View Full Version : 72" T5 fixtures.
hul kogan
10/20/2009, 12:25 PM
I'm trying to find all my options for 72" T5 fixtures. If you know of any please post them up. If you own one (or did in the past) and would like to share your opinion, experience, or the like...please feel free.
Right now I am looking at the Current USA Nova Extreme Pro T5. It runs 12 (39 watt) bulbs. It seems to be reasonably priced while still offering individual reflectors (well, one reflector bent to reflect each bulb separately).
jennmac415
10/20/2009, 12:44 PM
I have the 72" Constellation fixture from Aquactinics....I LOVE it....it is a bit pricey, but since my tank is an inwall, I was able to get a scratch and dent model that worked perfectly, only had one minor cosmetic blemish, at about half the cost. I have had it for a little over 2 years now and have had NO problems what so ever with it. Great product and great customer service also.
I have the 72" Constellation fixture from Aquactinics....I LOVE it....it is a bit pricey, but since my tank is an inwall, I was able to get a scratch and dent model that worked perfectly, only had one minor cosmetic blemish, at about half the cost. I have had it for a little over 2 years now and have had NO problems what so ever with it. Great product and great customer service also.
I have the same thing and love it as well. I think they are coming out with the same model with a few LED's in it now.
jennmac415
10/20/2009, 01:03 PM
oh... that would be awesome! Do you have pics of your tank? what bulbs do you run?
James77
10/20/2009, 02:50 PM
You could also run a 60" fixture. The 6" of space on either side won't be noticeable.
ATI Powermodules and Sunpowers come in the 60"(80w) lengths, the 8x80w PM is about the same price as the 72" Constellation and has better construction and wider coverage.
The 6x80 watt Sunpower has about the same width of coverage, and is over $500 cheaper than the 72" Constellation once you factor in the cost of bulbs.
You'd also save almost $175 each time you change bulbs, as there are half the number to replace.
James77
10/20/2009, 02:51 PM
what are the dimensions of your tank?
hul kogan
10/20/2009, 02:58 PM
It's a 180G (6' x 2' x 2').
I appreciate the thoughts and opinions everyone. Keep them coming!
hul kogan
10/21/2009, 07:27 AM
So do a lot of people run 5' fixtures on a 6' tank? Do the ends of the tank appear visually darker?
Also, I have read that you can achieve the MH 'shimmer' by using white LEDs with the T5s. Is this true? If so, how many are needed for that large of a tank?
hul kogan
10/22/2009, 09:31 AM
A bump for more discussion.
eshark
10/22/2009, 11:03 AM
Hamilton has one! Its called the "seychelle" its 72" 4 x 80w T5 fixture for $359! My friend a has a smaller 4ft 4 x 54w version and loves it! Here is a link. Its at the bottom of the page.
http://www.hamiltontechnology.com/shop/?cart=372704&cat=5&keywords=&match_criteria=&rec=10&searchCat=&gonext=Next+Page
Coyle
10/22/2009, 12:56 PM
in reference to your earlier question, I am planning on putting a 5ft ATI fixture on a 6ft 180g tank. I have seen similar setups locally and they look fine despite the 6" uncovered on each side. The light bleeds over a good bit.
Another option if you are still concerned about the uncovered area is to setup a retro with 48"/60" bulbs staggered.
hul kogan
11/09/2009, 11:29 AM
I'm going to give this one another bump to see if there are any other opinions.
I'm currently liking the 72" Constellation. If you are aware of any places to get a good deal on one (used or new), please send me a PM. Thanks!
hul kogan
11/12/2009, 02:47 PM
With the 72" Constellation on my 180G (6x2x2), do you think I will have any issues keeping clams or SPS?
jennmac415
11/12/2009, 06:31 PM
no... I keep all kinds of SPS... I just have them in the upper 3rd of my tank... I keep LPS in the middle and lower light things on the bottom...when I first set up my Constellation, I had the most gorgeous red/green brain on my sandbed... IT FRIED!! I did not really know the strenght of the t5s then... do NOT underestimate their power...
hul kogan
11/12/2009, 07:14 PM
Do you have any clams in your tank?
