Filters - quality matters?

[ismangil]

So I've decided my view of Jupiter features can be improved by using filters, as mentioned in recent SaN magazine, and seeing Paul Abel's drawings using filters.

Now I've seen filter from £7-10 each to multiples of those... are there much to choose between 'quality' filters?

And if I want to start a collection, seems first colour blue is the best, most useful?

Thanks!

[ismangil]

Ok so I found this discussion

I suppose pretty much answers the colours, but still what about quality?

[Naemeth]

This answers the colour question, as for quality, the image quality can only be good as the worst optical component will allow, so a rubbish filter will probably not have the best results, no direct experience of it though.

HTH

[Moonshane]

I find a Baader Neodymium best for Jupiter (and Mars). it's a great moon filter too. plus it's a light pollution filter but I don't really use it for that (although I have lots of LP).

I never got on with coloured ones.

[ismangil]

Yeah, I'll try with the Baader Neodymium first then.

[Moonshane]

the good thing about the neodymium is is good quality, it works for several things and still gives a natural looking image.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Given the fact that you have some very good EPs I would not settle for cheap filters, although the absolute top might be over the top. I am quite happy with my fairly generic APM and Skywatcher branded UHC and O-III filters, and the Orion Optics moon filter is also good. I do feel that the former two filters make stars ever so slightly less tight, so maybe I should replace them by more expensive Astronomik, Baader, or Lumicon filters in due course. The Orion Optics moon filter seems to have no impact on sharpness, even with the Pentax XW7 (though maybe the atmosphere is more limiting in that case).

[ismangil]

Yeah, now gone off a bit on colour filters... Will see how this season goes on and decide further.

[great_bear]

My Lumicon filters have been noticeably better than others I have had.

[John]

My only filter is a 2" Astronomik O-III. It's very effective in enhancing the contrast of nebulae and the stars seem better defined with it than other filters I've used too.

[Delboy_Hog]

I find a Baader Neodymium best for Jupiter (and Mars). it's a great moon filter too. plus it's a light pollution filter but I don't really use it for that (although I have lots of LP).

I never got on with coloured ones.

Moonshane, (and anyone else, for that matter!) could you expand on your experiences with the neodymium filter for me please? What difference do you see with that filter - particularly on Jupiter and Mars, is it colour, detail, definition, a bit of everything? I've been tempted by one of a while now, but the unknown has pulled me back from the brink of the "confirm order" button on several occasions!

[great_bear]

I found the Neodymium next-to-useless as a light-pollution filter.

No doubt many years ago - when street lights were the main source of light pollution - it had a place, but in today's world - where (certainly in London) the light pollution is essentially broadband in nature (coming from buildings, illumimated structures and the new LED advertising hoardings), so it makes no difference at all.

Some people may still find a use for it as an unusual planetary/lunar filter.

[Grommie]

_{Is this the filter you've been discussing?}

_{http://www.firstlightoptics.com/light-pollution-reduction/baader-neodymium-filter.html}

_Thanks

[Moonshane]

yes, Grommie. that's the one.

I agree that LP filters are generally a waste of time and use increased mag as a way to darken the sky background myself.

the baader filter for me creates a much more natural looking moon, especially when more than 50% illuminated. contrast is enhanced and it's a nice mid grey tone.

on planets I find it creates more definition on the bands of Jupiter, including the GRS and also on Mars where the darker areas seem to be much more defined. it may be the glare reduction increasing apparent contrast but I'm no expert, just like what I see and find is more defined and also more aesthetically pleasing for some reason.

[stev74]

yes, Grommie. that's the one.

I agree that LP filters are generally a waste of time and use increased mag as a way to darken the sky background myself.

the baader filter for me creates a much more natural looking moon, especially when more than 50% illuminated. contrast is enhanced and it's a nice mid grey tone.

on planets I find it creates more definition on the bands of Jupiter, including the GRS and also on Mars where the darker areas seem to be much more defined. it may be the glare reduction increasing apparent contrast but I'm no expert, just like what I see and find is more defined and also more aesthetically pleasing for some reason.

I also rate the neodymium for the moon and planets and was going to post to the effect but I thought I'd just quote Moonshane as he's got it spot on.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2

[LukeSkywatcher]

Tonight i just spent about £80 on a UHC filter and a OIII filter (both made by Skywatcher).

If they perform as well as the Skywatcher light pollution filter i own then i will be more then happy.

[Delboy_Hog]

Thanks Moonshane and Steve. I think I'll finally take the plunge and get a neodymium filter ordered.