T5 vs VHO- any comparisons out there?

I definitely disagree with the statement that halides are cheaper than t5. My t5 system was, without a doubt, cheaper than the alternative mh option. I had to choose between 8 t5 which were under 500 (brand new) including bulbs versus 2 250w mh with actinic supplements. Even if I found the mh used I probably would have broke 500 for the entire setup.

Then the cost of running the lights comes into play. I know my old mh system put out a lot more heat than my t5's do. More heat means more energy wasted in the form of heat (I learned something from physics class). And if my bulbs really last 2 yrs than there is more savings in replacement bulbs (but not if I keep tweaking my bulb selection every 6 months ) . Not to mention I am using 200 less watts then the alternative mh system. Bottom line is I love t5 but the look is not for everyone and a lot of this hobby is for looks so buy what you like because we are talking pennies of savings when compared to the massive amounts of cash we spend on livestock.

Adam, you're right on the money.  The goal of the post is to really look into the cost effectiveness (which includes heat, if you have to run a chiller to cool your tank due to excessive heat) of such systems.  If so many people are touting T5 flourescents as the latest and greatest, I want to see some cost/benefit analysis.  Unfortunately, I understand that the industry is run by what sells...

Corey in my situation the t5 were cheaper hands down. The footprint of my tank allowed me to put in 4 retros for 110 each bringing the grand total to 440 and again that included bulbs (which I then replaced but that is personal preference). MH new would have been over 600 for two pendants with VHO or T5 supplements. When you get into complete lighting systems for either t5 or MH you are going to be looking at probably a couple extra hundred bucks either way.

Then again t5 has longer bulb life (when bulbs are actively cooled), less wattage, less heat into tank, all these factors including lower initial cost made my decision to go with t5. I have not seen any nice tanks with all VHO so I never really considered it as an option, maybe I should have but I just didn't bump into any examples of tanks I really liked with only VHO. Great supplementation no doubt but for a complete lighting choice I wasn't sold.

Scott- I agree.

Well I have to admit my corals grow better under my t5 than my 250w ab 10k.

Oh geez, if that ain't a pot calling a kettle black.

Corey - I do own some stock.... nah I just am a fan of t5.  I definitely agree that 95% of lighting choice boils down to personal preference.  I still think t5 is the most cost effective choice.  But maybe I'm just telling myself that to justify the system I now have and love ;)

Okay, not to beat a dead horse, but Scott- have you seen anything on a comparison yet?

Also, one of the problems with t5ho is bulb length and availability. In order to stay where the bulb selection is the best you really have to go with the 48" bulbs. On a 6' tank this means you have to have some creative lighting.

On my 6' tank I have 8 t5ho in the center and a mh light on each end. I get great growth and still get shimmer. But after seeing them together I  am starting to look for alternatives to the mh. IMO, they just don't put out the same quality of light (maybe because I can't afford to swap bulbs every 6 months). I prefer the t5ho light.

People say that T5's run cooler than VHO? I recently borrowed Corey's VHO setup and have it running right next to my T5 setup. After all of my lights had been on for a couple of hours I felt the T5 bulb and then the VHO bulb. There is a distinct heat difference. The T5 is much hotter. Only thing I can think is that the T5 has a smaller diameter so the heat is more concentrated. But even at that I would have to say that the T5 runs a little hotter than VHO. I'm going to try to order a T5 UV Actinic bulb this week to compare side-by-side with the VHO UV bulb.