Also, I am sending you a PM.
Costazul
11/12/2009, 07:53 PM
From the numerous T5 reviews around, I can comment that you’ll be fine with either (Constellation 72 or ATI 60 (8xbulbs)). The ATI has more par output, the Constellation will cover the 6" on the sides. At the end both fixture are plenty of light to keep everything.
hul kogan
11/12/2009, 09:00 PM
From the numerous T5 reviews around, I can comment that you’ll be fine with either (Constellation 72 or ATI 60 (8xbulbs)). The ATI has more par output, the Constellation will cover the 6" on the sides. At the end both fixture are plenty of light to keep everything.
Indeed, that is what I have also seen. They both seem to be pretty much the best you can get with it comes to all T5 fixtures.
I'm hoping to hear from someone who is keeping clams in there tank under a 72" Constellation. I'm interested in placement, growth, etc.
redfishsc
11/12/2009, 09:14 PM
I have neither a Constellation or a clam, but i wouldn't hesitate to put a clam under a constellation, even at 24". Also depends on the clam. I've seen squamosa and derasa clams under some very dim T5 lighting (ie, 4 bulbs over a huge, deep tank) that grew just fine. Maxima and crocea will need more though, but the Constellation will do you well.
Personally I'd just go with either a 60" ATI fixture, or use retrofit kits and stagger the bulb layout so that half of the 60" long bulbs butt the far right, and half butt the far left, and all overlap in the middle.
jennmac415
11/13/2009, 01:56 AM
I don't have any clams yet, but I will have one when I finally find what I am looking for...and I think it will do just fine... I am serious when i say, that with some things, you have to be really careful of all the light...
Rwinfrey
11/13/2009, 06:50 AM
I have the NEP 72 inch it is a nice light set up but the fans are loud.Actually Aquatinics is local to me Tom seems like a stand up guy who loves the hobby we spoke about replacing those fans.
skey44
11/13/2009, 07:39 AM
I own 8 ATI fixtures, and have seen the constellation fixtures in person @ MACNA last year and over a 6' 125 gallon aquarium. The constellation is ugly compared to either one of the ATI fixtures, it is overpriced, and the bulb replacement would be horrendous. I would go 5' and save all the headaches of a 14 bulb fixture. The one over the 125 was also dented and not sold as a scratch and dent. I have never seen an ATI dented, they have a much sturdier build quality. I think two sunpower 4x80w is what I would do... I have one tank setup like this (setup with fixtures one in front of the other) and the light output is phenomenal... plus you save a few dollars in the process compared to either of the other two fixtures you mentioned. You could grow anything you wanted and your softies and lps would need that 6" of shadowed area on each end and/or shade!
cheers,
Costazul
11/13/2009, 07:53 PM
From the numerous T5 reviews around, I can comment that you’ll be fine with either (Constellation 72 or ATI 60 (8xbulbs)). The ATI has more par output, the Constellation will cover the 6" on the sides. At the end both fixture are plenty of light to keep everything.
There is a thread (I don't remember which one) with the par reading at the bottom of the tank, if the reading are +/- accurate I will bet that these fixtures are plenty to keep Croceas at the bottom of the tank (26” or less). (just be sure to put the clams under the bulbs)
I already ordered the Ati Sunpower 60 x 6 to replace my 2x 250 MH in 125g tank. :)
Merkurfan
11/13/2009, 09:35 PM
Hamilton has one! Its called the "seychelle" its 72" 4 x 80w T5 fixture for $359! My friend a has a smaller 4ft 4 x 54w version and loves it! Here is a link. Its at the bottom of the page.
http://www.hamiltontechnology.com/shop/?cart=372704&cat=5&keywords=&match_criteria=&rec=10&searchCat=&gonext=Next+Page
I put an email in to them. a 80 watt t5 bulb is only 57.5 inches long. how do they cover the complete tank with bulbs? I assume they are offset in the fixture, or they are centered and leave the 6" gap on the end covered by dead space in the fixture.
euromomtx
11/13/2009, 09:59 PM
You could also run a 60" fixture. The 6" of space on either side won't be noticeable.
