T5 VS. Metal Halide

But then again you dont have to replace the T5 bulbs as often from what i have been reading for the past few hours. To me it seems like i have made the best choice with going with the T5's. I dont think there is anything on the market that are better than these from what i have read, just as long as they have individual reflectors you will be set. The T5 light penetrates deeper too from what i have read.
 
The only t5's I have ever run have been overdriven with icecap ballast. They recomend you change them sooner than with normal t5 ballasts.
 
I prefer halides because
- Point source lighting, closer to actual sun light
- Shimmer effect
- Cheaper to replace bulbs

Yes, MH can run very hot, but that is why fans were invented.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8812547#post8812547 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The0wn4g3
I prefer halides because
- Point source lighting, closer to actual sun light
- Shimmer effect
- Cheaper to replace bulbs

Yes, MH can run very hot, but that is why fans were invented.

I prefer T5s because:

-Runs cooler
-Does not need a chiller at all like some MH do
-Spreads the light more evenly throughout the tank
-T5 is cheaper to run
-Do not have to replace the bulbs as often as MH
-Watt for watt, penetrates deeper than MH


Yes, MH can run very hot, but that is why fans were invented
But then it costs even more to operate with fans not to mention it dramatically increases the evaporation of the tank water.

Point source lighting, closer to actual sun light
Your comparing a MH light bulb to the Sun. The corals/anemones/plants in saltwater fish tanks can do just as well of T5s as with MH. The only thing that matters is intensity and the spectrum of the bulb.
 
Let's assume that par is similar between mh and t5's, even though they aren't.
On a 4 foot 75 gallon tank you could have 2 400 watt mh's, giving you 800 watts.

Or you could have 14.8 - 54 watt t5's to equal that wattage. Let's just say 15 54 watt t5's.


You need to replace mh's every year. At $64 each for xm's that is a total of $128 per year.

They say you should replace t5's every 2 years. At $22 each that is a total of $330 every two years, or $165 per year.

A $37 dollar savings per year.

Also, I don't think you could fit 15 t5's over a 75 gallon tank. Could you?
 
Aquatinics might give it a try, but why when T5's run just as good if not better than MH? Plus the cost of running T5's is way, way lower than running MH's. Plus watt for watt from what i have read from several people T5's are much better than halides.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8812618#post8812618 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by johnjr
Let's assume that par is similar between mh and t5's, even though they aren't.
On a 4 foot 75 gallon tank you could have 2 400 watt mh's, giving you 800 watts.

Or you could have 14.8 - 54 watt t5's to equal that wattage. Let's just say 15 54 watt t5's.


You need to replace mh's every year. At $64 each for xm's that is a total of $128 per year.

They say you should replace t5's every 2 years. At $22 each that is a total of $330 every two years, or $165 per year.

A $37 dollar savings per year.

Also, I don't think you could fit 15 t5's over a 75 gallon tank. Could you?

Your right, you could not fit 15 T5s over a 75 gallon tank. But if you could, the T5s would kill the two 400 watt MHs in light output.:D For "bigger" tanks, I would go with MH and with T5 supplements because you can fit more MH watts in a smaller area than T5 by far. Thats the big advantage about MH. But for smaller tanks, I like the T5s. When I say "bigger" tanks I mean like 150 gallons plus btw.

Plus watt for watt from what i have read from several people T5's are much better than halides.
I wouldn't say much more. I know "The Grim Reefer" could answer this. He knows quite a bit about light.
 
Which is better really is a preference, and what application you are running. I don't think T5's are better overall than MH, and I don't think MH are better overall than T5's. They both have advantages, and disadvantages that have been hashed out in this thread and other threads here or RC. My recomendation is to go out and look at setups. If you have a good LFS they should have setups using T5, VHO, MH, and PC, go look at them. You should also have a local reefclub, get to know some of the guys and gals in your reef club and look at their set ups and ask about their success. I don't think you will go wrong with any lighting setup done properly, I have seen Normal output lights succesfully grow SPS corals, they did not grow as fast as under a higher light source, but they worked.
 
^^^^exactly....just to elaborate a little without going into depth you dont necessarily have to go watt for watt t5 for mh all depends on you situation.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8812547#post8812547 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The0wn4g3
I prefer halides because
- Point source lighting, closer to actual sun light
- Shimmer effect
- Cheaper to replace bulbs

Yes, MH can run very hot, but that is why fans were invented.

Sorry to go digging up the backposts here, but these reasons arent even correct. I can see where you might get these ideas, but they arent really true.

