55g vs 50g, Why Buy a 55g?

[Roan Art]

One of the most common tank sizes seems to be the 55 gallon. At one point I was planning on buying 55g tanks, then when I was at an LFS I took a good look at one. They are SO narrow! Only 13" deep - 48 x 13 x 20". Then I looked at the 50gs and for 5 gallons less you get a MUCH deeper footprint: 36 x 18 x 18.

The footprint between the two tanks is the same. The only real difference in sizes between the 50 and 55g is the height; the 55 is 2" taller than the 50g.

All things being equal, and assuming we're not talking tall fish like discus and angels, why would you buy a 13" deep tank instead of an 18" deep tank?

I'm just curious about that.

Roan

[dougall]

I imagine that the main reason would be that they're more common.


something else might be the fact that with them being 4 feet wide, there are more options for lighting.. things like that.


but basically the fact that they're common, the majority of pet stores, at least around here, carry 10, 20, 29 and 55g sizes.. and that's pretty much it.

[patoloco]

Many reason can lead you to one of the other.

Let's think space. Maybe you can fit that taller but shorter tank in some small place in an apartment. Just to think a non-fishy related issue.

Also, a higher tank requires thicker glass, and it can add to the price. Glass thicknes is determined by water height, not tank volume.

Fishy thinking, it will depend on your fish. Soon (hope so) I will be getting a 50 galloner to place a schol of cardinal tetras. I'd chose the longer tank, not the taller.

[Sploke]

Another reason might be that because they're only 13" deep, they're a lot less intrusive in the room. Its not a big concern for me, but I know when my parents upgraded their tank, the 55 worked well because it gave a large viewing area while being relatively flat against the wall.

[patoloco]

Are standard tank sizes determined by UGF plates sizes, or viceversa? To add another question

:hijacker:

[dougall]

standardization..

It makes more sense to have a number of different sized aquariums that would use the same accessories... stands for an example, or UGF plates.

[Raskolnikov]

I wouldn't, generally speaking. One of my 55g tanks was purchased to house very small fishes, the other was a freebie.

Advantages to the 55g, as stated, are that it gives a larger viewing window while fitting closer to the wall. It's a fine tank for fishes that stay under 6 inches in length, though the dimensions aren't very convenient for aquascaping.

If I was going to buy a tank today, I'd opt for a broader footprint (like a 75 or a 50 over a 55g standard).

[Holly9937]

55g- 48 x 13 x 20". Then I looked at the 50gs and for 5 gallons less you get a MUCH deeper footprint: 36 x 18 x 18.
The only real difference in sizes between the 50 and 55g is the height; the 55 is 2" taller than the 50g.


Am I mis-reading something here??! The difference is also between it being 3ft. as opposed to 4ft. right?!?!? I prefer to give the fish the extra foot in swimming room, which is why I would go with the 55g. Usually surface area is more important than depth.

[Roan Art]

Am I mis-reading something here??! The difference is also between it being 3ft. as opposed to 4ft. right?!?!? I prefer to give the fish the extra foot in swimming room, which is why I would go with the 55g. Usually surface area is more important than depth.Fish don't just swim back and forth. They'll swim all around. Depends on what kind of fish you have and what their sizes are. If length is a factor, then I would go with a 75g instead of a 55g.

My bowfront is 15" deep. The fish don't just hang around the front, they're all over the place. Schooling rainbows included (as long as I'm not in the room and they are watching me. Then they hang around the front.)

Roan

[Holly9937]

Usually surface area is more important than depth.

I'm dumb today :thud: !!!

Anyhow, since moving my fish to a longer tank, they seem to enjoy being able to swim the distance, thats all I meant. They really get some speed going from one end to the other which is kind of neat, especially when they bother to school. I realize they swim all around, but the length has seemed best for my fish :) !!

[Roan Art]

I wouldn't, generally speaking. One of my 55g tanks was purchased to house very small fishes, the other was a freebie.

Advantages to the 55g, as stated, are that it gives a larger viewing window while fitting closer to the wall. It's a fine tank for fishes that stay under 6 inches in length A lot of good reasons. I just couldn't see how it would apply, really. Now I do :)


though the dimensions aren't very convenient for aquascaping. Exactly. That's why I was so shocked it was so narrow and changed my mind. I need more space for plants.


If I was going to buy a tank today, I'd opt for a broader footprint (like a 75 or a 50 over a 55g standard).Nod, decided on the 75g for the length as well as depth. I could go 90g, but I don't see an advantage to that unless you have top dwellers and/or the plants you are dealing with grow 2' tall.

Roan

[OrionGirl]

That depends on what fish you have, though. With your balas, the distance is relevant. With smaller tetras, it's not as big a deal.

I prefer the tanks that have more front to back depth. They used to be called 'breeders', but more places are bringing them into the mainstream. For me, the give better planting options, easier to light, and more valuable territory for bottom dwellers. Since I only have 2-3 species that are not bottom dwellers, this is a huge advantage to me.

[Roan Art]

I'm dumb today :thud: !!!

Anyhow, since moving my fish to a longer tank, they seem to enjoy being able to swim the distance, thats all I meant. They really get some speed going from one end to the other which is kind of neat, especially when they bother to school. I realize they swim all around, but the length has seemed best for my fish :) !!Heh, I didn't want to point that out. I knew what you meant :)

I want my tank at least 48" for the rainbows. The depth is for the plants, yah, but also corycats, loaches and gudgeons. My cories' favorite rest stop is at the back of the tank under a rock overhang and they and the loaches usually cruise the entire parameters of the tank for food. Then they do the middle. Almost methodical.

Roan

[Roan Art]

That depends on what fish you have, though. With your balas, the distance is relevant. With smaller tetras, it's not as big a deal.

I prefer the tanks that have more front to back depth. They used to be called 'breeders', but more places are bringing them into the mainstream. For me, the give better planting options, easier to light, and more valuable territory for bottom dwellers. Since I only have 2-3 species that are not bottom dwellers, this is a huge advantage to me.Didn't see your post. Hey, you changed your avatar. Nice!

I agree on all counts. I tend to have a lot of bottom dwellers, too.

Roan

[RTR]

Am I mis-reading something here??! The difference is also between it being 3ft. as opposed to 4ft. right?!?!? I prefer to give the fish the extra foot in swimming room, which is why I would go with the 55g. Usually surface area is more important than depth.

Uhmm - a standard 50 has slightly more surface area than a standard 55, not less. The difference is not great, but real.

A 55 is showier tha a 50 (larger front view area), but is much harder IMHO to landscape. The 18" depth (front to back) is much easier to develop a pleasing scene in than a 55. To me the most aesthetically pleasing tank proportions are found in the 50 (18x18x38), 75 (18x18x48), and 120 (24x24x48) or 180 (24x24x72).

But a 55 is great for showing off smaller but fast moving schooling fish.

[tricksterpup]

I had no choice, I was given my 55's. :)