t-5 or t-12
- Thread starter bizzleb01
- Start date
JPMagyar
New member
Emotional topic. Beware.
Emotional topic. Beware.
Without being too emotional I'd like to respectfully disagree with the answer given so far. There is little research into the true efficiency differences between T5 and T12 lamps. Infact the only direct comparison that I have seen so far was done by Dana Riddle during his T5 tests. At the tail end of his article he mentioned that a T5 lamp twice the length and more than double the wattage only produced 25% more PAR than a similar T12.
Take a look at the logic of whats commonly used today. A 48 inch UVL Super Actinic VHO lamp is 110 watts, and that lamp has been the staple of reefers for decades. A standard 48 inch T5 is 54 watts. The implication of Dana's cursory look is that 2 x 48 inch T5s would only just exceed the PAR of a single 48 inch T12, but it would do so at almost twice the cost. I know for a fact that a much more thorough comparison of T5 versus T12 costs and efficiencies is in the works, but at the moment I admit to wondering how much of the current love affair with T5's is based on fact and how much is fad. The gases inside the UVL Super Atinic VHO T12 are the same as the gases in the UVL Super Actinic V-HO T5 so the spektral output will be the same but the PAR of a single T5 will be less so the real question is how many T5s are needed to make a great tank versus how many T12s, and I'm just not certain that one can unequivically say that 6 T5s put out more PAR than say 4 T12s.
Without question T5 lamps are versatile when it comes to color variation and many folks here on RC have spectacular tanks using T5 only lighting, but I think its fair to ask are T5s really "All that".
EDIT: I should also mention that 48 inch T12 light fixtures can be purchased at HomeDepot for less than $10, and the same can not be said for T5 fixtures, and that saving can add up.
Emotional topic. Beware.
Without being too emotional I'd like to respectfully disagree with the answer given so far. There is little research into the true efficiency differences between T5 and T12 lamps. Infact the only direct comparison that I have seen so far was done by Dana Riddle during his T5 tests. At the tail end of his article he mentioned that a T5 lamp twice the length and more than double the wattage only produced 25% more PAR than a similar T12.
Take a look at the logic of whats commonly used today. A 48 inch UVL Super Actinic VHO lamp is 110 watts, and that lamp has been the staple of reefers for decades. A standard 48 inch T5 is 54 watts. The implication of Dana's cursory look is that 2 x 48 inch T5s would only just exceed the PAR of a single 48 inch T12, but it would do so at almost twice the cost. I know for a fact that a much more thorough comparison of T5 versus T12 costs and efficiencies is in the works, but at the moment I admit to wondering how much of the current love affair with T5's is based on fact and how much is fad. The gases inside the UVL Super Atinic VHO T12 are the same as the gases in the UVL Super Actinic V-HO T5 so the spektral output will be the same but the PAR of a single T5 will be less so the real question is how many T5s are needed to make a great tank versus how many T12s, and I'm just not certain that one can unequivically say that 6 T5s put out more PAR than say 4 T12s.
Without question T5 lamps are versatile when it comes to color variation and many folks here on RC have spectacular tanks using T5 only lighting, but I think its fair to ask are T5s really "All that".
EDIT: I should also mention that 48 inch T12 light fixtures can be purchased at HomeDepot for less than $10, and the same can not be said for T5 fixtures, and that saving can add up.
Last edited:
Well, there's one other person that is for t-12's other than my local lfs. He swears by t-12 and it seems everyone on here swears by t-5.
So you can use a standard t-12 ballast from home depot? I don't think i'd want to use the standard endcaps due to them not being water resistant.
I think I'm leaning on the t-12's also. I do realize that I won't have the great color variance with the t-12 but I think for my situation and budget the t-12's will suit me better for the time being.
So you can use a standard t-12 ballast from home depot? I don't think i'd want to use the standard endcaps due to them not being water resistant.
I think I'm leaning on the t-12's also. I do realize that I won't have the great color variance with the t-12 but I think for my situation and budget the t-12's will suit me better for the time being.
JPMagyar
New member
The standard ballast that comes with the HomeDepot strip will not drive the VHO bulbs to their fullest potential but they will work. I take them apart and wire in an IceCap ballast for my frag system, and at less than $10 a strip I just replace the strip when they start to corrode which is usually more than 2 years or so.
Re: Emotional topic. Beware.
Re: Emotional topic. Beware.
Not the whole story. To make a more apples-apples comparison, Dana should have tested T5 VHO at 80 watts to compare it to T12 VHO
Also, the PAR readings he quotes are for just the bulbs; they don't factor in the reflectors. If you read how those tests are done it is bulbs only.
I have always said that T5s are all about the reflectors, and where they come into their own is with a high quality reflector that wraps around the bulb and focuses the light into the tank. This is something that T12 does not benefit as much from.
My ATI Sunpower fixture produces 300 PAR at the bottom of my 90g tank. That's just a 4 bulb fixture, HO fixture, and comparable to MH. If it were just the bulbs, T12 would be a contender. But its not, its the whole package, and T12 suffers when it comes to reflectors.
And I do agree that T12 VHO actinics make the best supplementation. The bulbs have the same gases, the ballasts are the same between T5 and T12 VHO, but the T12s actinics look better.
T5s aren't a fad like you say.
Re: Emotional topic. Beware.
Not the whole story. To make a more apples-apples comparison, Dana should have tested T5 VHO at 80 watts to compare it to T12 VHO
Also, the PAR readings he quotes are for just the bulbs; they don't factor in the reflectors. If you read how those tests are done it is bulbs only.
I have always said that T5s are all about the reflectors, and where they come into their own is with a high quality reflector that wraps around the bulb and focuses the light into the tank. This is something that T12 does not benefit as much from.
My ATI Sunpower fixture produces 300 PAR at the bottom of my 90g tank. That's just a 4 bulb fixture, HO fixture, and comparable to MH. If it were just the bulbs, T12 would be a contender. But its not, its the whole package, and T12 suffers when it comes to reflectors.
And I do agree that T12 VHO actinics make the best supplementation. The bulbs have the same gases, the ballasts are the same between T5 and T12 VHO, but the T12s actinics look better.
T5s aren't a fad like you say.
Well, I'm not trying to keep SPS in this tank. But the recommended minimum PAR for Acropora is 400. I have that 3/4s of the way down in my tank.
Montipora I could keep fine. If this were an SPS tank, I would opt for a 6 bulb fixture, and my PAR would go up and I could keep SPS without worrying about placement.
But my PAR readings are much like an MH fixture - 1740 above the water, 800 something under the water line, 602 midway, and 308 at the bottom.
Montipora I could keep fine. If this were an SPS tank, I would opt for a 6 bulb fixture, and my PAR would go up and I could keep SPS without worrying about placement.
But my PAR readings are much like an MH fixture - 1740 above the water, 800 something under the water line, 602 midway, and 308 at the bottom.