ATI Powermodules and Sunpowers come in the 60"(80w) lengths, the 8x80w PM is about the same price as the 72" Constellation and has better construction and wider coverage.
I agree I started out with a 72" fixture on my 125g tank and upgraded to a 60" (6x80w) ATI fixture and LOVE it. No comparison. I don't miss the extra 6 inches on each side at all. The bulbs seems to light the tank better than my old 72" did.
hul kogan
11/13/2009, 10:48 PM
I like what ATI has going with their fixtures, too. I'd love to snag a 60" PowerModule, but wow, they are a pretty penny!
If anyone has an leads on where to get refurbished or scratch and dent models, could you please PM me? It also might be a long shot, but if you know someone that is selling one...could you get them in contact with me?
This is for an in-wall build, so some aesthetic imperfections surely aren't going to matter to me. As long as it functions properly, I'll be happy as a clam!
Aquactinics
11/14/2009, 07:50 PM
I own 8 ATI fixtures, and have seen the constellation fixtures in person @ MACNA last year and over a 6' 125 gallon aquarium. The constellation is ugly compared to either one of the ATI fixtures, it is overpriced, and the bulb replacement would be horrendous. I would go 5' and save all the headaches of a 14 bulb fixture. The one over the 125 was also dented and not sold as a scratch and dent. I have never seen an ATI dented, they have a much sturdier build quality. I think two sunpower 4x80w is what I would do... I have one tank setup like this (setup with fixtures one in front of the other) and the light output is phenomenal... plus you save a few dollars in the process compared to either of the other two fixtures you mentioned. You could grow anything you wanted and your softies and lps would need that 6" of shadowed area on each end and/or shade!
cheers,
skey44,
I'm not sure which 72" Constellation you are referring too. The only one we had last year at MACNA was our 72" Constellation Hybrid prototype and it wasn't for sale. Do you remember where the dent was? I have that fixture on my personal 180ga tank and I do not see any dents in it at all.
Thank you,
Tom
Aquactinics
MarkT
11/14/2009, 08:08 PM
I've got a 6x80 ATI Sunpower fixture atop my 180. Coverage is fine - a bit darker at the ends of the tank but it's no big deal. The deciding factor for me was bulb replacement costs.
Rwinfrey
11/14/2009, 08:24 PM
Tom I don't know what he is talking about I would put one of your fixture's on my tank even without a canopy I think they are very nice looking. We run a 4 footer at the store and works fantastic it's vented at the top the fans don't make alot of noise and it's really brite can't ask for more than that.
raynist
11/14/2009, 09:18 PM
I own 8 ATI fixtures, and have seen the constellation fixtures in person @ MACNA last year and over a 6' 125 gallon aquarium. The constellation is ugly compared to either one of the ATI fixtures, it is overpriced, and the bulb replacement would be horrendous. I would go 5' and save all the headaches of a 14 bulb fixture. The one over the 125 was also dented and not sold as a scratch and dent. I have never seen an ATI dented, they have a much sturdier build quality. I think two sunpower 4x80w is what I would do... I have one tank setup like this (setup with fixtures one in front of the other) and the light output is phenomenal... plus you save a few dollars in the process compared to either of the other two fixtures you mentioned. You could grow anything you wanted and your softies and lps would need that 6" of shadowed area on each end and/or shade!
cheers,
my powermodule came dented among other issues (stained reflectors, bulbs don't all fire without turning on/off several times)
Costazul
11/15/2009, 09:39 AM
Yes good point. There are some reports with Ati Fixture that not all bulbs fire at once.
I would like to know if these issues were solved.
MarkT
11/15/2009, 10:00 AM
I have 2 of the ATI SunPower fixtures and all of the bulbs fire every time.
raynist
11/15/2009, 10:16 AM
I have 2 of the ATI SunPower fixtures and all of the bulbs fire every time.
I have a sunpower also that has been flawless.
I have had many problems with my power module though. I will probably have to send it back and be without a light for a while.
