[Rex Grigg]

We are talking raw height of the tank here. And to make it even harder...think about where YOU think you would need more light to grow plants at the chosen depth.

This is based on any decent lighting system with decent reflectors.

 

[epicfish]

Inspired by posts claiming 24" is "deep"?

 

[BlueRam]

24" based on the standard 90 or 110. Any taller seems to be very difficult to work on. Greater than 24" is likely a nonstandard tank set up as an installation where MH (long arms and a service contract too) should be seriously considered.

 

[PeteyPob]

I have a 24" deep 45tall. Even with 3.5" of substrate in it the darn thing is still very deep. If I stick my arm in there the water is about 1/3 way up on my bicep, and i have a pretty long wingspan

 

[spypet]

Because the vast majority of hobby tanks are in that 12-24" height range, and that planted tank keepers tend to have deeper substrates (higher bottoms, less actual distance to plants) than any other application, that it may be only when you get near 30" that you need to think about Halides or more total wattage. otherwise fixture manufactures would probably be marketing their fixtures to address the needs of various heights of say, 12-18", 18-24", 24-30", etc. instead of making it seem like one wattage total fixture is suitable for all heights. for example, the same 48" fixture length can be 2x65 or 4x65 or 4x65+MH, so why don't the fixture makers market them by saying; 2x65 is for 12-18" deep tanks, while 4x65 is for 18-24" tanks, and 4x65+MH is for 24-30" tanks. probably because it's not that much of an issue, otherwise they'd try to make money off most purchasers ignorance. yeah, I know I'm being cynical, but that's the reality of the marketing world.

 

[turbowagon]

Although I've never had a deep tank, I would consider a tank deep if:

1. I can't use normal sized tweezers to plant foreground plants.

or

2. The sleeves of even a short-sleeved shirt get wet during routine maintenance.

 

[JustOneMore21]

I voted for 20", although thats not usually considered deep. The reason for my vote is because I've had trouble growing some plants in my 20" high 55g with 2x65w PC fixture. Some plants that I thought should grow fine (Corkscrew Vals for instance), didn't grow that well, even though most would say my lighting is sufficient for that plant.

 

[mott]

I have a 24" deep 45tall. Even with 3.5" of substrate in it the darn thing is still very deep. If I stick my arm in there the water is about 1/3 way up on my bicep, and i have a pretty long wingspan

LOL! you have wings??

 

[RoseHawke]

Although you're asking mostly about light, I consider "deep" anything where the water is up to my armpit when I'm working on it. At 5'4", that's most of them . Anyway, for me 24" is "deep."

 

[Aqua Dave]

I personally like tall tanks. I think they are visually more appealing. My 150 is 31" tall and my 45 is 28" tall. I'm 6'5" with long arms, though, so working on them isn't that big a deal for me. Shorter folk would have a seriously difficult time working on the 150.

The 150 has 4x96W with pressurized CO2. I'm not sure I could get "high-light" plants to grow well. I've tried some of the ground-cover type plants without much success. I think that was due to combination of things, though, not just the lighting.

David

 

[evercl92]

My 120g is 24'' deep. Even with 390wt of CF lighting, I have issues growing foreground/grass plants. I don't know that I'd consider getting another tank (for plants at least) that's over 18'' tall.

 

[cbennett]

24" is deep for me to reach into - but that wasn't Rex's question. More than 28" to get to the point of needing more light.

 

[Rue]

I personally like tall tanks. I think they are visually more appealing. My 150 is 31" tall and my 45 is 28" tall. I'm 6'5" with long arms, though, so working on them isn't that big a deal for me. Shorter folk would have a seriously difficult time working on the 150.

David

Do you? I much prefer the shorter...and wider...looks like you have more leeway in decorating...

...I'm of very average height...which is why I'm foregoing the 90g in favour of the 75g...I can reach the bottom of the tank comfortably which is important to me for maintenance purposes...

 

[Booger]

Do I have to say it?

Generally speaking, I'd consider MH for anything 24" and deeper. That's not to say that the plants need it per se, but it's what I like. I tend to lean a little more to the dutch style of aquascaping with tight groups of light hungry plants and a low foreground. To achieve the desired effect in a tank >24", I think you're going to need MH or an impractical number of flourescent bulbs.

I know we banter about PAR loss and what not, but there is also an aesthetic component to consider. To my eyes, the visual appeal of MH becomes very apparent on a 24" tank. Just my opinion based on my experience and what type of plants I like to grow most (foreground). I had MH on my 24" deep 300 gallon for awhile and everyone who saw the tank was floored at the difference it made vs. T5.