Is 65Gal. a good size for a reef tank?

[jmgpr7]

i'm between 65 and 110....

[Avi]

Oh...that's easy...if you have the dough, get the 110.

[Andrew]

[welcome]

The 110 would cost you alot more then the 65 so it's up to you on how much you want to spend.

[jmgpr7]

yea , and between Tek T5 and MH witch is the best one??

[mission man]

The lighting is always a huge DEBATE. Im setting up a new 120 gallon and going with T5 lighting due to heat issues.

[Avi]

Mission man's right...There are good choices available now for lighting...I'd say that you can work with this...the deeper the tank, the better off you'll be with MH. I had to get a chiller for my piece of mind so if you do that, the issue of heat becomes academic.

[ERICN]

To be totally honest if you are even thinking of the 110 go for a 125 they are a very common size and relatively cheap.

[ricks]

What the heck a 500 is just around the corner... And think of the money you will save on upgrades....

[mg426]

I agree Go big if you cans wing it.

[Nano Chris]

Yeah bigger is better, but make sure your floor will hold it :D

[michaeldaly]

Only thing stocking a 500G tank will cost a lot of money

[Avi]

A lot of thought needs to be put into ever setting up a 500-gallon tank. I'd do it but eating, vacations, cars, etc. are important to me.

[ACBlinky]

If you're really torn between 65g and 110g, you could make the choice based on livestock -- do you want to keep a tang? Go for the 110g or larger. Do you like little fish and plan on a tank full of zoanthids? The 65g would do nicely.
Then there are the budget issues -- everything is going to cost more with a larger tank. You'll want a bigger skimmer, sump (if you plan on having one), more/larger PHs, more lighting, nearly double the amount of rock, and you've got extra room to add fish and coral and need a larger CUC, so up the budget for livestock as well.

[AZDesertRat]

What are the dimensions of the tanks you are considering? You will find the greater the front to back depth the happier you will be. I would say you want a minimum of 18" and 20 or 24" is much better. I think a 75G or a 90G are about the minimum size as they give you 18" front to back and 48" long. Any less and its really hard to arange rockwork without having to stack it against the glass in back which cuts off circulation and limits the swimming room for the inhabitants. My tank is a 100G, 60"L x 18"W x 23"H and if I had it to do over again would have gone 24"W.

[Sk8r]

What you want to do with it is the main thing. Get a vision of what you want it to be, and then research the space requirements and compatibility of what you want in there.

A really good way to research is to go to a dealer site like Foster & Smith and look through their catalog, noting tank size requirements, then take the names of the things you want and go to a file like www.saltcorner.com that will give you the adult sizes of what you want to get. Adult size is the must-do when stocking an aquarium with fish. Sweeper-length is the must-do when planning a coral reef, that and reasonable growth: most coral colonies reach about 5 inches before the owner frags them off a bit and sells/trades the excess [for more little frags], so you need to think of that. Lighting---the fussiest acroporas and some clams need mh lighting; but mh is hot, so if you live in the deep south, you may want to go T5 lights and limit your heat input to keep from having to buy a chiller---which works best in a larger aquarium [at a 52g I'm just too big for a chiller probe and too small for a killer-chiller.] HTH.

[ricks]

Try the 500 gallon 96x36x36. Gives you lots of room for growth. And helps keep your wallet thin... heheheh

[Bkndsdl]

I love my 65 (36x24x18). I wish it was a foot longer, but don't we all........I got my whole setup for $250, so I couldn't pass it up.

I've got a tang in mine (I hear the sirens....). It really depends on what you want and what kind of space you have. If I had a choice, of course I'd go bigger, but sometimes you have to deal with what cash you have and what's available.

[yeldarbj]

I was only "allowed" a 3 ft tank so the 65 was as big as I could get. I think it is a nice size. I like its 18 in. depth and even the 24 in. height gives a nice vertical feel. It is a great size to start back up in the hobby, not too big, not too small, not too pricey to setup and maintain.

I would have loved the 90 gallon at 4 ft. long too, perhaps next time.

[Marcus71]

i loved my 65 reef, the make for a great show piece, the only problem i came across was, in time you will always want bigger.

[Blutowski]

My tank is a 100G, 60"L x 18"W x 23"H and if I had it to do over again would have gone 24"W

Yeah, I've been looking at the 4x2x2 120g for just that reason, however I still wouldn't put a tang in that short of a tank, but you really get nice depth. I guess I'll have to go for the 60x48 150g but the lighting for the 60" length is a lot more expensive.

[mlukason]

Just like ANY other hobby...you always yearn for something bigger, better, faster. The decision was pretty easy in my case...I had the perfect spot in my house for a tank and that spot would only fit a 65. I have been plenty happy with the set-up. You can get pretty creative with the rock work in a 65 for much less money than the 110. I did manage to plumb through the floor and into the laundry room where I have a refugium and sump (kinda like a second tank). I enjoy peering into the refugium watching the tiny critters scurry over the rocks and algea.