I have heard other people having issues with the pm but haven't heard of issues with the sun power.
hul kogan
11/30/2009, 09:49 AM
Does anyone have a rough estimate of bulb replacement costs between the ATI Power Module and the 72" Constellation? It seems like they would kind of equal out, but that does seem to be what I'm hearing.
hul kogan
12/01/2009, 02:54 PM
In addition to my ^last question^, how about this...
Reefers who have switched from MH to a Aquactinics or ATI fixture:
1. How do bulb replacement costs compare between the two? Cheaper with your MH or T5? With the multiple T5s involved, I'm thinking it might equal out...?
2. I can assume there were noticeable changes in energy consumption between the MH and T5?
James77
12/01/2009, 03:39 PM
The 72" Constellation has 14 39w bulbs, figure an average of $22/bulb, it costs ~$310 to swap the bulbs out.
If you are referring to the 8x80 Powermodule, then it is 8 bulbs at an average of $25/bulb, so about $200 to swap them out. As for how often, I'd figure on doing it once a year. Ive seen GrimReefer post that 10-12 months is a good time to replace T5 bulbs.
As compared to halides, I have alway swapped mine out at around 10 months, the VHOs every six. Figure an average halide cost of $70/bulbs and $25 for the VHOs, and it costs me about $250/year in bulb replacements.
There was very minimal electrical cost difference when I went from an 8x54 ATI Powermodule to my present 2x250 HQI's with VHO supp. My electric rate is .14 kw/h, and it costs me about $10 more per month, and would be half that were I to use electronic ballasts. Some setups may save money using t5s over halides, others may actually cost more in electric usage. IMO the savings in electric costs are way overhyped with T5 vs halides in most situations. Those that have sky-high electric rates or live in hot climates where chillers are needed would save more.
hul kogan
12/01/2009, 03:50 PM
Thanks for the info on your experiences, Jim.
I guess I am at a crossroads. I really want to run all T5, but I don't want to make a mistake and get into a situation where bulb replacement and energy costs are more or equal to a MH setup. At that point it might be wise to just go the MH route...possibly.
If I ran MH, I would imagine 2(or 3)x250 or 2(or 3)x400 would be my best choice. From what I have seen, many people say that there is no T5 unit that will touch the PAR of 400s, at least near the sandbed in my 24" deep tank.
I am planning a mixed reef. Having to place SPS higher in the tank to compensate for the T5 fixture is fine with me, as long as I'm not loosing color. Another concern is I would also like to keep clams in the sand, if possible.
Ugh, I just don't know. Anyone else have thoughts?
James77
12/01/2009, 04:24 PM
If you get any fixture with single reflectors and active cooling, it will compete and maybe even beat halides in a 24" tall tank in terms of PAR. After I figured that the savings were miniscule for my situation with T5's vs MH, then it came down to appearance. I like the look of halides. They are bright, dynamic and have the shimmer effect. I think that adds greatly to the overall appearance of a reef tank.
I think T5s can color coral very well, and give great even coverage. I grew tired of the flat look of them after running nothing but them. Some people don't mind the look, some even prefer it over halides. I am using T5s over my planted tank, as it is much cheaper than a halide setup.
As for 400w, I think you would do fine with most any 250w halide. The 400w, which I am currently considering on my 4x2x2 tank, would be good for higher K bulbs that don't have tremendous PAR. Example would be Helios/EVC 20K that would only match the typical 250w PAR if they were 400w.
hul kogan
12/01/2009, 07:33 PM
Well, from the beginning I have always been a fan of using a T5 fixture for this new tank for the following reasons:
1. Lower power usage
2. Less Heat
3. Greater color combos
Number 1 was the greatest factor of this decision, though. But now I am starting to think the electrical savings are practically negated when coupled with the yearly bulb replacement costs.
However when you consider that if I were to run (3) 250W MH, I would also need to get some actinic supplements (likely in the form of T5s). So, then I am replacing MH and T5 bulbs. Add to that the possible need for a chiller (even though this tank is in a basement and it might not be likely) and the MH route might actually be more expensive.
