Which LED brand do you trust?

[Onamatopeia]

It is my opinion based mostly on Internet research, that you basically can't trust what is written about most brands of LED lights.

Almost all the reviews are basically advertisements. The people who buy the ads get all good reviews. And there are not enough personal reviews for any kind of consensus. Almost every light has a couple people swearing it is awesome.

Also this is a new industry. None of the brands (to my mind) have been around long enough, and established enough of a reputation, that you can trust they actually are as good as they say. For example, these lights with their 50,000 hour lifetimes, I doubt any of them has even existed for 50,000 hours, much less proved their durability.

So if you are a first-time buyer I don't think there is any reliable way to tell which brands are worth your money.

I think this is especially true when there is such a discrepancy in prices. Some of these lights are over $1000. With no assurance, to my mind, you are getting anything better than a bargain light from Amazon.

Full disclosure: I am an indoor noob, who is growing with LEDs. Currently running a cheap one from Apollo (100 X 3W), a cheap one from GalaxyHydro (same as the Apollo), and just got a G8 Bloom light. The first two lights seem to be working great, and each was just over $100. My philosophy, obviously, has been to go cheap, and so far it seems to be working.

Personally I have nothing against getting an expensive light if I knew it was actually better, and would produce better results.

But in today's world it seems you have nothing to guide you but hype.

What do my fellow growers think?

 

[Dave Groomer]

It is my opinion based mostly on Internet research, that you basically can't trust what is written about most brands of LED lights.

Almost all the reviews are basically advertisements. The people who buy the ads get all good reviews. And there are not enough personal reviews for any kind of consensus. Almost every light has a couple people swearing it is awesome.

Also this is a new industry. None of the brands (to my mind) have been around long enough, and established enough of a reputation, that you can trust they actually are as good as they say. For example, these lights with their 50,000 hour lifetimes, I doubt any of them has even existed for 50,000 hours, much less proved their durability.

So if you are a first-time buyer I don't think there is any reliable way to tell which brands are worth your money.

I think this is especially true when there is such a discrepancy in prices. Some of these lights are over $1000. With no assurance, to my mind, you are getting anything better than a bargain light from Amazon.

Full disclosure: I am an indoor noob, who is growing with LEDs. Currently running a cheap one from Apollo (100 X 3W), a cheap one from GalaxyHydro (same as the Apollo), and just got a G8 Bloom light. The first two lights seem to be working great, and each was just over $100. My philosophy, obviously, has been to go cheap, and so far it seems to be working.

Personally I have nothing against getting an expensive light if I knew it was actually better, and would produce better results.

But in today's world it seems you have nothing to guide you but hype.

What do my fellow growers think?

As I have said in the past. I have 3 Mars-Hydro lights. I bought them because I saw a lot of people using them with good results and the price point was right. I can only compare them to my growing with CFLs and my LEDs blow that away with much less heat. I also like the fact the Sara, the Mars-Hydro rep is on this board every day helping customers. Not saying that Mars are the best, but they have been great for me and I would buy them again.

 

[4fingerlidday]

Mars for sure

 

[Icemud]

I am a big fan of Advanced LED. Great company, been around for many years, excellent customer service, quality LED diodes (Cree and Osram) and nothing but positive reviews I have seen. I've used a few different companies, and so far the Advanced LED are at the top of my list

 

[OttawaGreen]

I also will add eshine to the list as good bang for the buck.
Love my lights, they work great, 3 year warranty and inexpensive.

 

[wizgrow]

All the above I own and trust....... Only issues I have had are with Igro/Ctlite.

 

[rupert]

I got a P300 for $369. That's about double the cost of the MarsHydro. It's a nice light, but hard to say if it's worth it. The MarsHydro has an advertised LED lifespan of 50,000-100,000 hours, whereas the rating is 100,000 for the P300. You get a 5-year warranty for the P300, and there's probably a decent chance they'll still be around then.

If I had it to do over, I'd be tempted to get 2 of the cheaper 300w-rated lights instead of the P300... but I don't really regret the P300 buy, either.

