# What's your favorite type of light? t5, CF, HQI. . .



## Scouter (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm just wondering what everyone's personal preferences/experiences are on different lights.
Scouter


----------



## bacod253 (Feb 1, 2008)

T5 HO
Compact, economical, and it's easy to find bulbs of any variety.


----------



## jazzlvr123 (Apr 29, 2007)

HQI all the way, gives out the most light and produces a beautiful shimmer that t5ho's cant create


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

Doubt it...

If you are particular about color choose T5HO for more options.


----------



## jazzlvr123 (Apr 29, 2007)

Brilliant said:


> Doubt it...
> 
> If you are particular about color choose T5HO for more options.


you obviously never used hqi's they have a natural shimmer color t5ho's can't recreate

plus they make them in a wide array of color temperatures the only one i can think of that they dont have is 9325k but who need sthat hwen you can get 8000k 

a 10,000k hqi looks better than a 10,000k CF any day of the week


----------



## Scouter (Mar 3, 2008)

Which one's more efficient? I always thought that HQI's were, but maybe I'm wrong. Does the amount of HQI wpg equal the same wpg of T5 HO's? I wish there was a place/store to go to compare them side by side (I mean its not like its a light purchase for lighting) I couldn't resist the pun 

Scouter


----------



## jazzlvr123 (Apr 29, 2007)

CF lights are more energy efficient than metal halides


----------



## thefishmanlives (Feb 15, 2008)

I love 9325s but 8000k looks nothing like them. not even close. 9325s are known for the way they highleds redplants, and 8000k bulbs wash out the reds.



jazzlvr123 said:


> you obviously never used hqi's they have a natural shimmer color t5ho's can't recreate
> 
> plus they make them in a wide array of color temperatures the only one i can think of that they dont have is 9325k but who need sthat hwen you can get 8000k
> 
> a 10,000k hqi looks better than a 10,000k CF any day of the week


----------



## jazzlvr123 (Apr 29, 2007)

thefishmanlives said:


> I love 9325s but 8000k looks nothing like them. not even close. 9325s are known for the way they highleds redplants, and 8000k bulbs wash out the reds.


thats true im not really comparing the two im just saying 9325's are the only color temp you cant get in HQI. I personally prefer 8000k because its the best of both worlds. if you can ge a plant nice and red via good light and fertilization you'll still totally notice it with a 8000 k


----------



## Scouter (Mar 3, 2008)

jazzlvr123 said:


> CF lights are more energy efficient than metal halides


so does that mean that if you're growing plants that require high light at about 4wpg with HQI's, you would need less wpg with T5 HO's? I don't know enough about the different systems and I don't want to get stuck on a certain lighting system when I'm choosing one for my next tank, so bear with me.

Thanks,
Scouter


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

When you start comparing any pendant light, hanging above the tank, with T5 lights sitting down near the water, the watts per gallon "rule" is useless. All light types lose intensity as you move them further from the substrate. The closer the light bulb comes to being a point source the faster it loses intensity with distance. And, the closer the bulb comes to being an infinitely long line source the slower it loses intensity with distance.

The HQI pendants can always give you whatever intensity you want, just by changing the distance they hang or sit from the substrate. But, the higher you hang them the more light spills over into the room. I think you just have to decide which appeals the most to you and go with it.


----------



## Scouter (Mar 3, 2008)

Hmmm, I guess I didn't think about the added distance of having a pendant. Thanks for the advice Hoppy.


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

jazzlvr123 said:


> you obviously never used hqi's they have a natural shimmer color t5ho's can't recreate
> 
> plus they make them in a wide array of color temperatures the only one i can think of that they dont have is 9325k but who need sthat hwen you can get 8000k
> 
> a 10,000k hqi looks better than a 10,000k CF any day of the week


hmmm...your funny.

Ive got 5500k to 14000k including ADA 8000k hqi bulbs...

Compact fluourescent are not what I would call efficient. Try again.


