T5's... 420nm Vs 460nm Which do you prefer?

Which wavelength do you prefer?

  • 420nm

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 460nm

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I like both

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
K

Kevy792

New member
Hey guys im going to be upgrading my 4 39W T5's and i have already talked to a few members about the order, but im not sure which wavelength i want to go with. Right now i am running 420's and i get crazy growth out of both my SPS and LPS even though im sure my T5's are shot since they are 2 years old :sad: "i know i know shame on me." I run 10K HQI's so with the 420's i get that slight blue glow which i like and im kinda nervous about going 460 because i know thats like a deep stunning blue and im not sure i will like my basement glowing blue all day lol. But if there is some benefit to the 460's i would love to hear it and thats why i posted this. Just looking for opinions and to see what you guys like running.
 
You are getting crazy growth from those 10k hqi bulbs, not the 420nm t5's. 420's are actinics and more for color than growth. The 454 or 460 have more daytime spectrum in them and would provide more par than the 420 without sacrificing the nice fluorescent pop you are used to getting from the actinics.
 
I wasnt really trying to point out that the reason for my growth was because of the 420's i was more saying that with the setup i have right now i get crazy growth and dont need anymore. And your about the first person i have seen that said 420's show more color then the bulbs with more blue. Its usually the other way around.... weird, maybe you mistyped it
 
nvm i re-read what you said. You didnt say they had more, you said they are more for color than growth... sorry

So with that said, you think the more blue 460's are the way to go?
 
Yes the "actinic" bulbs are primarily for flourescence. The 454/460 "blue" bulbs are typically meant to be used as growth bulbs while still spiking in the blue spectrum for flourescence as well as growth. If you are happy with what you have now, stick with what you have or try a better brand of actinic bulbs to see if you can get more color out of your tank without adding unnecessary additional growth of the blue bulbs.

Alternately if you have money to burn, you could try accenting with a few royal blue panorama modules or similar high output led accent strips. These will put your corals flourescence into overdrive and you'll get color and pop you never saw under your actinic bulbs.
 
Ya im probably going to stick with the 420's and place my order today. I just wanted to see what everyone else is running and why they chose that but no one is contributing and waiting 2 years for bulbs is far to long. Thanks for the input Fishbeard!
 
fwadiver said:
420s are chloryphil A and pack alot of par
Click to expand...

Thats what i always heard and that the 460's were more for looks and to make the colors pop, Fishbeard is the first person that said otherwise, but i respect all opinions, thats why i made this to see what works best for different people.
 
The 460 is more beneficial to photosynthesis since more of the light output is above the ultraviolet range than that of the 420 bulbs. There is plenty of information about this online. A quick 10 second google search will get you more information than you'll know what to do with. Your 10k halides are still far more useful for photosynthesis than either the 420 or 460 bulbs. In terms of flourescence, depending on manufacturer, the 420 "should" provide more pop of color than the 460 because of the lower spectrum and higher percentage of UV output.
 
fwadiver said:
View attachment 10743

your move :)
Click to expand...

Ok, now put up side by side charts of spectrum and par output of a 420 actinic, and 460 blue bulb. The blue bulb will without a doubt produce more par and spectrum peaks in both photosynthetic ranges of that chart. That chart has no bearing on my previous comment and I'm unclear why you intend to turn this into an argument? I would pretty much guarantee the OP would continue to see the same growth rates from their corals if they simply left the supplement bulbs out of the fixture altogether and only used the MH lighting.
 
also its not really ultraviolet, light below 380nm would be considered UV, and also would probably be harful to coral.
 
its not an argument, What you are saying is false in my opinion. the 460 bulb will have some peaking in the higher range, however a 420 is more beneficial to photosyntheisis, there is also a lot of information coming out that says you cannot have too much cholorphyll A activity in coral, while overabundance in other areas of the spectrum can be too much of a good thing.
 
420 has more purple in it aswell. However 420 does little for growth compared to 460. As far as actinic or popping colors typically 420 has more pop but less growth, while 460 provides pop aswell as a lot more spectrum for growth.

I always recommend KZ SuperBlue bulbs which everyone I have sold to has agreed actually gets more color "pop" then ATI Actinic or Blue+ while offering more growth at a 460 spectrum.
 
I basically did what you said Fishbeard and simply put "420nm vs 460nm which is better for reef" in a google search and just like on here there are 2 sides to the argument and unlike what you and wildisme are saying the popular vote seems to be that 420 bulbs are overall better for reef as far as color and growth and the more blue bulbs like the 460 KZ Superblues are for looks. Like i said before i was just looking for opinions and what works better for you, didnt really want a google search war lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top