I know these lights do vary a lot with respect to PAR. So I guess if I get 30% more PAR from the P300 and 30% more lifespan, and a bit less heat, then maybe it's worth it. Only way I could know is if I ran both side-by-side.

 

[rupert]

I guess lux doesn't really tell the tale for LED lights, but Mars advertises only 9880 lux at 50 cm. I wonder if that's a typo? The P300 puts out about roughly 6x that amount at the same distance according to my meter. Lux don't really matter a whole lot, so it's a little concerning that they mention lux at all in the chart at Reflector LED Grow Light 96x3w - Mars Hydro
But if people get good results, then no matter.

 

[Dave Groomer]

I guess lux doesn't really tell the tale for LED lights, but Mars advertises only 9880 lux at 50 cm. I wonder if that's a typo? The P300 puts out about roughly 6x that amount at the same distance according to my meter. Lux don't really matter a whole lot, so it's a little concerning that they mention lux at all in the chart at Reflector LED Grow Light 96x3w - Mars Hydro
But if people get good results, then no matter.

I have 2 400s and a 900 from Mars-Hydro. My 400 reads between 19-21000 on my light app and my 900 is 40-42000 at 18".

 

[rupert]

I have 2 400s and a 900 from Mars-Hydro. My 400 reads between 19-21000 on my light app and my 900 is 40-42000 at 18".

I get a reading of around 60,000 lux when I test 18" below the center of the P300. It falls off dramatically toward the corners of the light... around 12,000 lux at 18" directly below each corner if I remember right.

The difference in lux between mars and platinum could be meaningful if both lights present the same wavelengths in the same proportions. Lux meters are tuned for photography and are most sensitive precisely in the PAR range that's least important for photosynthesis, so if one light puts out significantly more light in that less important range, it gets heavily weighted by the meter and throws off the comparison somewhat. And indeed the Platinum lights seem to put out much more light energy per watt at all (nearly all?) PAR wavelengths, at least compared to the companies they test against in their videos... but their spectrum meter shows their lights are disproportionately superior in the range that most affects lux meters. It's a range that plants use, but don't need as much of. You can see from their videos that other brands provide almost no output in the range that most affects lux meters. It's not like a lux meter doesn't pick up, say, a 450nm wavelength, but it goes by a model that assigns roughly 10% weight to 450nm light vs how it counts 550nm light. It gives 50% weight to light in the mid 600s. I'm pretty sure the lux meters weight different wavelengths according to the photopic scale seen here: Luminous flux - Wikipedia -- my lux meter came with a similar chart.

Also, the two lights seem to have different lenses on their LEDs. At least they are described differently in the selling copy. If the MarsHydro lenses spread the light out wider, it could help the light's coverage a little but would give worse individual readings throughout the core zone, particularly at the center of the core zone.

Another thing that could throw off lux readings somewhat: If one company clusters more of the high-lux frequencies toward the center of the light.

 

[SGL D]

Lumens are for humans and PAR is for plants.

Just wondering why people use LUX meter rather than a quantum meter. The only metric a grower needs IMO is a 4 x 4 micromole grid at 12 inches. PPFD The goal for lighting cannabis is to average 1500 micromole output at the canopy, which converts to a 65 DLI.

Again, I am biased so I won't preach about how fantastic our PAR-FORCE phosphor blend technology but when discussing numbers its all about the micromoles.

 

[rupert]

Lumens are for humans and PAR is for plants.

I pretty much agree with this statement, though lux meters are still somewhat useful for comparisons. Plants use light in a range very similar to what humans use, but the importance of different wavelengths within the range is very different for humans and plants.

Just wondering why people use LUX meter rather than a quantum meter.

Because lux meters are cheap. It's definitely better than nothing, tho not nearly as good as a PAR meter.

The only metric a grower needs IMO is a 4 x 4 micromole grids at 12 inches. PPFD

It would be great to have PAR data for competing lights that draw the same wattage. Is there an independent source of that info? Have you done a test (preferably with video to confirm readings/methods) against other high-quality competing lights? The Platinum videos are great in this regard, except that they only test against two competing lights.

Again I am biased so I won't preach about how fantastic our PAR-FORCE phosphor blend technology but when discussing numbers its all about the micromoles.