The sun is a point source, yes, but the relative cross-section of its spherical output makes it a linear dispersion field by the time it reaches earth.... making T5s more 'natural'. When you go down into the ocean and look up, you see light coming from all angles, the entire surface above. The shimmer I will give you, although that cosmetic effect is really proof of halide's inferior penetration characteristics... a T5 will penetrate deeper per watt. And as for bulb costs, I know there are some cheaper halides out there, so its somewhat relative, but the replacement cost on my 250wattDE halide is $55 a year, with the cheap pheonix 14,000K, Ushio 14,000K, or EVC 20,000K, but for many this isnt the case. Many spend $90-120 for a good bulb like a Giesemann or Aquaconnect. My T5s have lost very little of their output over the past 8 months, and I can see myself easily reaching that 2 year mark with them with a minimal output loss. My T5 setup is 234 watts, coming in at just under 250watts total from the plug, while my halide is using 320-350 watts. The light from my T5s is easily brighter as well, and I have the PAR readings from the radiometer to back it up. When the time comes to replace my 6 T5 bulbs, at an average of $20 each, It will cost me about $120 (actinics cost more and might need replacing every year, but then there are other bulbs like the GE 6500K that are half that price and last for more than 2 years easily.. so $20 average is fair IMO). This comes out to about $60 a year in bulbs... about the same as my $55 pheonix/EVC/Ushios... but thats if you go cheap after all. Your halides could cost more or not last as long. But then you have to factor in the electrical savings as well... the T5s just make more with less.
 
Oh, and 55 semireef, you might want to reconsider that rating of 150g on up being halide territory...
06_t5_test_sept_startbeck1.jpg

Its a 120"x30"x28"h (430g) T5 only tank (the 4x400 watt halides were removed). It uses 20 54wattT5 bulbs for a total of only 1080 watts...with more light output than the previous 1600watts of halide (actually, more like 2000 watts) could make.

For more on this tank, and more on how T5s and halides differ, you can read here... I just dont want to keep reposting the same stuff, thats all.
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=89003&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8813224#post8813224 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Oh, and 55 semireef, you might want to reconsider that rating of 150g on up being halide territory...
06_t5_test_sept_startbeck1.jpg

Its a 120"x30"x28"h (430g) T5 only tank (the 4x400 watt halides were removed). It uses 20 54wattT5 bulbs for a total of only 1080 watts...with more light output than the previous 1600watts of halide (actually, more like 2000 watts) could make.

For more on this tank, and more on how T5s and halides differ, you can read here... I just dont want to keep reposting the same stuff, thats all.
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=89003&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

Well of course your T5 setup works good for you. You have 20 bulbs. ;)
 
johnjr,

If all that info was accurate you would have a pretty strong case , but it's not. You say that you would need 15 54w t5s to equal that of a 2x400w MH set-up, but where you slip up is assuming that wattage=light output. When you look on a vendor site they give you the wattage of a light not to tell you the output(even though the wattage can be used to give you a general idea of PAR) but to tell you how much power the light consumes. What you really need to look at is PAR, you need to look at how much par 2x400w MH puts out and how much T5s you would need to equal that par, then you will get a much more accurate reading . BTW a 15x54w t5 set-up w/individual reflectors would blow a 2x400w Mh set-up OUT OF THE WATER any day.

thanks alot, acroreef123
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8818494#post8818494 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by acroreef123
johnjr,

If all that info was accurate you would have a pretty strong case , but it's not. You say that you would need 15 54w t5s to equal that of a 2x400w MH set-up, but where you slip up is assuming that wattage=light output. When you look on a vendor site they give you the wattage of a light not to tell you the output(even though the wattage can be used to give you a general idea of PAR) but to tell you how much power the light consumes. What you really need to look at is PAR, you need to look at how much par 2x400w MH puts out and how much T5s you would need to equal that par, then you will get a much more accurate reading . BTW a 15x54w t5 set-up w/individual reflectors would blow a 2x400w Mh set-up OUT OF THE WATER any day.

thanks alot, acroreef123

Correct
 
dc_909, has it right, why not buy both. the new current-usa fixture has both MH and 4 x T5 with individual reflectors on my planned 75 thats 716 watts and 2 fans which seem to make a different on T5 par output.
 
Metal halide is much better than t5's IMO. With that said, I think t5 actinic supplementing on a halide setup is a MUST! hope this helps
 
I'll start by saying that I am running MH at the moment and I do not need a chiller, I am using a 6 inch fan to cool them down.

T5 give off more heat than you think. It is more noticible in a MH since all the heat is coming from a single point, but in a T5 the heat is spread over say 4 feet.

T5 give a unnatural effect in my opinion. MH do look much more realistic.

So, I would go for a MH set up.
 
Just adding some to this discussion. My wife and I have been running T5's for 2.5 years on our 55 gallon reef. We bascially got started in them before there was even any discussion on them and the only place to buy them was on reefgeek.

As far as heat output goes, they definitely put out their fair share of heat. I have a custom stand that I built for my tank and had to end up drilling holes in the top and installing a small PC fan to aide in the removal of heat. Additionally, if my house gets over 82 my tank overheats. So heat wise they do put out their fair share of heat.

Now onto the light quality as michaeldaly said. When we first started into the T5 lights there were only 4 bulbs to choose from and one manufacturer. Now there are multiple manufacturers and a good assortment of T5 bulbs to choose from. I would without a doubt say that my T5 bulbs can produce an extremely pleasing look. It's just all about the bulb combination. Additionally, one of the great things about T5 bulbs is you can basically customize the look of your entire tank to exactly the way you want it. If it seems a little too yellow switch one 6500K bulb to a 10K or even an actinic. Then there are even 2 types of actinic to look at. There are just a multitude of options to choose from for lighting customization.
 
Back
Top