Orion 2" OIII vs Lumicon 2" OIII filter.....Fight!!!!

[Rustysplit]

Following on from Si's excellent review of the Panoptic and Nirvana ep's, that same evening we were conducting a shoot-out between my Orion OIII filter and his Lumicon. On paper the highly regarded Lumicon should win hands down, but will the Orion make a decent fist of it? There is only one way to find out.....Fight!!!

I had gone into Telescope House to see Pete and Kerin, with my mind made up that I needed an OIII to team up with the 27mm Panoptic, to take in the great views of the Veil and Crescent that I had heard many people talking of. After a bit of research it soon became apparent that the final choice was either going to be an Astronomik or Lumicon. It is also fair to point out that once I have decided I need something, I can be a little impatient. TH, as it turned out had neither in stock, but they did have an odd Orion version kicking about. Pete convinced me to give it a go, kindly offering to take it back if I did not like it after using it. I paid £80 for it, which I thought was damned reasonable.

At the same time , Si had also decided that a Lumicon was the way to go, after his Castell OIII showed itself to be pants. His order was placed, and we waited for it's arrival and a clear sky to carry out the test.

In order to keep it fair, and eliminate the difference in aperture and mirror figure, we looked at each object both separately in our own scopes with own ep, then swapped scopes and also through the same scope with same ep, just swapping the filters. As fair as we could make it. Si has a 16" Lightbridge and I have my diy 14" truss with self ground mirror.

Having got set up at about 10.45pm, the sky was still fairly light when we we gave our first target a look, the Veil. In both scopes the Veil was clearly visible, though still very feint against the twilight. After much debate and swapping about, we were both agreed and a little shocked that at this point, there was nothing to choose between them.

Next up, the Crescent. Quite tricky in anything but dark skies, but again a dead heat was called. We spent some time going back and forth between the Veil and Crescent, and each time as the sky darkened, more and more detail was visible. The eastern section of the Veil showing it's claw structure and the western showing the twisting point and the 2 strands at the tail end beautifully. We had a coffee break whilst we waited for Sagittarius to rise above the sea a little more and the sky to get as dark as it was going too.

Sky dark and coffee'd up, the Lagoon was our first target. It showed very clear outer nebulosity and inner dark "lagoon". Next the Triffid, this was really nice with clearly defined dark lanes easily visible. I felt that on this target, the Lumicon just edged it. The lanes seemed just a bit darker to me. The Swan or Omega nebula also looked stunning through both filters.

We had a chat and compared notes, and spent a long while darting between scopes and filters. Both filters made the targets literally "pop" into view. Both gave nice sharp star shapes and both provided awesome detail. With the sky now dark, we both agreed that the Lumicon almost imperceptibly had the upper hand. By having the chance to look through both and swap back and forth, the view had a couple of % better contast and sharpness over the Orion. Interesting that earlier in the night when the sky was still darkening, it was definately a dead heat. Having looked through both, will I be taking Pete up on his offer to return the Orion? No way!! It held it's own in illustrious company and I did not feel that I might be settling for 2nd best.

If cost is not an issue, go for the Lumicon. If it is, the Orion is damn near as good and shows all that the Lumicon does. If you suffer from bad LP, I reckon the Orion is as good as the Lumicon. I think it is fair to say that we were both surprised by just how close these 2 filters performed. Quality control could be the limiting factor I guess. Lumicon check each and every one and engrave the % OIII passed. It seems unlikely that Orions supplier does the same.

[bish]

Nice report. I've been meaning to get an Oiii for a while so this has been helpful. Originally I had intended to a castell Oiii as some people have found them to be OK.

[Moonshane]

Great report Alan. I am surprised that Si considered the Castell to be poor. Mine seems really good and provides detailed views of all objects I use it on.

[Rustysplit]

Shane, I think that is the issue with the cheaper filters, some are very good, others are very poor. When we both had a look the other week, the Castell showed literally nothing Quality control I suspect can be hit or miss/non existent

[Moonshane]

yeah, fair point. maybe I was lucky. mine showed the veil, NAN and crescent well last night and enhanced the dumbell and ring a lot. also seen the pelican previously. I have been thinking about an Astronomik for a while. Might try and get a used one to compare with my Castell and then decide.

[scarp15]

Good account, I use a Lumicon Oxygen filter, it is intially expensive, but it can deliver some incredible views. I use mine at dark sky locations with my 300p. I look forward to next month, when I will start get out again for sessions in which I will no doubt be using the filter extensively.

[Rustysplit]

Doh, forgot to mention the North American / Pelican nebs. This was the first time I had seen them.

[swamp thing]

Nice report Alan.

QC was one of the deciding factors of why I went with Lumicon for my filters.

Glad you are enjoying the Panoptic

[SimonfromSussex]

Nicely written & great report Al, both exceptionally good filters.

Considering the Orion is almost half the UK RRP of the Lumicon it was very very good and certainly didn't look half the value!!

I think the Orion was a tiny bit harsher/narrower than the Lumicon so didn't show quite as much nebulosity and perhaps not quite as sharp but we are talking such small margins again.

Did you find the graphs to compare?

[Rustysplit]

Good point Si, the graphs!!

The bandwidth pass of both are very similar, with the Orion being 1-2 nm wider. The difference is in the % of OIII passed. Lumicon claim near 100% whilst Orion have it around 90%. It is this difference which makes the Orion seem "harsher".

[Bart]

Great report Alan. I am surprised that Si considered the Castell to be poor. Mine seems really good and provides detailed views of all objects I use it on.

Me too

My Castell brings out nice structure in the Veil and other appropriate targets. The others may be better, I'm not in a position to say, never having used them, but the Castell certainly isn't rubbish

Barry

[Rustysplit]

It seems that perhaps Si just got a duff one then. That old QC really does appear to be the limiting factor with filters.

I did not want to say that Castell were rubbish as a brand, only that Si's one was way clear of the mark. Apologies if any one was offended.

[Bart]

No, hope no one was offended. Just relaying our experiences. I'd still like to get a lumicon though

Barry

[bish]

Shane, I think that is the issue with the cheaper filters, some are very good, others are very poor. When we both had a look the other week, the Castell showed literally nothing Quality control I suspect can be hit or miss/non existent

Same with some makes of camera lens. Maybe I'll take a punt on the castell and flog it if I get a bad one. My Antares LPR shows the veil (but very faint) from my back garden. I would expect any Oiii that's not a poor copy to be an improvement (although probably not too major).