----------



## Ultimbow (Sep 10, 2005)

I prefer vho! I Had All of them regular tube, t5, hql, hqi

Why vho instead of t5 les tube need 2 instead of 4 for the same watt you and up saving money on long term, vho have there own reflctor inside the tube so no need to add some in the hood, saving place and money. Only one ballast needed in vho and cheaper to run then hql and hqi.

Hql only have have 6500k to yellow a hated the look it gave to my tank. lot of heat and energy.

Hqi I love the light it give and the shimer is just real cool. But if you are sitting on your couch or anywhere lower than the ramp you get blind by it, it always give a glaire in tv an computer screen or anything that reflect light and had vist from cop twice because they think i am growing stuff. More heat comming from it so it heat up the water and the livingroom. Nice in winter pain in the but in summer. Cust a lot more in elcetricity.

If i ever have my aquarium in a wall i will go back for hqi no doubt about it but for apartment i prefer tube.


----------



## Scouter (Mar 3, 2008)

Brilliant said:


> Compact fluourescent are not what I would call efficient. Try again.


So do you think that HQI's are more efficient than CF's, also, here's a dumb question-what's looped into the CF category? Is it just CF's and Halides and it branches from there?

Scouter


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Fluorescents are more efficient as the tube gets smaller in diameter. T12 four foot bulbs use 40 watts, T8 4 foot bulbs for the same light intensity use 32 watts. And, of course, T5 bulbs are much more efficient than T8. What is usually called PC bulbs are either a loop of T5 size tube, or two short T5 tubes side by side, and the basic bulb is not as efficient as the linear T5 tubes. Powersaver bulbs, the screw-in T5 size tube wrapped into a spiral are the least efficient because so much of the light is blocked by other portions of the tube getting in the way. The powersaver bulbs that are a single loop of T5 tube, giving two parallel tubes, are more efficient than spiral wound powersaver bulbs. Then, of course there are the HO bulbs, that are overdriven to produce more light from the same size bulbs, but with less efficiency than non HO bulbs. It is quite a "family tree"!


----------



## Scouter (Mar 3, 2008)

Wow, thanks Hoppy, that actually clears up a ton for me. That response has been the most educational for me since I've tried to learn about lighting systems. Thanks! So if the HO bulbs are overdriven, do they have a shorter lifespan? (I'd assume that this is what you meant, but I'm learning that my assumptions are normally really off)

Scouter


----------



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

I have pc fluorescents and like them, I have never had t-5 or HQI fixtures though. I think next time I upgrade ill go with a T-5 fixture just to see.

BTW, I just got some GS 9325's and I feel that they are too pink. Just my oppinion though.


----------



## thefishmanlives (Feb 15, 2008)

its your personal pref but I love hte look of hte 9325. They even makes greens look better. IF you think its too pink tho, then mix it with a 10k or 6700. Many people do feel its a bit pink and mix them with either of those too and love it. Jsut a suggestion :tea:


----------



## bsmith (Dec 13, 2006)

thefishmanlives said:


> its your personal pref but I love hte look of hte 9325. They even makes greens look better. IF you think its too pink tho, then mix it with a 10k or 6700. Many people do feel its a bit pink and mix them with either of those too and love it. Jsut a suggestion :tea:


There is a 9325 and a 6700 on the fixture.


----------



## ZooTycoonMaster (Apr 23, 2008)

But Metal Halide can catch on fire

I like T5 HO as well...no fire possibilities, and _almost_ as good as MH.


----------



## El Exorcisto (Aug 10, 2006)

I just started up a 10 gallon firebelly toad breeding setup with a 100 watt mercury vapor lamp over it. The fixture came with a clear bulb which was VERY blue and very harsh on the eyes. I swapped it for a Sylvania "crisp, clear white" which is actually more like crisp, clear pink. The light looks fabulous and my immersed eleocharis is jumping out of the water. I'm going out to get a few ferns today for some more flora, but I have to say that for a $60 fixture and $10 bulb, the light is really fantastic. It also has that classic "halide shimmer," which is really neat to see. The red bellies on the frogs don;t appear washed out at all under the spectrum either.