Preaching is OK but a video showing your test results/methods alongside other competing lights would be infinitely more persuasive. I would love to see a grid, just like you provide on your site, but at both 12" and 24" height to give a sense of penetration. Is 250 watts the real draw of your nominal 250 watt light? How the heck do you power 764 LEDs effectively with only 250 watts? That's less than 1/3 watt per LED. Most high quality lights seem to use 3w-rated LEDs and power them at about 1.8w per LED.

 

[SGL D]

I pretty much agree with this statement, though lux meters are still somewhat useful for comparisons. Plants use light in a range very similar to what humans use, but the importance of different wavelengths within the range is very different for humans and plants.



Because lux meters are cheap. It's definitely better than nothing, tho not nearly as good as a PAR meter.



It would be great to have PAR data for competing lights that draw the same wattage. Is there an independent source of that info? Have you done a test (preferably with video to confirm readings/methods) against other high-quality competing lights? The Platinum videos are great in this regard, except that they only test against two competing lights.



Preaching is OK but a video showing your test results/methods alongside other competing lights would be infinitely more persuasive. I would love to see a grid, just like you provide on your site, but at both 12" and 24" height to give a sense of penetration. Is 250 watts the real draw of your nominal 250 watt light? How the heck do you power 764 LEDs effectively with only 250 watts? That's less than 1/3 watt per LED. Most high quality lights seem to use 3w-rated LEDs and power them at about 1.8w per LED.

Short on time so I will answer the best I can for now. Our lights use 50 mAmp LED chips which is why we use 764 in our 250 fixtures which can be placed 8” above the canopy without stressing the plants during the later stages of flower. This technology has recieved the #1 rating at the department of energy for intensity (street lights) so don't worry our LED technology pounds the PAR light. Our fixtures are all aluminum and work as an excellent heat transfer for the panels.

Coverage -- 120 degree LED beam angles provide an even spray of light that puts less stress on plants rather than larger 3 and 5 watt chips which are more directional lighting, which is good for PPF but not PPFD (4 x 4 grid).

Most LED companies will not show their grids because they know coverage is only in a 2 x 2 area.

The real trick IMO for quality LEDs other than 4 x 4 coverage is creating photon rich red light. Blue light has much more photon output than Red light which is why all the early LEDs (RGB) could NOT compete in the flower arena. We use blue light (photon rich) to create red light without photon loss and this is our secret sauce. We also enhance our red phosphor mix with the addition Saphire 660nm chips. Osram chips and hight quality Meanwell drivers power our low heat systems and they are build for commercial use. As for 3rd party testing I will have to get back to you once our testing is complete. We use both Field Scout quantum meters and li-core meters for our in-house testing.

 

[rupert]

Short on time so I will answer the best I can for now. Our lights use 50 mAmp LED chips which is why we use 764 in our 250 fixtures which can be placed 8" above the canopy without stressing the plants during the later stages of flower.

FYI, this tells me nothing. The worst light I ever bought was EXTREMELY safe to put just an inch or two above canopy, because it was such a weak light.

This technology has recieved the #1 rating at the department of energy for intensity (street lights) so don't worry our LED technology pounds the PAR light.

FYI, as an LED light consumer this is not persuasive for me at all. What does a street light have to do with growing plants? No need to answer... but you may be off course here, in a marketing sense.

Coverage -- 120 degree LED beam angles provide an even spray of light

This doesn't tell us the lights are more powerful overall but is useful to know. A 120 degree lens provides less intensity below the light.

that puts less stress on plants rather than larger 3 and 5 watt chips

The worst light I ever bought puts very little stress on my plants : (
The worst light I ever bought had a nominal wattage similar to the number of LEDs in the light.
I am open minded about lens angles other than 90 or 60 if you can demonstrate the advantage on video.

which are more directional lighting, which is good for PPF but not PPFD (4 x 4 grid).
Most LED companies will not show their grids because they know coverage is only in a 2 x 2 area.

You may be right about companies not showing their grids! I wish Platinum would make new videos that show the PAR not just directly below the lights but also directly below the corner of the light, and outside the core zone.

