MH lighting without actinic PC

[john0087]

Hi all,

you may have seen my post about the T5 lighting. I am looking to upgrade to a 75g tank. I was thinking about using T5's with half actinic and half white, but I noticed this fixture below.

http://www.current-usa.com/sunpod.html

Its 2x150w 14K MH lighting. I know that the overall watts will be less thatn the T5 fixture that I was looking at, but isn't MH lighting overall better?

Will I be ok to cover most corals and maybe a clam with no actinics, or should I stay with the T5's and just assume that I can not have high light species.

I can not consider a MH/PC combo for 2 reasons

1- Cost
2- power ineed to keep the current draw for the lighting at 4amps or less.

Thanks

John

 

[lando]

MH will give you the best penetrating power. Most people use actinic suppliments with MH becasue the bulb spectrum of the lamp is generally 10,000-14,000K. That is a bit more yellow/white looking light with less blue in it. People use actinics to round out the blue portion of the spectrum as it tends to be more pleasing to the eye. You can get by with without actinics if you choose a MH buld that is 14,000-20,000K. The 20K will appear more blue then the 14K. It is a matter of personal prefernce.

 

[ellisz]

NOt sure about the penetration of a 150 watt bulb on a 75 gal. I run 250's over mine.

 

[angelscrx]

It seems like a nice option but it's too bad they don't offer higher wattage bulbs.

 

[CAGaHTN]

i have 2-10k MHs on my 75 but im buying 14k bulbs this month.

 

[lando]

I actually just replaced my 20K with 14K on my 72gal. reef. I do hav actinic suppliments (2x96) but like the color of the 14s better. I have 2x175 MH and I do not feel it is under-powered for my size of tank. Depending on what you want to keep, 2x150 would be okay, of course...a bit more would be better.