Suggestions for Canister Filter

[gabew]

Hello
I am looking for a good canister filter for the 55g aquarium I am in the process of setting up.
Specifically I am for a filter with good mechanical and especially chemical filtration. I will have plenty of biological filtration so that is not so important in this filter.
Preferably this filter would be under $150 or so.
Any suggestions

[RyanEG]

My best advice for you is to skip the canister filter altogether. Unless they are kept religiously clean they tend to be sources of nitrates. A better choice for what you are describing would be either a carbon reactor or maybe a twin chamber reactor for running carbon and granulated ferrous oxide (GFO)

[Reverend Reefer]

i too would skip the canister and spend that 150 somewhere else, better protein skimmer, more live rock, a remote deep sand bed, might be a better investment. however, if you're stuck on wanting a canister filter for whatever reason and are ready to commit to the weekly maintenance, i used to run an eheim which i found to be quite good. trust me though, eventually you will grow out of doing the maintenance and find that it gets way too dirty for what its worth and wish you spent that extra money elsewhere. i sold mine after 2 yrs and used the money to start a proper sump.

[Michael]

A fluval 305 would be fine for a 55 gallon tank for chemical filtration, if you replace the media every 2 weeks the thing will never get dirty enough to effect your system nitrate wise, it would be a good choice for a medium sized tank. If you run carbon 2 weeks is fine, if you run a phos media, then 4 weeks max, IMO anymore than 4 weeks may biologically activate the media, otherwise you should be fine IMO.

Kind Regards

Mike

[Sk8r]

Far better to run only live rock and a sandbed: no changing, no cleaning, more efficient, more thorough, and makes better water, UNLESS you intend a fish-only with messy eaters. THEN you need a filter. A sump is a very good idea. And a 20 gallon refugium would be good.

[saltymight]

+1 with the fluval. I had on for a long time and loved it. and differently keep it clean. But if you want or have the money look into the new fluval G-3 G-4 I think thats there names. they keep a record of your salt levels and temp. and cleaning is much easier. They cost about 400-500

[cdeboard]

+1 with no canister.. much more of a pain than what they are worth and dangerous if you dont keep a STRICT STRICT cleaning regimen. I recommend spending your $$ on a skimmer instead even if it is HOB.

[wedwards]

I have a Rena xP2 on my 55 and it has worked great. No problems so far

[Michael]

Some folk can't have a sump and they don't want reactors and hang on filters on their tanks due to the asthetics, however for chemical filtration a canister under the tank is a realistic option for them, dont get me wrong, I dont like them too much, im just giving one of of new members some alternative advice about this piece of equipment, It is doable and workable if they really want one, however I totally agree with some comments about keeping them clean.


Mike

[gabew]

thank you everyone for the advice
i have had some experience with marine aquariums before, however, my first tank was a "beginner set" that came with everything so this is my first time deciding what filters to use
to give you a better understanding of what the tank will be like here is what i am thinking so for
it will be a 55g cold water aquarium with plenty of live rock and algae
i am using a sump, the water out of the sump will go through a reverse flow undergravel filter for biological filtration
i am using a Seaclone 150 protein skimmer (just wondering do protein skimmers count as mechanical or chemical filtration)
finally all that leaves the chemical/mechanical filtration (if the protein covers both or one of those great) so i need something to fill that in, i was thinking canister but you seem to have some better suggestions

[Frogmanx82]

I'm surprised this post stopped here. A reverse flow undergravel filter is a terrible idea. You don't need this biological activity if you have as you say, plenty of live rock. All you will do is make more nitrates that the live rock won't be able to convert to nitrogen. Leave the biological activity to the live rock where in the low flow envirionment, nitrates will be converted to nitrogen. The high flow through the gravel won't do this. Also, gravel is a bad idea. Sand is much better. Detritus doesn't penetrate the sand bed as easily as gravel and many creatures really prefer sand over gravel.

[carlosR]

I added a Rena XP-3 and couldn't be happier. It gets cleaned once a week, took out the bioballs and replaced with coral rubble. It's an easy way to change a little water every week, filter the water, and keep activated carbon in there too. I originally had a fluval, pia, switched to a refuge, got lots of algae, switched back to the canister.
It's just another added piece of equipment that can help or hinder if not chosen correctly. The Rena is nice because it is easy to maintain and alter to your liking. It is also quiet and leakless.