Wider vs. Taller and fish

[boilermaker1]

If you were a fish stuck in a tank, would you prefer it to be wider or taller?
Options...
72Lx30Wx18H ~168 gallons
or
72x24x24 - the standard AGA 180

Those are the 2 possibilities I'm looking at.
Fish wise.... think mixed reef fish. I need more room for the tang that I have, and I'd like to add some Anthias, doubtfully another tang because I think the one I have will beat on it, maybe a Genicanthus angel if I feel like taking the gamble, not sure yet.
So where am I better putting my 6"?

 

[DamnPepShrimp]

I'd go with the wider. I think that always takes precedence. Especially in a reef, it gives you more room for corals and aquascaping. The shallower tank also will be better for lighting, you don't have to have as much. I had a 19.5" tall tank and it was fine, a lot easier to get into. Why not just have the 6" both though, can't be that more expensive?

 

[LisaD]

I think the 180 is a nice compromise, giving both decent height and width, more volume too. It dhould be fine for the fish you have/will get.

The best would be 72 x 30 x 24H, if you could get it. I have a 210, wish I could trade out the height for width.

JMO

 

[ruiny]

I'd go with the 180

I find the tank itself looks better porportioned when the width and height are close to the same.

 

[jhentr]

I would go wider than higher. I like the shallow look and all the advantages already mentioned above.

 

[Recty]

I think your fish will appreciate the 30" one more than the typical 180.

That's another 6 inches of turning space, more room to cruise and not have to halt, turn, speed up again.

It depends on your stocking plan though, if you just plan on having a lot of small fish, then I'd just go with whatever gives the most total water volume. If you're getting some long fish in, I'd go with the one that gives the fish the most horizontal room.

 

[boilermaker1]

Why not just have the 6" both though, can't be that more expensive?

Its another $350 to go 24" high.... the cost/benefit returns dont really justify going 6" higher, as going 30" wide would be a custom acrylic tank vs. the easily available 180, and I have a tough time reaching the bottom of a 24" tank (I have a 90 now, add another foot of depth, and 2' of length and I'll never be able to reach the back center of the tank.
As it is the acrylic one would be a bit more, but I think for the ability to actually build rock canyons and what not in the extra depth, it would be a great effect.
As for the big fish v. little fish... I'm gonna make the big ones happy.... because the little fish can swim where the big ones do.

 

[AuroraDrvr]

The Genicanthus angels seems to appreciate just as much up and down room as the do side-to-side.

Personally? I'd go with the 180.