Well, not using a spraybar simply because one prefers not to is an unsubstantiated argument. Is the preference based on aesthetic reasons or is it based on poor effectiveness? If it's based on poor effectiveness, then we'd need to understand the configuration and the environmental conditions under which the failure occurred.
Spraybars have been used with excellent results, however they are usually sold in hideous colors and their plastic construction often cheapens the look of the scape. Since we're dealing with art as well as science then the awkward appearance of spraybars is certainly a valid enough reason not to use them artistically, but the OP would be more concerned with the science and application of the spraybars.
Fundamentally, on first look it appears that the flow rate is inadequate according to our consensus rule-of-thumb requiring 10X the tank volume per hour flow rating. According to some of the data sheets I've seen, the 405 has a flow rating of 225GPH (880LPH) and the 305 is rated at 185GPH (740LPH). To be in accordance with the rule-of-thumb, a 260L tank optimally should receive 2600LPH, so there is a shortfall of approximately 1000LPH. The higher the light, the more critical this becomes. Inadequate flow is much more likely to be a contributor to the root cause of the difficulty than is the spraybars themselves.
The following images demonstrates a successful application of a spraybar installation (seen in the upper background of each image) which invalidates any claim that spraybars are ineffective (but regrettably does nothing against claims of hideousness). If flow rate in a tank is sub-par to begin with, then it will be very difficult in general to have success regardless of the type of outflow arrangement. You might be able to eke out a few more LPH by reducing internal drag, such as removing some of the media, or by reducing the tube friction via shortening the hoses, or, by lowering the effluent backpressure by raising the height of the filter relative to the tank's water level.
Cheers,