The real trick IMO for quality LEDs is photon rich red light. Blue light has much more photon output than Red light which is why all the early LEDs (RGB) could NOT compete in the flower arena. We use blue light (photon rich) to create red light without photon loss and this is our secret sauce.

You lost me here! Is there a difference between "photon output" and PAR, for our purposes?

We also enhance our red phosphor mix with the addition Saphire 660nm chips. Osram chips and hight quality Meanwell drivers

Good to know about the internals.

power our low heat systems and they are build for commercial use. As for 3rd party testing I will have to get back to you once our testing is complete. We use both Field Scout quantum meters and li-core meters for our in-house testing.

Cool, at such time as I can see testing videos, I'll be persuaded, but no sooner. There are some areas in which you could improve upon Platinum's videos, as we've discussed. Be sure your test shows intensity not just at the top of the canopy but 24" away, so we can get a sense of penetration. I recommend a 12" test and 24" test. We can probably split the difference for a rough sense of intensity at 18".

Thanks again!

 

[Dave Groomer]

FYI, this tells me nothing. The worst light I ever bought was EXTREMELY safe to put just an inch or two above canopy, because it was such a weak light.



FYI, as an LED light consumer this is not persuasive for me at all. What does a street light have to do with growing plants? No need to answer... but you may be off course here, in a marketing sense.



This doesn't tell us the lights are more powerful overall but is useful to know. A 120 degree lens provides less intensity below the light.



The worst light I ever bought puts very little stress on my plants : (
The worst light I ever bought had a nominal wattage similar to the number of LEDs in the light.
I am open minded about lens angles other than 90 or 60 if you can demonstrate the advantage on video.



You may be right about companies not showing their grids! I wish Platinum would make new videos that show the PAR not just directly below the lights but also directly below the corner of the light, and outside the core zone.



You lost me here! Is there a difference between "photon output" and PAR, for our purposes?



Good to know about the internals.



Cool, at such time as I can see testing videos, I'll be persuaded, but no sooner. There are some areas in which you could improve upon Platinum's videos, as we've discussed. Be sure your test shows intensity not just at the top of the canopy but 24" away, so we can get a sense of penetration. I recommend a 12" test and 24" test. We can probably split the difference for a rough sense of intensity at 18".

Thanks again!

I don't know your lights, have never used them and would not dream of putting them down (or up) since I have NO experience with them. I did read a post from another member that had a different brand of light with 120* lens and she did not like the coverage. Preferred the 90* lens. Yours may be totally different.

 

[SGL D]

FYI, this tells me nothing. The worst light I ever bought was EXTREMELY safe to put just an inch or two above canopy, because it was such a weak light.


FYI, as an LED light consumer this is not persuasive for me at all. What does a street light have to do with growing plants? No need to answer... but you may be off course here, in a marketing sense.


This doesn't tell us the lights are more powerful overall but is useful to know. A 120 degree lens provides less intensity below the light.

The point I was trying to make was regarding intensity and technology. The same technology (50 mAmp LED chips )earned the #1 rating at the US Department of Energy rated for overall Intensity is the same panel technology we use for our grow lights... Over 30,000 lights listed so competition is steep.

We use the same high intensity LED technology with the addition of proprietary phosphor coatings on our chips that absorbs the photons from blue light and re-emits the light into a tailored PAR spectrum.

You can't get micromole levels over 1500 at the canopy without intensity.


The worst light I ever bought puts very little stress on my plants : (
The worst light I ever bought had a nominal wattage similar to the number of LEDs in the light.
I am open minded about lens angles other than 90 or 60 if you can demonstrate the advantage on video.

120 degree LED optics create an even spray rather than hot spots.... it's all about the micromoles and without intensity we could not crank out the micromoles our panels do.... the 120 degree LED beam angle is why our lights expand grids from 2 x 2 to 4 x 4.


You may be right about companies not showing their grids! I wish Platinum would make new videos that show the PAR not just directly below the lights but also directly below the corner of the light, and outside the core zone.

Most LED lights that use 3 and 5 watt chips do not get very good micromole readings when the meter is outside from directly under the fixture. They know this so they hide their grids and claim high PPF readings


You lost me here! Is there a difference between "photon output" and PAR, for our purposes?

