400s or 250s for sps and why

k.shep · #1 01/10/2008, 07:42 PM

i've decided to go sps only with my new tank. this wasn't exactly the plan in beginning so i went with 250 watt lights. i've been doing alot of reading on the subject and am leaning toward 400s, wich i already have laying arround. i know opinions vary particularly in this forrum so i know i will get great feed back. obviously pars will vary do to ballasts, reflectors and bulbs. the scenario i want to take a look at is mag ballasts with high end reflectors and bulbs with high par ratings. i don't want any equipment/energy costs or lps and softy compatability to be taken in to consideration just purely the benifit and growth of high light demanding sps corals. any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

thanks

Rpierce · #2 01/10/2008, 08:27 PM

If you really want another opinion, I will give you mine.

Let me start off by saying that before my tank crashed I ran 2- 400 watt XM 10K bulbs on regular spider reflectors and magnetic ballasts. In my opinion, my tank could really grow SPS corals. With that being said, lighting is not at all that matters when it comes to growing corals. My personal opinion is to growing SPS corals is stability with your water parameters.

Sorry you asked about lighting. While my tank was falling apart I took some corals to ReefNoob's house to keep for me so I wouldn't loose anymore. The corals that I took to his house were under 175s (in a smaller tank) after a few weeks the corals had more "color" to them under the same bulbs.

Now that the tank is back up I am looking at a higher kelvin bulb (14K or 20K) to bring out the colors but still get a decent amount of growth.

I could write for an hour, so I'll shut up.

BTW- IF you go 400's, get ready to invest in a chiller, especially on a 90!

Rick

k.shep · #3 01/10/2008, 09:10 PM

rick, i agree parameters and stability are more important than lighting. i just want to know if equal or better results can be gained with 250s in both growth and color? do think 400s are over kill. i heard that you might be going to 250s and that is one reason i am thinking twice about the situation. givin the results i've seen you produce in your tanks, i highly respect your opinion.

ExoticFishSouth · #4 01/10/2008, 10:56 PM

I agree with Rick - this could be a 4 hour conversation. Initially, 250's are quite enough but there are too many variables here. Your skimmer, calcium reactor or not, open or closed canopy, wild or aquacultured corals. I don't know your system, fill me in and I'll give you a better opinion.

k.shep · #5 01/10/2008, 11:39 PM

my system is posted several threads down (90reef system). check it out. i know 250s would give me fine results but i want the best results posible. i'm not looking for 4 hour conversations. i just want simple as posible in general opinions based on personal experiance. i've done alot of thinking and research on this so i've already thought about heat and all other draw backs 400s bring to the table. i'm not worried about having to adjust my system. i just want to know in general (not for specific sps corrals)what you think is better. if you've used both on simular corals in simular conditions wich light yealed better results? or were they the same? maybe they worked better in diferent ways?

chad508 · #6 01/11/2008, 09:21 AM

in a 90 gallon there is no need for 400's will it work with 400's yes but you will have no room to move corals around that may want lower light. atleast with the 250's you have some adjustment available to get corals were they will work best in the tank.

dvmsn · #7 01/11/2008, 10:50 AM

Chad, I disagree. A 90 is a 24 four inch tank just like a 180. It is just narrower and shorter. IMHO, it is better to use 400's in an sps only tank. It is easier to place lower light corals low in the tank or move them away from directly below the bulb to get to a dimmer spot. You can never move a coral in a 250 tank to replicate a 400 watts intensity. For certain corals in my tank, they need to be high and right under the light to maintain good color and growth. I can often see a big difference when I move a coral even three or four inches down. The intensity of light diminishes drastically every several inches or so. A twenty four inch tank is still fairly deep.

chad508 · #8 01/11/2008, 11:20 AM

the reason im against 400s on a 90 is that when i had my 90 i started with 400s and had problems. when i went to 250s everything settled down. i think with a good hqi bulb and ballast you could get the same as a 400 with normal ballast and bulb. after the issue i found with the bulb manufactures i am thinking of going with 250 watt coralvue ballast. i will get close to the same par as the 400s with the current bulb i am running and also be able to dim the ballast and over drive the bulb by 20% if i wanted to. granted i have had no problems with my setup as it is but i need a new ballast and for the cost i can get the 250s for im may just try and see what happens.

Reefn00b · #9 01/11/2008, 11:35 AM

I have a 90 with 2 250's and 4 actinics, i gotta be honest and say its a ton of light. I very rapid growth in all my corals and always have, even when i ran my 175's i have one colony of sps that is rapidly approaching basketball size, which means i will have to cut it back a great deal soon, because it will eventually touch the glass on three sides. I think 250's is the way to go, corals need light to grow, but i dont think they need a tan. 400 is too much imho and i think you will love your 250's once they break in. you will get better color in the long run, instead of a whole lot of brown with 400's... Truth be told even if i had a 180 or something of that nature i think i would stick with just adding additional 250's i think i would have to have a very tall tank, 3 and half to 4 foot or so before i would consider 400's.

just my 2 cents

H2OLUVSME · #10 01/11/2008, 03:44 PM

Ive never had a tank wiht 400s, but you know that

You also allready know my detailed opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by chad508
i think with a good hqi bulb and ballast you could get the same as a 400 with normal ballast and bulb. after the issue i found with the bulb manufactures i am thinking of going with 250 watt coralvue ballast. i will get close to the same par as the 400s with the current bulb

I like this statement. Throw in a luminarc (or similar) highly effective reflector, and you may definatly be able to yield more light with 250s than the standard 400 set up. You also wont have all the negative effects of the 400s.

Again, Ive never had a tank with 400s.

Kevin, you may also want to throw out your thoughts on color temperature. These guys may have a totally different opinion about 20ks than they do 10s

Rpierce · #11 01/11/2008, 03:58 PM

Let's take it one step further. Put a highly effective reflector like a Lumenarc on a 400 watt bulb

I had to say it!

Rick

dvmsn · #12 01/11/2008, 04:00 PM

All the good reflectors are huge

dvmsn · #13 01/11/2008, 04:35 PM

All I know is that everybody I know who gets the sps bug, starts out with lower wattage bulbs and eventually ends up with 400's

(Me Chad Rick) Why fight the inevitable?

chad508 · #14 01/11/2008, 06:12 PM

true but i am thinking of going back to 250s. and i would do the luminarc reflectors and probly the reeflux 10k se. on the coralvue dimable ballast

k.shep · #15 01/11/2008, 06:15 PM

this was exactly the kind of feed back i was hoping to get. i think since i already have a set of 400s and a set of 250s. i will probably start with the 250s and will end up puting the 400s on at some point. so i will eventually know wich is better for me. hopfully landon can stop me from taken the 250s off before they've had a chance.

thanks alot for all the feedback, all of you had good points