----------



## jazzlvr123 (Apr 29, 2007)

Brilliant said:


> Compact fluourescent are not what I would call efficient. Try again.


between HQI and CF. CF gets the vote for efficiency why do you think energy star is phasing out incandescents for CF, why don't you try again


----------



## brutus (Aug 2, 2008)

i have both cf and t5 ..like the t5s better because just have to buy 1 bulb to cover whole tank cf only 23 in. my fixture so need 2 bulbs to put in 4 ft fixture


----------



## El Exorcisto (Aug 10, 2006)

CFs are about 4x the efficiency of standard incandescent space heaters. HQI/MH/HPS/MV are all more efficient than fluorescent when generating lumens, but all have their downsides which make them impractical for everyone. HQI/MH/MV all generate a lot of heat, HPS generates a fair amount of heat but also shines an awful light for anything but the most utilitarian roles. Energy Star is phasing out incandescent because they are inefficient. They are moving towards CFs because they are better, and a direct replacement for incandescents in every perceivable roles, sans perhaps heat generation.


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

jazzlvr123 said:


> between HQI and CF. CF gets the vote for efficiency why do you think energy star is phasing out incandescents for CF, why don't you try again


Oh yeah I forgot I replaced all my hqi bulbs with spiral fluorescents!?! I was talking about a fishtank and linear power compacts. Your reaching for something but I don't know what.

T5-T5HO is much more efficient then linear power compact. Linear power compact is about same efficiency as hqi. This is in regards to watts and amount of light it takes to grow plants in an aquarium.


----------



## El Exorcisto (Aug 10, 2006)

Then of course you have the cost angle to consider. My mercury vapor pendant from Lowes cost $60, plus a $10 bulb. For $70 I have a fixture that puts out an appropriate spectrum and is rated to last 18K hours. So the bulb will be shining in five years at approximately 75% lumen output, which is way over what the tank needs anyway. Halides start degrading heavily after a year, so must be replaced and are more costly. I would imagine T5s follow the same line as fluorescents, having to be changed yearly to keep their color spectra and output. I'll go with my slightly imperfect mercury light over a perfect hqi or T5HO at roughly two to three times the price. Granted, you could do what I have over my other 10 gallon and use 4 CFs, but you end up handicapping yourself by trying to be too simplistic. It's all about compromise. I can point you at affordable or perfect, not both.


----------



## ingg (Apr 8, 2007)

Directly answering your last question - 

No, you don't replace T5HO bulbs any more often than T5 regular bulbs as I understand it. The HO bulbs are geared for HO fixtures - now, if you were overdriving normal T5 bulbs, then yeah, they'll burn out quicker.

You also can expect replace them less often, and get better lumen and spectral retention over time, than MH. I've been told to expect good T5 bulbs to go for up to two years over an aquarium. I was told to expect to replace MH bulbs annually.


I do prefer T5. I like the ability to mix color spectrums and bulbs, I like the ability to pick and choose my lighting intensity and run noonbursts or only part of my total wattage if I choose, I like the wider spread of heat generation and less of a focal heating point, and I like the superior light spread versus the pinpoint release and 2' max footprint of a MH.

I do love that MH shimmer though, it is cool.  Just wasn't worth all of (what were to me) the tradeoffs.


----------



## Scouter (Mar 3, 2008)

Thanks for all the answers guys! Its great to read everyone's opinion and get a better view on each of the +'s and -'s for the systems. I don't know about the T5 HO's bulbs lasting so long. I have had my lighting system since about Feb. of this year and I'm already having to replace a bulb from it. In fact, that's why I started looking into other lighting systems for my next tank.- if the bulbs only last 1/2 a year then its not worth it to have this kind of system- esp if you're already on your second ballast with a brand new fixture.