Photons. The name physicists give to light particles... really difficult to create red light with high photon levels and for flower high red photon levels are crucial. PAR is a range and photons are a measurement.

-PPF tells us how many photons of light are emitted by a light source each second.
-PPFD tells us how densely the fixture distributes the light photons on a one meter square target (i.e. your plants) in one second. Way more important than PPF
-DLI tells us how many photons were delivered to a one meter square target in a full photoperiod (i.e. a day).

1500 micromoles on 12 hour photoperiod converts to 65 DLI.... target DLI for cannabis

Good to know about the internals.

Cool, at such time as I can see testing videos, I'll be persuaded, but no sooner. There are some areas in which you could improve upon Platinum's videos, as we've discussed. Be sure your test shows intensity not just at the top of the canopy but 24" away, so we can get a sense of penetration. I recommend a 12" test and 24" test. We can probably split the difference for a rough sense of intensity at 18".

When you say intensity... I take it that you are referring to micromoles.. and yes we test from several heights.

Thanks again!

We are all about building kick ass lights for professional growers and we sure appreciate your feedback.. Thanks!

I tried to clarify some of my responses better in bold.

 

[rupert]

Thanks for elaborating. If you happen to think of it, please update the thread when we can see videos. The reason I push so hard for light companies to post videos is because much time and money is wasted by growers who don't buy optimal lights for their space. It's really hard for a first time grower to pick a light, and much less research would be required if there were a reliable metric (such as PPFD) and manufacturers provided videos. Of course, it would be ideal if there were independent tests, but the next best thing is if the seller provides the evidence.

Also, it's really cheap to make and publish videos these days, and would not take much time. It's probably the cheapest way for a light company to make a strong case for its product. Anyone with the money to develop a product like this probably has a decent camera and good meters. Please save everyone time/money by proving what your lights can do. It's not all that fun researching lights.

The problem with going by what another grower says, is that the plant will grow under varied conditions, and a good grower with a mediocre light will produce something better than a bad grower with an ideal light. No one needs the best possible light to grow a good plant, but we might as well use the best light we can afford.

 

[J189RFC]

MarsHydro, for the absolute and total, undeniable win. These guys always have deals. The ladies that rep them on the site are funny as all hell and fast! Some people have had shipping delays, but that is the worst that I have heard. Most were causes by accidents or strikes sooo I dont hold it againt em. I'm using 2x 300 old model (On sale right now BTW!!!! Super cheap, great quality, last you a good couple of years at least! And showed up a week early!)


I even grew some veggies this winter and they loved it. Bang for your buck, customer service, strong product, etc. Do it!

 

[Onamatopeia]

So far I am getting good results out of an Apollo 100 X 3W next to a GalaxyHydro 100 X 3W. I guess a lot comes in the longevity of the product. But many people for whatever reason are only going to try growing once. Should those people spend $1000 on a light? My two lights each cost $115-120, and if they give comparable results for even two grows I will be happy.

Let's remember that like many intense endeavors, many people will ultimately find an obstacle they cannot overcome and abandon the pursuit. Start-up costs are a significant factor, and the one place LEDs do not compare well to other lights.

Part of it I think is this: isn't building a light pretty basic? Isn't most of it going to be functionally equivalent regardless of cost? The key difference I think with LEDs is the bulbs themselves, with their various spectra and the uncertainty over what is optimal for the plant.

My one light is made by Apollo. They seem to be a reputable maker of other kind of lights. Why should I not trust them to make a basic light?

 

[J189RFC]

My main problem as doing the research took probably about 10 hours to source parts/ learn how to do it. All the parts, fans, heat sinks, diodes, that little thing that controls the power, the "ballast" and a box, a power cord, wiring etc would have still cost me about half the price of a manufactured model from MarsHydro. Thats not including the probably full day it would take me to put it together. And then there is always the risk something goes wrong. Best case scenario it dies and and I have to fix it, worst case I burn my place to the ground..... SOooo For a little ease of mind, a saving of time, refund and warranty policy, and shipping to my door. Totally worth just buying one.