A lighting question on what you believe is best to have

[Old Man Of The Sea]

I was told, Time has proven that many SPS tanks can be run on T5 HO lamps and the Icecap ballast offers even better PAR and control of the lamps.

It was suggested to me by Mr.Firemouth that If I not as yet have the MH, That I should scrap the idea and go strictly with T5 HO with Icecap ballast.

So please comment any thoughts in this area to have lighting well, or best enough for a SPS system, the tank is 240 gals. So if you not agree with this idea, then please do list what you would suggest?

Thanking you in advance

Buddy

[mitchmac]

t5 woudl be the cheaper way to go .... for optimal light quality especialy for the light hungry sps...i personally would go metal halide...i love mine i never ran t5 but ive seen them ... not to fond of the giant setup and thhe multiple lights for spectrum i like my little MH fixture ... .the only thing i would say abd about MH is the head it puts out easily controlled with processor fans .... so ... my vote is for MH

[Old Man Of The Sea]

And if im too stick with the idea of 4x250 watt MH, what suggestions have you on the VHO, etc. Im to believe that I would be needing as many as six VHO`s. Im not a lighting whiz, other then that I know I require the best I could get.

Buddy

[Neuticle]

I'm not sure it's cheaper to go with T5HO, the bulbs and reflectors add up quick, and IceCap ballasts (or a comparable sign ballast) are pretty spendy. I can get a decent 250 watt MH kit for less than $200.

I believe 100% in the power of T5's for SPS, but for me, I wish I had gotten MH's, I'm tired of wiping of bulbs and reflectors once a week. Using T5's on cheaper ballasts for actinic light would be a good idea, the'll make less heat than VHO.

[Old Man Of The Sea]

Neuticle, you make it sound as that not only is it cheaper, but its as well more maintenance involved and cost wise in replacements will run more then MH. Of course, im only guessing here, but I rather have myself a full picture to what im too expect if I go with the T-5 solution. I was always from the start of this project, going with 250 watt MH. Of course I know that a great many things do work well depending on what one is doing. As well a bit later date, I will require new lighting ideas on the two tank eel system in which im now planning for soft corals with the eels. So the first thing at hand is the lighting for the 240. I still need thoughts on the other ideas of lighting, that is to go within the idea with the MH. Now Mr.Firemouth, I know a good deal about him and that he wouldn't tell me wrong, only thing there is, if it seats well enough to what im looking more to do here, and if it is that the decision turns out that im to stick it our with the MH, then I will. But im still in need to know of the rest of the lighting that I should go with, the MH.

Buddy

[Neuticle]

The energy cost and heat output of the MH is the only drawback. I'm running T5's because of those two reasons.

[YLChik]

I have run both and I prefer the T5's. I only wiped them down once every 3-4 months.
I belive that you get a more even light spread with T5's on individual reflectors than you would with a MH bulb.

Replacement rate is also less since you can run t5's for 18 months easy.

[Fat Tony]

True, T5's are more cost effective to a point, but once you pass the 8 bulb point, the cost is greater. on a 240 you would need more than 8 bulbs to get the coverage of the tank that you could with a series of MH lights. Also, with that being said, I don't run actinics on my tank at all, just 14K Phoenix bulbs in my halides. There are also very good reflectors out there that will give you the same tank coverage (as far as spread of the light) as T5's offer. I recommend Lumen Bright reflectors (mounted 16"+ from bulb center to the water) with 250w Icecap ballasts. This combination is more efficient than the old core and coil (magnetic) ballasts from the past and uses a comparable amount of electricity as a large array of T5's does. Also, the initial cost of the MH is going to cost less for your particular setup than a T5 setup would.

[cronamator]

i agree on cost my aquactinics @ 900 + the 300 in bulbs for a 72" fixture. and no moon lights if it werent for my tunze multi controller.

[Loverotties]

Mh is the best for it.