Scouter


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

El Exorcisto said:


> Then of course you have the cost angle to consider. My mercury vapor pendant from Lowes cost $60, plus a $10 bulb. For $70 I have a fixture that puts out an appropriate spectrum and is rated to last 18K hours. So the bulb will be shining in five years at approximately 75% lumen output, which is way over what the tank needs anyway. Halides start degrading heavily after a year, so must be replaced and are more costly. I would imagine T5s follow the same line as fluorescents, having to be changed yearly to keep their color spectra and output. I'll go with my slightly imperfect mercury light over a perfect hqi or T5HO at roughly two to three times the price. Granted, you could do what I have over my other 10 gallon and use 4 CFs, but you end up handicapping yourself by trying to be too simplistic. It's all about compromise. I can point you at affordable or perfect, not both.


Can you find that Lowes fixture on their website and post a link to it? I would like to see what it looks like.


----------



## LordSul (Mar 17, 2006)

My favorite would be the MH. However in small aquariums I would prefer the 4pin PC lighting, which is T5.

The only concern I have about MHs, is that the light comes in a very vectoral way (I hope I made myself clear here! ), and the shades may become more dark when compared with T5s.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Wow. There seems to be more than sufficient "attitude" on this thread. :crazy:

A good lighting system is probably the most expensive part of a typical setup. There is a strong human tendency to insist that "what I have" is clearly the best. This validates the large outlay of cash. Nobody wants to think that they might have missed the boat.

From a practical viewpoint, it's probably best to consider the various options and discuss each of their potential issues and merits. There is no "best". Everyone's goals are different. It really depends on the situation.

There are many criteria. People place different values on each. For some people, the initial investment is paramount. For others it would be the ongoing electrical efficiency and cost of replacement bulbs. Visual effects are important to some and for others, as long as the plants grow, they're perfectly happy.

*NO Fluorescent*
Pros - cheap, readily available, huge selection of bulb choices.
Cons - low light output, low efficiency, bulky.

*VHO Fluorescent*
Pros - similar to NO above, a little more light
Cons - still bulky, low output vs. other "modern" options.

*CF Fluorescent*
Pros - higher light output, relatively inexpensive, was "king" until T5 came along
Cons - imperfect geometry for maximum efficiency, small (but growing) bulb selection, small selection of fixtures

*T5 Fluorescent (NO or HO)*
Pros - High efficiency, near-optimal geometry, growing bulb selection, long bulb life
Cons - More expensive, bulbs & fixtures not widely available (yet)

*Metal Halide*
Pros - Point light source, nice shimmer effect, enormous light intensity for size of fixture, gradual warmup when turned on, widely used on the "reef" side
Cons - fixtures get hot, bulb life is +/- 1 year, expensive, somewhat limitted bulb selection for plants

*LED Fixtures*
Pros - Very efficient, unlimitted programming (dusk/dawn) & spectrum flexibility, uber-cool , long "bulb" life, the future (?)
Cons - Very, very expensive, limitted availability, "bulbs" hard to replace when they "burn out".

*Combination units (MH with T5, MH with CF, MH with T5 and LED, etc)*
Pros - Combines the best features of each - a nice spectrum of baseline light with MH for mid-day "burst lighting" for example.
Cons - Very expensive

If I had to stick with only one type of light for a given setup, at this point I'd probably go with HO T5s. They're amazingly bright and there is a growing selection of bulbs. That said, I really, really like the effect of my Metal Halides and it would be hard to give them up. They're really too intense to run for the entire photoperiod and some other type of illumination is usually required for general viewing.

To each his own. One of my most stable and enjoyable tanks uses a bank of DIY spiral CF fixtures. It isn't highly efficient, but the plants grow beautifully and replacement bulbs are only a few bucks. My largest tank uses both MH and T5, using retrofit components. The combination and flexibility is very nice.