To be honest, if they were both dead even in terms of cost I would likely go the MH route. I like the proven growth and color performance and the shimmer is an added bonus. But, if the all T5 route was smarter financially I was going to attempt a 'faux-shimmer' with LEDS, place SPS in the upper half and call it good.
I feel like I am spinning in circles on this one...
hul kogan
12/02/2009, 08:48 AM
Any thoughts on this from anyone that has switched or had experience with both?
For years, I ran an 72" Aquamedic fixture that powered 3 - 250-watt DE bulbs and 4 39-watt T5's. I switched to the Current NEP 72", the one that run 12 39-watt bulbs. Here are my experiences.
1. Growth was indeed better with the halides, but growth has also been solid with the T5's.
2. My sps have colored up a lot more under the T5's. This could be a result of kelvin and not intensity. The tank has a 14k look now, while the metal halides were always run with AB 10k's. Perhaps the higher kelvin light has caused better pigment development.
3. For me, bulb replacement was a wash. Replacing 3 mh DE bulbs at $80 a pop, along with 4 actinic T5's, cost me about $320 a year. Replacing all 12 bulbs on the NEP costs me less than $300 a year(some bulbs are $20, and some are $25). In both cases, I could have found cheaper bulbs to work with, but these are the prices based on the bulbs I prefer.
4. I miss the glimmer lines. My wife does too. We both scuba dive yearly, and there's nothing that replicates the look of a shallow dive better than a set of white metal halides(14K and 20K bulbs are too unnatural for me).
With a plethora of new fixtures being announced on the reefing blogs, I'm going to keep running the NEP and see what 2010 brings. It would be great to see the prices drop on some of the LED fixtures over the next couple of years. I particularly like some of the prototype fixtures that combine LED with T5. That way, you save money by avoiding an all-LED fixture, but get enough of them to get the glimmer.
As far as comparing the T5 fixtures, I think the NEP is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's a great price, and comes preloaded with a decent set of bulbs. You have to consider that the other fixtures often come without bulbs. Once I switched out the stock bulbs with some higher par and varied wavelength bulbs, my corals really took off in color and growth. That said.... If I had to do it over, I would have probably opted for a 60" fixture now. The cost savings in bulbs would be worth it, if you intend to keep the fixture longterm. And I like the concept of having shade on the sides.
hul kogan
12/02/2009, 11:02 AM
When I originally started looking at 72" T5 fixtures, I was immediately drawn to the NEP. Mainly due to the price difference between it and the ATI and Aquactinic units. After a ton of reading and research it seems, at least to me, that you really are getting a superior product with the ATI or Aquactinic. It is nice to hear that you are having success with the NEP, though. It proves that they can be competitive with the expensive alternatives.
I like the idea of the 60" T5 from ATI. It would give me shaded areas at both ends and bulb replacement would be cheaper than the Aquactinic unit. I am only concerned with the bracing on the top of my tank. I have a standard 180G, so it has 2 braces across the top of the tank creating 3 sections. I am somewhat worried that these braces would cut down on the already shortened coverage of the 60". I realize the T5 light spreads quite a bit, but do you think that would cause an issue?
It seems like bulb replacement costs between all T5 and MH w/ actinic supplement is pretty much even. So, with that out of the equation I am trying to determine if either route is more expensive in other ways. I always assumed that electrical consumption would be higher with MH, but it seems like some are trying to say that it isn't the case and they are close to even. Something else to consider would be if a chiller is necessary. However, in my situation I would find it unlikely because this tank will be in my basement.
I'm hoping to determine which route has the edge financially and move my focus toward that route. Right now it seems like a tug-of-war, though...
Aquactinics
12/04/2009, 07:11 AM
hul kogan,
The cost replacement in lamps between our 72" Constellation and a 72" MH/VHO fixture is about the same with the T5s being slightly less over say 5 years.
