t5 or vho mh supplements

ulysses191

New member
Picking up 3 Lumen Bright minis with reeflux 12k bulbs for my 72" 135g reef.

Wondering if its better to supplement with two 72" VHO's or T5's.
Not too familiar with T5's.
Would 2 x 48", 54w T5 actinics add a comparable supplement to the vho's? or would I need more?

Thanks
 
The T5's put out a LOT more light per watt than the VHO, the bulbs last an entire year before needing to be replaced (vs. the 6 months for VHO) and you have an incredible selection to choose from.


That being said, I don't think that there is a bulb out there that can make coral colors pop more than a good actinic VHO.


So this comes down to what you want--- more PAR output (go with T5's and parabolic reflectors) or if you just want good looks and don't mind bulb replacement every 6 months, go with VHO.
 
vho's do not need to be replaced at 6 mo's. For what you want 1 year will still be within the useful life of a VHO tube especially on an ice cap ballast. T5's are 6-8 mo replacement. your gunna need more t'5s for a 6foot tank than 1 or 2 6 foot VHO tubes.

I use the Super Actinic UVl's. also do not need a reflector as they are built in. your choice really.
 
I guess I'm trying to figure out what would be comparable in wattage between VHO's and T5's.

So, a single 48" 54w T5 outputs as much or more par
as a 72" 160w VHO?

I prefer my lighting to have a crisp white on the blue side, but not really "blue".
I don't think I really need more PAR with the reeflux and lumen brights.
If I like the reeflux bulbs on their own, I would use the flourescents for dawn/dusk.

Would a pair of the 48" 54w t5's be enough for that application?
Sorry if this is confusing.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15449938#post15449938 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ulysses191
I guess I'm trying to figure out what would be comparable in wattage between VHO's and T5's.

So, a single 48" 54w T5 outputs as much or more par
as a 72" 160w VHO?

I prefer my lighting to have a crisp white on the blue side, but not really "blue".
I don't think I really need more PAR with the reeflux and lumen brights.
If I like the reeflux bulbs on their own, I would use the flourescents for dawn/dusk.

Would a pair of the 48" 54w t5's be enough for that application?
Sorry if this is confusing.


It's the reflectors ... T5 and T12 VHO is similiar enough in par, watt for watt but T5's small diameter allows for individual reflectors to be clipped onto each lamp which reflects nearly all the light emitted from the lamp, down into the tank where it counts. The downside is that they need fan cooling to optimize the output and to get a long usable life out of the T5 lamps. The small diameter means less surface area to dissipate heat.
So ... With T5 you need an individual reflector for each lamp (they just clip on the lamp) and good fan cooling. I would run the lamps the full of the tank so that your color supplementation is uniform thoughout the tank. The same length T5 versus T12 VHO is still lower wattage by a good margin, about 1/2. But, It shouldnt be about using as little wattage T5 as possible to equal the output of VHO. Taking that approach in order to use shorter lamps will just give you non-uniform cover supplementation.

Properly cooled, the T5 lamps can have an effective life of over a year for the blue lamps and 18 months for the whiter lamps. This is based on using them for a regular, daily photoperiod ... 10 to 12 hours per day (their effective lifespan is actually stated in hours). Obviously, if using them only for part of the day as supplements for the halides, they can will longer as would the T12 VHO in the same application.

I ran T12 VHO for over a dozen years as my main lighting. I replaced at 6 - 7 months. At that replacement schedule, there was a very signigant visual differrence both in terms of output and color between the old lamps and new lamps.
With T5, comparing a new lamp with an old at 12 months, visually I see a much smaller difference in color and output between the new lamps and the old lamps. And this is with the blue/actinic T5's being overdriven by an Icecap ballast which shortens their life compared to the standard high output ballast driving them at the stated wattage.
Bottom line is that T5 lamps are supposed to have a longer effective usable life than T12 VHO and they do.

The only reason why I personally would run T12 VHO over T5 for supplemental halide lighting is if I were to run the T12 VHO super actinic, 420 nm lamps. The color of these particular spectrum lamps is superior with the T12 VHO lamps over the T5's.

Aside from that, T5 has the advantage in output into the tank with and because of the external reflectors and they do so with less wattage which means less heat and less energy used. The ballasts are also generally less expensive. $50 - $60 for an Advance brand T5 ballast that will run 4 X four foot T5's for example. T12 VHO are usually run with Icecap ballasts ... the Icecap 660 will run up to 16 feet of T12 VHO lamps with a maximum of 4 lamps and they cost in the 150 dollar range. These ballasts will also run the same number and length of T5 lamps and will overdrive most of them for even more output (for example, they will drive a 54 watt T5 at 80 watts).
T5's do have a longer usable life which means they are more economical to replace and and there are a few more colors available. But they need to be fan cooled in order to perform at maximum output and to get the long lifespan. And again, you need to purchase external reflector for each lamp in order to reap the signifigant output advantage. The external reflectors are generally 2" - 3" wide depending on brand and they are a one time purchase and cost maybe 22 dollars, give or take for a reputable brand, popular 4 foot reflector. A little more for the longer ones and less for the shorter ones.

