Jump to content

Best OIII filter?

cyborg421

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply
NGC 1502

NGC 1502

Posted
Posted

Hi Simon, I had an Astronomik OIII, and now have a Lumicon OIII, couldn't see the difference, both were brill on the Veil SNR. I had a Skywatcher OIII, it was great value for money, but the more expensive ones have the edge.

Mine are 1.25", a nice idea that some do is to get a 2" one, it will fit 2" eyepieces, and you can use it on 1.25" EPs by fitting it to a 2" to 1.25" adapter that has a filter thread, you can then change EPs without removing and refitting the filter. However, when I tried that with the 2" SW that I had, some of my EPs that have a long nosepiece would have contacted the filter before being fully seated in the adapter. Other EPs I have were fine as they have a short nosepiece, but it's a point to watch.

HTH, Ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glowjet

glowjet

Posted
Posted

For visual the Skywatcher brand seems to behave quite well by all accounts, some of the reports seem to suggest there is not a lot of difference when compared to the more expensive Baader product. If you can work round it with adapters then choose the 2" filter :)

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamp thing

swamp thing

Posted
Posted

^^^ This. I've compared the Lumicon and Astronomik myself and there's zip in it. The Skywatcher ones are Okay but not as good as the premium ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Flibble

Mr Flibble

Posted
Posted

^^^ This. I've compared the Lumicon and Astronomik myself and there's zip in it. The Skywatcher ones are Okay but not as good as the premium ones.

Hi Steve, in what way would you say the lumicon and astronomik have the edge? Is it in terms of build quality, and/or image quality of nebula and/or stars? Can't decide what to go for myself :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sirius Bizness

Sirius Bizness

Posted
Posted

I've looked into this and think it comes down to the band pass I term of what view you get. The astronomic has a slightly wider bandpass than the Baader which means you see more background stars. The Baader blocks most out. This may be useful if you light pollution is bad. I was looking at Castell as they are £45 for a 2" filter and come recommended by some on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamp thing

swamp thing

Posted
Posted

Upon comparing my Lumicon to another observing buddies Skywatcher version we both found that the Lumicon version gave better detailing in the fine filamentary structure on the veil nebula and it gave a slightly more contrasty view. We also tried on the NA nebula but here the lack of structure evened the playing field. On the dumbbell it was close but the Lumicon again showed better structure. This was from a superb site through two large (16") Dobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I have a 2" Astronomik O-III and I find it a superb filter in my scopes which range from 4 to 10 inches in aperture. It has a slightly wider band pass width than some other O-III's and I reckon the optical quality, ie: glass, polishing, coating etc, is a bit better than any other filters I've used, which include the TS UHC, Baader O-III and UHC-S and Orion Ultrablock. Star images are tighter with the Astronomik and the impact on objects such as the Veil and Owl nebulae is really significant. The only thing against the Astronomik is the price - it's an expensive filter. I've not used a Lumicon but I've heard great things about those too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
faulksy

faulksy

Posted
Posted

Upon comparing my Lumicon to another observing buddies Skywatcher version we both found that the Lumicon version gave better detailing in the fine filamentary structure on the veil nebula and it gave a slightly more contrasty view. We also tried on the NA nebula but here the lack of structure evened the playing field. On the dumbbell it was close but the Lumicon again showed better structure. This was from a superb site through two large (16") Dobs.

hope to have a look through your soon :shocked:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
goolosh

goolosh

Posted
Posted

Keep in mind Lumicon no longer has any stock as their supplier has been basically destroyed by the Tsunami in Japan. I tried i order some Lumicon filters recently and couldn't. I ended up going with the Orion OIII and it's ok. I couldn't give any comparison since i only own that brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woking

Woking

Posted
Posted

As Steve said, there does'nt seem to be anything between the Astronomik (mine) and the Lumicon (Steve's) and we compared using a dob and refractor plus different EPs.

Best recommendation would be to just decide which one is best priced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
todd8137

todd8137

Posted
Posted

Go for it then they kill small scopes my 12" reflector loves it the baader ones are good the lumicon ect are not worth the money we tried my baader and a lumicon at a club night to the un trained eye you could not tell them apart ,apart from the price tag can you lend one of some one before you buy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cyborg421

cyborg421

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't think I know anyone in my group with an OIII filter.

I have this Nebula filter and it's very impressive.

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11400.m516.l1123/7?euid=e80965a914ba4654a66dc44d7b685798&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.co.uk%2Fws%2FeBayISAPI.dll%3FViewItem%26item%3D310327260201%26ssPageName%3DADME%3AL%3AOC%3AGB%3A1123

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
.... the lumicon ect are not worth the money we tried my baader and a lumicon at a club night to the un trained eye you could not tell them apart .....

But after a while at the hobby you do become more "trained" and then there are some differences noticeable. Then the extra investment might seem worthwhile. On the other hand you might decide that the differences are not worth the extra £'s - it's a personal decision like all those concerning investment in higher quality equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
todd8137

todd8137

Posted
Posted

But after a while at the hobby you do become more "trained" and then there are some differences noticeable. Then the extra investment might seem worthwhile. On the other hand you might decide that the differences are not worth the extra £'s - it's a personal decision like all those concerning investment in higher quality equipment.

Errmm I use baader CCD filters oiii ha they work for me and a must have about ten grands worth a kit cash was not a issue for me but like all things astro wise it is a personnel choice but the highest price stuff is not always the best I brought a Ascension 127ED Triplet APO CF (Carbon-Fibre) the reducer was 400 quid I did not buy a cheap one filters are the same I took images of the dumbbell with the baader and the lent lumicon ,on 4 min subs you could not tell the diference in the images

Pat

Horses for courses a guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
.... filters are the same I took images of the dumbbell with the baader and the lent lumicon ,on 4 min subs you could not tell the diference in the images......

I think the OP is interested in filters for visual use. The band pass graphs show there are differences between the Baader and the Astronomik / Lumicon filters. Maybe those don't impact imaging but they are noticeable in visual use. I believe the filters for imaging would be different specs from the visual ones anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.