CFL vs T5

For flowering, how does CFL compare with T5's?

I use both, T5 HO overhead and cfls on the sides. The T5s are higher intensity but cost more. The cfls work well in clamp reflectors which is why they are easy to position on the sides. In both cases you want to be using mostly red spectrum for flowering.

Illegal Smile said:

I use both, T5 HO overhead and cfls on the sides. The T5s are higher intensity but cost more. The cfls work well in clamp reflectors which is why they are easy to position on the sides. In both cases you want to be using mostly red spectrum for flowering.

Click to expand...

Sounds great, thanks Illegal Smile. What is your opinion on the idea that CFL or HO are inferior for flowering because the bud density is not as good as HPS.

cfls and T5s will never be as good as an HPS, but they work well enough for flowering

It really depends on what you define as good. If you want a lot of space to grow in HPS is more or less a given. In a small area in small wattage applications CFLs and T5s are just as efficient yield per watt as HPS. This similarity begins to disipate as the wattage increases however.

T5s are CFL. They just are not self ballasted. just to throw it out there.

t5 systems can produce the same wattage per ft^2 as their self ballasted cousins however the spiral commonly associated with self ballasted CFLs would be an efficiency design flaw so even lighting over the canopy would be easier over all with t5.

I agree with Kaleoxxx.I use both types of light as well ,and eventhough they are not as good as an hid hps for flowering they do produce decent sized buds.