X 24. Like some of you have said, especially, DHyslop, and D2mini, and smoothdog, I think I would prefer the added benefit for aquascaping over the slightly less limited fish selection. I think if it was a FOWLER, it would be different.

Thanks for everyone's opinion. It really helped.

 

[geaux xman]

You will blow a lot on livestock and equipment. Go ahead and get the tank you really want and not try to save there. Jmo.