JBJ 45g - Hydra 26 HD or 52 HD

[jazzmik]

Hi,

Will the Hydra 26 HD provide enough coverage on JBJ 45? Would 52 be overkill?



thanks

 

[reeferfoxx]

@jsker can help you with that.

 

[themcnertney]

I'd go 52.

 

[jsker]

Thank you @Dan McNertney the 52 HD would be a perfect fit for the JBL 45. The light have great adjust-ability through the app, start at 40 % at first with a 2 week acclamation cycle and adjust up from there. I am running %60 after 6 months and my DT is doing fantastic with growth. I also use the lunar effect at night, running the light at 1% and what a cool effect. One can see the tank at night without running the lights to long. It you have a established tank you will see some algae growth, but do not be alarmed. Just make sure you have enough clean crew and make sure that you check you Po4's and No3's and keep them about .02 ppm for the phosphates and around a 3 to 5 ppm for the nitrates. Have fun with the new lights and please do not hesitated to ask if you have question in the future. Thank you @reeferfoxx

 

[themcnertney]

I have pretty similar settings as @jsker

 

[jazzmik]

thanks all for the replies!

@jsker I see that you custom mounted the lights with Kessil goosenecks. Any special fittings needed? Not sure if I would want to use the classic mount and not able to move tank at the moment to mount with the EXT.

 

[mcarroll]

Just to stoke the discussion a bit...

This is a pretty small tank. Excluding the filter area, it appears that the display is only 26"L x 16"W.

Why is the 52 a better fit than the 26, or....a couple of Primes? A 52 seems like hunting for rabbits with a bazooka.

With a pair of Prime's light is still plenty, but the coverage of two Primes is going to be superior and the cost difference is in the OP's favor.

Three Primes would be even better in terms of coverage, probably even stronger than a single 52, and the cost difference to the 52 is only minor.

@jazzmik It seems like a lot of people who buy solutions like this don't like all the shadows that come with too-few fixtures and having all the emitters in a tiny fixture, but that's certainly an individual taste thing – so ignore this post of that's not a concern. (It's not a better/worse thing IMO.....I had halides and they create the same effect and I loved them.....just doesn't seem the majority of folks' tastes go that way.)

Honestly for a tank like yours that's longer than it is wide, I'd at least consider a strip-format light. A 24" CurrentUSA Orbit Marine Pro – $233 based on a google search. Then you don't have all the extra fixtures to manage and the cost is more inline with reason.

It can rest on the tank or (better) be suspended above the tank. Shadowing is about as close to zero as you can get.

2¢

 

[jazzmik]

Just to stoke the discussion a bit...

This is a pretty small tank. Excluding the filter area, it appears that the display is only 26"L x 16"W.

Why is the 52 a better fit than the 26, or....a couple of Primes? A 52 seems like hunting for rabbits with a bazooka.

With a pair of Prime's light is still plenty, but the coverage of two Primes is going to be superior and the cost difference is in the OP's favor.

Three Primes would be even better in terms of coverage, probably even stronger than a single 52, and the cost difference to the 52 is only minor.

@jazzmik It seems like a lot of people who buy solutions like this don't like all the shadows that come with too-few fixtures and having all the emitters in a tiny fixture, but that's certainly an individual taste thing – so ignore this post of that's not a concern. (It's not a better/worse thing IMO.....I had halides and they create the same effect and I loved them.....just doesn't seem the majority of folks' tastes go that way.)

Honestly for a tank like yours that's longer than it is wide, I'd at least consider a strip-format light. A 24" CurrentUSA Orbit Marine Pro – $233 based on a google search. Then you don't have all the extra fixtures to manage and the cost is more inline with reason.

It can rest on the tank or (better) be suspended above the tank. Shadowing is about as close to zero as you can get.

2¢

Believe me I'd prefer to save and get the 26 if possible due to cost. From what I've read with the Orbit's is that they won't work for SPS and I've seen a few posts saying the Prime's may not be strong enough either.
2 Prime HD's may be an option I need to look at as well.

 

[Tahoe61]

I have a 45 gal JBJ RL and a Hydra 52.

If you're going to keep it a simple mixed reef a 52 will get the job done. If you want a sps dominate system I suggest two 52's.
A Hydra 26 is not going to provide enough spread, you're going to get a lot of shading unless you supplement with a single or double bulb T5 fixture.

 

[jsker]

thanks all for the replies!

@jsker I see that you custom mounted the lights with Kessil goosenecks. Any special fittings needed? Not sure if I would want to use the classic mount and not able to move tank at the moment to mount with the EXT.

Just went to the local hardware store and purchased stainless screws that were .25 longer and lock washer so that the light would not move. Make sure the screws do not go down into the light. If the screws are to long you could hit the board and damage the circuit. I also used 1 inch pvc and painted it black to straighten the goose necks. The strangest things so was one would hold the weight and the other would not. I straighten both.