Cant think of much else off the top of my head but Im sure others will chime in and this will turn into an interesting debate :D
 
Last edited:
Icecap - $150.00
VHO Bulb- $35.00
T5 Retro - $120.00

your thoughtful info and insight - PRICELESS!!!

Appreciate everyones time in helping me out.
Problem is, haven't SEEN any setups to gage a preference.
Based on everyones info, I'm thinking:
advantage vs. advantage -

VHO - better "pop" and coloration w/ (420nm bulb)
vs.
T5 lower cost/ lower power consumption.
 
I run 2 10K MH and 2 X 110W Super Actinic R's for supplementation. The "œpop" of VHO's is priceless to me compared to against the 10K's.

The best way I have heard it summarized is the VHO's are a '69 Camaro, and the T5's an '02 Camaro. The '02 is better technology, faster, and all in all cheaper. But the '69 just has that head turning capability. Make sense?
 
Most who have the VHO's already have suffecient lighting, not to worry about the performance difference of VHO's vs T5's. They are mainly used as "supplemental" lighting and only add a tad more to the blue spectrum, in conjunction to the "full spectrum" bulbs we have today.

When NO lighting was used, the VHO's were used to add that portion of the spectrum that corals needed in which NO's lacked.

Today, the full spectrum bulbs do not require additional supplementation and the role of it has gone more towards aesthecs, and giving greater flexibility in ones lighting scheme.

One of the main reasons I switched to MH SE's, was to incorporate the VHO's........there isn't anything quite like a VHO lit tank.

However, I can see the color combinations of T5 becoming more available and can already allow one to "tune" their coloration even more to thier preference.....
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15453891#post15453891 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dots
Most who have the VHO's already have suffecient lighting, not to worry about the performance difference of VHO's vs T5's. They are mainly used as "supplemental" lighting and only add a tad more to the blue spectrum, in conjunction to the "full spectrum" bulbs we have today.

When NO lighting was used, the VHO's were used to add that portion of the spectrum that corals needed in which NO's lacked.

Today, the full spectrum bulbs do not require additional supplementation and the role of it has gone more towards aesthecs, and giving greater flexibility in ones lighting scheme.

One of the main reasons I switched to MH SE's, was to incorporate the VHO's........there isn't anything quite like a VHO lit tank.

However, I can see the color combinations of T5 becoming more available and can already allow one to "tune" their coloration even more to thier preference.....

It goes one step beyond the color options with supplemental T5. Because of the higher output in the tank due to the reflectors, the T5 can have a stronger impact on the color so if one only has room for a couple rows of flourescents for supplementation the T5s can provide that and again, with less wattage. Or stronger color supplementation can be achieved with less wattage when more lamps can be used. But again, the VHO super actinic is superior, color wise to the T5 version. So if one wants to use the 420 nm lamp, thats another choice they have to make. I intentionally made my light rack so that I can use T12 VHO OR T5.
 
Appreciate the discussion.
Looks like I'm going with VHO's and the 420nm bulbs. Need to see for myself. But withe the icecap, I'll be sure to set up the canopy to be able to switch out to T5's.
Great info and advice from everyone.
I thank you...
 
Good call.

I have used both T12 and T5 actinics to suppliment halides and liked T12 actinics much more and I tried a lot of different T5 actinics.

A T12 VHO Super Actinic can't be beat IMO for its actinic color.
 
i have only seens t12 vhos vs t5s in lighting the entire tank, not used as supplemental. imo t5s gave the colors a greater POP whereas the vhos had a pale washed out pink hue to them. this could be from the 10k bulbs, in the vhos. but when i was looking at the blue background at the tank in the t5s i thought it was gonna jump out at me.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15468469#post15468469 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by addicted2reefin
i have only seens t12 vhos vs t5s in lighting the entire tank, not used as supplemental. imo t5s gave the colors a greater POP whereas the vhos had a pale washed out pink hue to them. this could be from the 10k bulbs, in the vhos. but when i was looking at the blue background at the tank in the t5s i thought it was gonna jump out at me.

There have been some new colors in T12 VHO added in the last year or two so it is very likely that you were looking at a VHO lit tank without any of the blue lamps that are now available.

That said, the discussion here is focused mainly on the 420nm versions of both lamp types, not on the overall advantages of T5 in general. And with all those advantages that T5 offers over T12 VHO, the color of the 420nm super actinic lamps is NOT one of them. T12 VHO still is the superior 420nm lamp in terms of color.
 
Back
Top