72" Constellation: 14 x $22 = $308 times that by 5 years = $1540
72" MH/VHO: 3 x $70 = $210 every 10 months times that by 5 years = $1260 plus (VHO) 4(2x per year) x $25 = $100 times that by 5 years = $500. Add them together = $1760
The real savings comes in energy consumption. A 72" 250W MH/VHO fixture will run about 1000W while a 72" Constellation is just over 500W but will beat out most 250W systems as far as light into your tank. A triple 400W system is over 1400W in electricity. Now, you have to also take into account the heat produced into the tank from MH. Our fixtures are designed to sit directly on the tank with little to no heat produced into the tank. Our customers tell us that when switching from MH to our T5s they usually can get rid of their chillers.
I hope this info helps in your decision. Good luck.
Thank you,
Tom
Aquactinics
hul kogan
12/04/2009, 03:03 PM
Thanks for the numbers, Tom! That helps me look at things a bit better from the financial aspect.
My 180G has two black cross braces (molded as one piece with the edge trim, standard tank). With the fixture sitting just over the braces, can I expect that to cut down on a lot of light getting into the tank? Will it visually appear to have less light shining down below the two braces? Also, do I have to worry about the lights melting the braces at all?
Townes
12/04/2009, 03:12 PM
With a plethora of new fixtures being announced on the reefing blogs, I'm going to keep running the NEP and see what 2010 brings. It would be great to see the prices drop on some of the LED fixtures over the next couple of years. I particularly like some of the prototype fixtures that combine LED with T5. That way, you save money by avoiding an all-LED fixture, but get enough of them to get the glimmer.
that is whats keeping me from upgrading right now.
Aquactinics
12/04/2009, 07:06 PM
hul kogan,
I too have a standard 180ga AGA tank with one of our 72" Constellations sitting directly on the tank. The fixture actually rests on the rim of the tank and doesn't really even touch the center braces. Anyways, your center braces will be fine. There is no heat from this fixture that will effect them. When the fixture is resting directly on the tank, there is some very slight shodowing directly under the braces from the fixture. Now since the fixture is edge to edge T5 lighting, this shodowing is limited to about 4" or so under the braces. After that the T5 lamps collectively add up and add light under the braces. So, unless you are planning on keeping corals within 4" of the bracing you will not notice any shadowing. Corals farther down in the tank below the fixture will get the same amount of light as anywhere else in the tank.
Thank you,
Tom
Aquactinics
jahorgos
02/24/2010, 08:06 PM
Thought I would bring this back from the dead and share my experience. I have a 72"x18"x20" tank. I currently run a 6 bulb 60" icecap retro kit. I originally made a 60" fixture for the retro kit and had NO issue with shadows from my 2 black plastic center braces but the lack of lighting on the sides bothered me horribly. I then decided to stagger the bulbs to cover the full 72 inches. The tank looks way better with even lighting and now I can grow whatever I want where I want. Looks alone make up the difference in bulb replacement cost to me.
One problem with a retro kit is that you only see the cheap price and do not realize what you are not getting that a hood has to offer.
I first installed my retro kit and quickly realized many of the drawbacks:
1. Reflectors get dirty fast and are a real pain to clean monthly.
2. You'll most likely want to install cooling fans to keep any temp swings to a minimum (even though they aren't horrible with T5s you can turn a 2 degree swing in to almost no swing).
3. (suddenly that initial cost starts adding up a few dollars here and there)Building a light fixture for a non-canopy setup can be a lot more hassle and cost than you think. You will want it light weight, you will want to be able to mount the endcaps in a solid fashion and perfectly for bulb length so you make good contact for good bulb firing and to keep your ballast happy. Also you will want to make an acrylic shield to keep salt water off of your bulbs and reflectors. Don't forget about those cooling fans you bought earlier.
Then you realize that even if you escaped a bit cheaper that your fixture still does not compare to the quality and may still not offer the creature comforts of a prebuilt hood. Also most retros could never be used as a display piece and that the savings might not have been worth the hassle.
I consider myself to be handy but not a horribly great carpenter, I'm sure there are those that have made some outstanding fixtures and enjoyed it but for my money I now know I should have went with a prebuilt hood even if it meant waiting a few months to save up for it.
Now I'm waiting for my back ordered 72" constellation and hanging kit.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.