 

[mcarroll]

Believe me I'd prefer to save and get the 26 if possible due to cost. From what I've read with the Orbit's is that they won't work for SPS and I've seen a few posts saying the Prime's may not be strong enough either.
2 Prime HD's may be an option I need to look at as well.

I'd have to ask you for those posts....cuz they are incorrect. Rather than debunking those threads....

I'd strongly consider other solutions vs the single 52...especially the Primes and the Orbit. They will work fine.

The Orbit is really a better fit for that tank, unless you like the shadowing effect you get from halides. You'll have about the same shadowing (maybe even more severe-looking) with a 52. Still there with the Primes, just less pronounced.

Some folks like the shadowing as it's naturalistic – mostly those are folks who had and liked halide lighting before though.

But other folks seem to like more consistent light and end up spending more money to do something about the shadows. Either lens "upgrades" or additional fixtures of one type or another. These lights are too expensive for that outcome IMO. Gotta pick the right light for the tank to avoid the extra expense.

 

[jazzmik]

I'd have to ask you for those posts....cuz they are incorrect. Rather than debunking those threads....

I'd strongly consider other solutions vs the single 52...especially the Primes and the Orbit. They will work fine.

The Orbit is really a better fit for that tank, unless you like the shadowing effect you get from halides. You'll have about the same shadowing (maybe even more severe-looking) with a 52. Still there with the Primes, just less pronounced.

Some folks like the shadowing as it's naturalistic – mostly those are folks who had and liked halide lighting before though.

But other folks seem to like more consistent light and end up spending more money to do something about the shadows. Either lens "upgrades" or additional fixtures of one type or another. These lights are too expensive for that outcome IMO. Gotta pick the right light for the tank to avoid the extra expense.

Thanks @mcarroll definitely going to look into the other options especially the Prime HD.

 

[jazzmik]

Does anyone have thoughts on the Maxspect Ethereal?

 

[mcarroll]

I like the Razor better....but what do you like about the Ethereal?

 

[jhj159]

I use to run the hydra 26 on my 60 gallon cube about 6 months ago. The light was more then enough for me , Now I upgraded to 2 of them for my 75 gallon tank.

 

[jazzmik]

I like the Razor better....but what do you like about the Ethereal?

Was just checking if anyone had opinions on it. Deciding whether that should be an option I also look at. So nothing in particular.

 

[mcarroll]

If there's nothing you particularly like about the Ethereals, then I would look at the Razor then. The light is good and the price point is better.

I think you could be happy with the Nano 70-watt ($290 x2), the 20", 130-watt ($430) or the 27", 180-watt ($509)...depending what you like. (There's a good bit of space between the last emitter pod and the end of the fixture, so even the 27" should still be great on your 26" tank.)

 

[jsker]

Cost

Just to stoke the discussion a bit...

This is a pretty small tank. Excluding the filter area, it appears that the display is only 26"L x 16"W.

Why is the 52 a better fit than the 26, or....a couple of Primes? A 52 seems like hunting for rabbits with a bazooka.

With a pair of Prime's light is still plenty, but the coverage of two Primes is going to be superior and the cost difference is in the OP's favor.

Three Primes would be even better in terms of coverage, probably even stronger than a single 52, and the cost difference to the 52 is only minor.

@jazzmik It seems like a lot of people who buy solutions like this don't like all the shadows that come with too-few fixtures and having all the emitters in a tiny fixture, but that's certainly an individual taste thing – so ignore this post of that's not a concern. (It's not a better/worse thing IMO.....I had halides and they create the same effect and I loved them.....just doesn't seem the majority of folks' tastes go that way.)

Honestly for a tank like yours that's longer than it is wide, I'd at least consider a strip-format light. A 24" CurrentUSA Orbit Marine Pro – $233 based on a google search. Then you don't have all the extra fixtures to manage and the cost is more inline with reason.

It can rest on the tank or (better) be suspended above the tank. Shadowing is about as close to zero as you can get.

2¢

 

[mcarroll]

Cost

Judging from a quick Google...

52 = $600
26 = $350
two Prime HD's = $450
three Prime HD's = $675 ...only a bit more than the 52
three non-HD Primes would only be $600 ...not sure if they're gone everywhere now or what

Not trying to say the 52 is "bad" or anything....just wonder about the comparison.

 

[jsker]

1 26 hd would not cover the tank properly. 2 prime hd's would not have the coverage and possibly the power to go deep.
With mutipuls one is looking and double the mounting expense which will raise cost and add clutter to the over look of the system.
@jazzmik I was not thinking this afternoon, my mounting option will not work for a 52. The weight of the 52 is too much.

Here are some mounting options that might work