Which Filter do YOU like for a 55g tank?

[Mudfrog]

I had a penquin 330 on mine but I just recently opted for a Odyssea CFS4. I know it's a cheap knock off but so far it has worked great. You can't complain too much for a Cansiter filter with media that is only $60 delivered.

 

[The fishinator]

Aquaclear all the way.
You can't beat customizable filter media.

 

[Titus]

using a Filstar XP2 on my 50 and a cascade on my 29, some p.o.s. thing in the 10. Love the filstar and the cascade. I have to say that the way the tubing is connected on the cascade feels much more secure. The filstar says that you have to push the tube 2 inches on to the pieces, but barring KY, I dont know how you are going to do that. The cascade has large collars that screw down over the end of the lines to really secure 'em. Its all up to you in the end. Cascades are hard to fit in some tanks, the wand is really long. I like mine to flow the length of the tank so i like the filstar. good luck tho

 

[manooosie]

Well right now I am leaning towards the Cascade 1000 over the fluval 404 simply because its $25 cheaper. Is the fluval worth an extra 25 bucks?

 

[Jchillin]

That's totally up to you. If you were doing a planted tank, it would make a difference. For the record, this debate occurs each time someone asks about filtering, so don't be surprised about the number of different opinions.

 

[Fishyfanatic]

I just don't like the Fluval's because of the look. They look so industrialized. The tubes look like something that you would find in a medical lab. That's the only thing that draws me away from them.

Just about every canister filter (if not all) has flexible media. Meaning that you can put whatever you want in it. I don't know of one that you can't. The Cascade tubes do feel very secure and sturdy. The top locks very tightly and is simple to setup. I even put mine together and can even maintain it. And I'm (I hate to say it) an idiot at things like that. But, again, I can't compare it to the Fluval since I've never used that brand.

As JC said, this debate happens ALL the time. And it's always a matter of personal preference and what is available to you.

 

[penpitt]

Another good point with the Renas over the Fluvals is that the Renas have recessed handles to carry the filter to where you do the maintainance. The Fluvals have no handles and are quite smooth making it a little akward to carry when its full of water. I have no experience with the cascade so I don't know whether or not they have handles.

 

[Jchillin]

The Fluvals have no handles and are quite smooth making it a little akward to carry when its full of water.

Well, yes...very true, but the exercise does a body good.

 

[manooosie]

That's totally up to you. If you were doing a planted tank, it would make a difference. For the record, this debate occurs each time someone asks about filtering, so don't be surprised about the number of different opinions.

Why is it better for plants? I do plan on having a couple of live plants eventually...

 

[Jchillin]

For the planted tank, a canister works much better in terms of reduced surface agitation and CO2 retention. The fluval's design allows you to adjust the outflow to whatever level under the surface (submerged).

Of course, this discussion will also meet with other folks who have planted tanks and don't use the fluval, just other models of canisters. But in all honesty, the main point is having enough gph, water movement and a reliable machine that doesn't cause unnecessary problems.

 

[manooosie]

The Cascade 1000 is also a canister though, so there is no difference for plants between it and the Fluval 404 right?

 

[greenmaji]

You only want to avoid surface aggitation if you plan on injecting CO2 for your plants.. otherwise surfase aggitation is wanted even more so with plants..

 

[Fishyfanatic]

The cascade does have a handle to carry it with.

 

[manooosie]

Doctors Foster and Smith have an XP3 FilStar Canister Filter for 86 bucks. Any one use this?