Moon Filters - Which one?

[maamalade]

Hi

Please could anyone help us work out the difference in the moon filters out there and let us know what is working and what is best?

We are trying to decide between:

Baader Neodymium Filter

Variable Polarizing Moon Filter

Baader Neutral Density Moon filters

Don't know if it makes a difference however we have decided to go for the Skywatcher Explorer 150P on the EQ3-2 mount.

Thanks

Ange & Carl

[Moonshane]

I only use the Baader Neodymium as it's great on the moon but also Mars and Jupiter too. I never got on with normal moon filters

[ItIsOnlyMe]

I don't find much of a reduction in light/glare from the Baader Neodymium filter. If you are trying to reduce the glare/brightness from the moon you need either the ND filter or the variable filter

[John]

I never use a moon filter, even with my 10" scope. My eye seems to adjust to the brightness quite rapidly although it's best not to go chasing faint deep sky objects shortly after a lunar viewing session !

[Josh Wilson]

I did a bit of research and the Neodymium filter seems to be a general filter for the Moon and planets. Maybe some nebulae. The variable polarizer cuts down on brightness and is 'custom' so you can change the amount of transmission of light from the moon and/or planets. I use a 13% transmission filter for observing the Moon and for cutting down the brightness of Jupiter. I love it. Especially for Jupiter, without it certain details would just be lost in the glare.

[scoobee]

I now only use the Neodymium filter, have tried the others and despite them doing the job the neodymium gives the extra and well worth the extra cash

[Qualia]

I was given a neutral-density filter when I bought my scope and I imagine the same could be said of a polarizing filter - useless unless you're using them in very large instruments. I guess a part of me says they are useless because the primary purpose of a telescope is to gather light and wasting light just seems to be stupid. But the real reason I say that they're useless is simply because there are probably better alternatives.

You see, if there is a bright full moon, then that's the worst time to observe the Moon because there is no shadow and there is no contrast. If the Moon is too bright in your eyepiece on any other occassion, then that's nature's way of telling you to use more magnification, and perhaps a contrast filter like a Neodymium, or both.

Hop ethat helps.

[swamp thing]

Not sure the moon is any brighter through a scope than it is with your naked eye. You don't need a filter to look at it with your eye so why bother when looking through a scope? I have observed the moon through scopes up to 16" and never felt the need for one.

[Moonshane]

I agree Steve

the image is less bright through the scope than with naked eye. I don't need a filter for brightness but find that contrast is enhanced with the Baader Neodymium.

[8kids]

I use a variable filter, without it I find viewing the moon uncomfortable. If I view without the filter when I've finish observing the moon it is imprinted for some considerable time on my retina. I think it seems brighter through the scope because it tends to fill the eyepiece, using just your eyes theres plenty of background to tone the brightness down.......or am I talking cobblers.

Gary.

[8kids]

It is a rhetorical question and does not require a response.

[rwilkey]

I prefer to use a Moon filter, I think it is down to the individual. I use the ND96 (0.9) filter with 13% light transmission. It helps with contrast and helps me look at the Moon for longer.

[LukeSkywatcher]

My Skywatcher light pollution filter works very well as a moon filter. It gives nice contrast.

[BinocularSky]

I use a #29 Deep Red; can see more subtle detail than with anything else I've tried. (Even a #25 is better than the stuff that is usually hawked as "Moon filter")

As for adapting to the Moon's brightness without a filter, this shouldn't be surprising given that the Moon is no brighter than sunlit tarmac!

On the batphone, so expect typos...

[nightfisher]

I use an ND96 06 filter when trying to tease out subtle detail

[rwilkey]

Jules, the ND96 0.06 filter is a good one, 25% light transmission, good on my 100mm frac.

[Hairycamel]

+1 for the variable filter - very comfortable viewing!