UHC and OIII Filters

[Space Dragon]

Does anyone have an experience of say the Skywatcher/Baader v Lumicon/Astronomik.

Is the difference in performance between the two worth the difference in price ?

It would be just for visual.

Thanks

[Damo636]

I use the Skywatcher O-Ill, and although I've never compared it with a premium brand, it does what it says on the tin! I don't use it very often though with the most use probably on the Veil & occasionally the North America Nebula.

[rwilkey]

I use the SW OIII and UHC, as said above, they do the job, but mine don't get used very often I have to admit. The premium ones are quite expensive, my advice would be to try the SW first and see how you get on with it. Having used mine, I would not consider the premium ones worth the extra cash. However, I do have some Lumicon colour filters and a Moon filter and the quality shows considerably, compared to the Baaders even, though some will disagree here I am sure. Not compared OIII filters though.

[John]

I've owned UHC and O-III filters by Baader, TS (Telescope Services), Orion (USA) and Celestron (which were made by Baader !). I now own just one narrowband filter, an Astronomik O-III.

In terms of optical quality, the Astronomik gives sharper star images than the others I've used which is nice aesthetically. The band pass width of the Astronomik is a little wider than other O-III's (especially the Baader which is quite the opposite) so it serves well in all my scopes from 4" to 10" in aperture.

The other filters worked well though and did the job they are designed to do efficiently. What you get with the Astronomik is a little better optical quality in my opinion and I was happy to pay for that.

[alan potts]

I have to say i would be with John on this one. Both of us have a fair selection of Televue eyepieces and if you are going to pay top dollar for them it makes sense to pay for the more expensive filters. I will be getting the 2 inch O lll in January but at 168 pounds or thereabouts they are not cheap. They make a Radian talked about on another thread look very good value.

Alan.

[Space Dragon]

Thank you Gents for your thoughts.

I have heard that the TV O-III Bandmate is quite wide for an O-III and is really between a UHC and an O-III, that you don't lose the starfield altogether and the stars are also well defined.

Again, like EPs, I suppose filters are a subjective and personal thing and without trying some under various conditions in various scopes, it's hard to draw black and white conclusions.

I would be using 2" filters in an Earthwin Bino with an 9.25 SCT so aperture would not be a limiting factor.

In short, i don't mind paying more if the difference is real.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have some fairly cheap ones (APM and Skywatcher branded, but I think they all come from the same source). I do notice some degradation of the sharpness of the image, so I might go for a high end one later. I am still very happy with the ones I have, I should add.

[alan potts]

Well, I didn't know TV did filters. When I said about the more expensive O lll filter I was meaning the Astronomik which I believe John has. I was reading something some time back and I remember he was of the opinion that it was a little wider in bandwidth than some of the others and gave better views.

That made the choice for me.

Alan.

[John]

This review of O-III filters gives the Tele Vue Bandmate O-III a thumbs up:

http://www.cloudynig...hp?item_id=2129

One thing that the more pricey filters seem to have in common is higher transmission within their admitted band width than some of the competitors.

[RikM]

I have an Astronomik UHC and it is very nice indeed. I also have a SkyWatcher Oiii and haven't been disappointed. I bought it as a stopgap while Astronomik Oiii were out of stock but it works so well I have not felt any need to replace it. The Sw Oiii also has a wider band pass than the Baader Oiii.

[scarp15]

I purchased a 2" Lumicon O-III filter earlier this year. I only use it with my 12" dob and then only at dark sky locations. Primarily for the Veil, but for many other objects to. This item is expensive but it has provided me with some fantastic views, and I look forward to continued use during winter observing sessions.

[Luke]

I did a quick compare the other night between a Baader UHC and Astronomik UHC. I can't remember what the targets were, but I could see more structure with the Astronomik, not massively more, but enough to feel okay about the extra cost.

[allen g]

I own the astronomik uhc and lumicon O111 and both are exceptional filters. Don't know how they compare to others but reviews rate them very high. I have TV EPs and reasoned that with these EPs I should get high quality filters from the outset - that decision proved to be wise. the views are wonderful particularly with dark skies.

[swamp thing]

I have the Lumicon O-III filter and have been able to compare it directly with both a Skywatcher, and an Astronomik version of the same.

Against the Skywatcher the Lumicon was the pick, it just gave a sharper view.

Compared to the Astronomik, there's nothing in it. I couldn't pick any difference between them.

[Space Dragon]

Thanks for your thoughts fellas. I decided to go with the SW UHC and O-III for starters. Have to say, I tried the UHC out last night and was fairly underwhelmed.

I suspect it was due to the Moon and LP, i'll just wait for the New Moon and a Dark site before I draw any conclusions.

[John]

Thanks for your thoughts fellas. I decided to go with the SW UHC and O-III for starters. Have to say, I tried the UHC out last night and was fairly underwhelmed.

I suspect it was due to the Moon and LP, i'll just wait for the New Moon and a Dark site before I draw any conclusions.

What objects did you view with it ?

They only have an effect on nebulae and the moon would have washed out most deep sky objects last night.

[Space Dragon]

John

Only Orion was within my sights last night and while the Nebula was slightly extended with the filter, the difference was minimal and I thought I lost some depth of field.

It was relatively low [at about midnight] and with the Moon and next doors lights it was far from ideal but I'll give it a whirl from a dark site in a week or two, with the OIII as well.

[John]

To be honest I only use these filters with a handful of objects. I prefer the unfiltered views of things like M42, M57 and M27. It's on objects like the Owl and Veil Nebulae that they really make a difference, and are worth having for those objects. Consequently my O-III does not get out much - but when it does it earns it's keep !

[alan potts]

I have the Lumicon O-III filter and have been able to compare it directly with both a Skywatcher, and an Astronomik version of the same.

Against the Skywatcher the Lumicon was the pick, it just gave a sharper view.

Compared to the Astronomik, there's nothing in it. I couldn't pick any difference between them.

Steve,

You don't think they could be the same glass do you? Eyepieces are the same glass in different trousers all over the place, there is no reason why filters could not be rebranded just the same way.

Alan.

[swamp thing]

No idea Alan. Wouldn't rule it out though. I couldn't see any difference between the Lumicon and Astronomik.