----------



## LordSul (Mar 17, 2006)

BryceM said:


> *Metal Halide*
> Pros - Point light source


I wonder, why would you consider MH being point source as an advantage?
That was exactly what I was saying, the shades would be darker, and therefore leaves at the bottom may starve for light whereas in T5s the light seems to travel more dispersed.

Combining them of course will make my point obsolete.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

The main advantage of a point light source is the creation of the "ripple" or "shimmer" effect. This more closely approximates the effect of sunlight when viewed in a natural body of water. In contrast, while fluorescent bulbs do provide nice, even coverage over a wide area, the overall effect is somewhat artificial and "sterile".


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

The shimmer effect is dampened when fluorescents are used. 

Certain things mentioned are wrong or a matter of preference. It is clear to me that T5HO is a better choice when you’re particular about color because of limited selection and amount of bulbs in use with MH setup.

MH seems to be a thing of the past among reefers.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Brilliant said:


> MH seems to be a thing of the past among reefers.


Well Brilliant, your views about T5 lighting are pretty clear from your posts above. You seem to be a bit closed-minded about it though. I agree that T5 lighting is nice, and it is a vast improvement over what was available 5 or 10 years ago. I think your belief that metal halide is a thing of the past is founded more on opinion than fact. I'll quickly agree that more people are choosing T5 than ever before, but they're still selling a ton of MH fixtures and bulbs everywhere I've been. I think the future will probably see more and more use of T5 since we're still pretty early in its product life-cycle.

I wouldn't count out MH or any other light source though. There will always be applications where T5s aren't the best choice.

LordSul,

I can see your concern about the potential for shading with MH lighting. In actual practice, there is a great deal of scatter and reflection within the tank that makes up a lot of the difference. When you look at a heavily planted aquarium from above, it's pretty easy to see that only a small percentage of the plants' total leaf surface area is directly illuminated.


----------



## El Exorcisto (Aug 10, 2006)

Hoppy, the fixture I have was discounted but the fixture is still available in some Lowes. Its by a company called DESA. It's for wet locations (read watertight), and is totally self contained with a tempered glass shield. I did have to get a color corrected bulb, however. The clear bulb hat came with it was kind of rough on the eyes.


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

BryceM said:


> Well Brilliant, your views about T5 lighting are pretty clear from your posts above. You seem to be a bit closed-minded about it though. I agree that T5 lighting is nice, and it is a vast improvement over what was available 5 or 10 years ago. I think your belief that metal halide is a thing of the past is founded more on opinion than fact. I'll quickly agree that more people are choosing T5 than ever before, but they're still selling a ton of MH fixtures and bulbs everywhere I've been. I think the future will probably see more and more use of T5 since we're still pretty early in its product life-cycle.
> 
> I wouldn't count out MH or any other light source though. There will always be applications where T5s aren't the best choice.


My favorite tank has two hqi's. My intention is to be without bias but certain posts make preference seem like fact. Having tried many different hqi bulbs I have to admit I am not incredibly happy with any of them compared to colors I have seen from fluorescents. My point is that its all a matter of preference, some prefer more bulbs to make colors, less heat over the shimmer.

This is about pros and cons. The pros of hqi are good light, shimmer effect. The cons of hqi are heat/inefficiency. T5 has just as much light output+efficiency but missing the shimmer. T5 does not produce much heat. Then we move onto lighting and color preference. Since you normally run one bulb per 2ftx2ft with metal halide you are extremely limited with color output. With T5 you will run 2-4 bulbs per 2ftx2ft and have much more flexibility making desirable color output.

Not to discredit MH but a quick browse of popular reef forums will indicate T5 has overthrown MH.


----------



## brutus (Aug 2, 2008)

i like my t5 HO because can change bulbs front and back with my cf can only change left and right side on my 4 ft tank


----------



## lauraleellbp (Jan 31, 2008)

Scouter said:


> So if the HO bulbs are overdriven, do they have a shorter lifespan? (I'd assume that this is what you meant, but I'm learning that my assumptions are normally really off)
> 
> Scouter


No, unless you're overdriving the normals (NO) T5 bulbs.

T5HO bulbs maintain their output for at least 18-24 months according to the manufacturer reports I've read so far. CF bulbs tend to "peak" and then fade within 6 mos to a year.

My favorite is T5HO. Living where I do, heat is a big issue for me. I'm able to keep my tanks out of the mid-to-high-80s during the summer for the first time ever since I switched to T5HO fixtures. Plus they're less expensive than MH fixtures, and with good reflectors, the lighting is comparable if not better.


----------



## reefcrawler (Dec 31, 2007)

Brilliant said:


> The shimmer effect is dampened when fluorescents are used.
> 
> Certain things mentioned are wrong or a matter of preference. It is clear to me that T5HO is a better choice when you're particular about color because of limited selection and amount of bulbs in use with MH setup.
> 
> *"MH seems to be a thing of the past among reefers"*


MH is still roaring and widely used among reefers.

as a reefer, it's also my personal favor after trying MH, PC, T5... and back to MH again.

shimmering effect (Caustics) is actually more similar to sun light, it creates more contrast shading area to cover more diversity of plants and corals... no other lighting can replace this position, it has it's fan to hold it's position,

"a thing of the past" is a wrong saying, Sorry, it's not a fact and can't agree from my view.


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

reefcrawler said:


> MH is still roaring and widely used among reefers.
> 
> as a reefer, it's also my personal favor after trying MH, PC, T5... and back to MH again.
> 
> ...


I understand but that is my impression...from the look of the forums I am given the impression that metal halide is a thing of the past.

Metal halides run hot. T5HO has gained significant ground on metal halide because of that. Quite honestly the metal halide lit reef tank costs are astronomical. Its no brainer that setup without cost of chiller and more efficient lighting are gaining ground. With that said the best reef tanks in the world are lit by metal halide.

I understand the shimmer is desirable. Reading into it a bit I see that the "caustics" benefits are doubted. As far as preference goes you should have read my previous post. *My favorite tank has two hqi's.*


----------



## reefcrawler (Dec 31, 2007)

My only point is to correct one phase:

"MH seems to be a thing of the past among reefers" is not a correct message, especially when it points out to reefers. 

On the contrast, many reefers switch back to MH from T5... the major reason is T5 "plain look", but it doesn't mean T5 is not a good choice, and I agree to most of your points from the "energy saving" point, more color options... but MH is still a major trend, and it's definately not fading away or a past thing either.

Either T5, MH and PC.. Let's keep an open mind to choose based on personal flavor, but "MH is a past thing" is not true and again, it's the only point I like to straight out... no offense.

I have to say that I'm still new and learing a lot how to manage my planted tank from the experienced people like you... it's just the different thinking how to set up a reef tank, and I do reaize PC or T5 are more welcome than MH in FW


----------



## thankgodforthesuffering (Aug 24, 2008)

I would choose metal halide any day of the week. Well, for a tank that needs that intensity anyway. I don't think I would choose it for a 5 gallon is what I'm saying. It has that nice natural shimmer and the light just looks more "real."


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

OK, I admit metal halide is alive and well and an excellent choice. I will be pleased to see more advances in technology that provide the same effects without the heat.

Funny you should mention real. I am letting my tank get some sunlight from the window. The shimmering looks really nice...just like hqi.


----------



## El Exorcisto (Aug 10, 2006)

The mercury vapor I have over my 10 gallon doesn't put off an obscene amount of heat and delivers the same shimmering effect since it is a point source like a halide. I'd say the fixture is on par with one of my 2x overdriven fixtures on my 55. I don't know how much the heat increases as you increase wattage with mercury vapor though, so it may not be of any help.


----------

