Filters for the moon

[ve1drg]

I was out observing last night and yes it was a full moon.  Or at least looked like it was.

It was very bright and when there was moment when I had nothing to do,  I decided to look at the moon.  Wow.  I just about blinded myself.

Do people use filters of sun glasses to look at the moon?  If it is filters,  was are the colors or numbers or whatever. 

Thanks..

[John]

I don't use a filter on the moon at all Ted - even with my 12" scope. Once you get the magnification up a bit - say beyond 100x, the glare subsides and I find the lunar surface quite comfortable to observe and I've seen very fine details on it.

I know others do like to use a filter though so I guess this might be a personal preference thing   

[Moonshane]

I tend to observe the moon unfiltered too even with my 16" scope and as John says you just need more magnification or just time for your pupil to contract. it's a bit like stepping out into a sunny beach from your cool dark apartment, it takes a minute or so to acclimatise then too.

when more than 50% illuminated, I find a Baader neodymium filter helps with contrast.

[swamp thing]

I'm another that doesn't use filters on the moon. I'm completely comfortable observing it without them. I don't find it hurts my eyes or makes them uncomfortable in any way.

If it hurts your eyes......filter it. If not....don't bother. That's my take.

[nightfisher]

If you feel you need a filter then a ND96 makes a good choice, just takes the glare of a tiny bit, i use one but not very often

[Luke]

I sometimes use a variable polarizing filter on the the moon, to take the edge off the brightness. I sometimes use the filter on planets as well if they seem very bright to me. On the other hand, my other half Sarah tends to prefer the unfiltered view, so it just goes to show it's a personal thing rather than the scope etc! There are sometimes details I just can't see unfiltered on planets that Sarah can see unfiltered. I think the polar ice cap on Mars was one example. I absolutely could not see it unfiltered, Sarah could see it no problem.

[Reeny]

I have a moon filter to use on the 9mm Plossl only (at 77x maginfication)

To be honest - it doesn't do much.

It reduces the light slightly (about 10-15% maybe)

and it might help with the contrast a little bit.

At the end of the day it is another piece of glass to put between you and the object.

My worry is that Plossl + Barlow + Filter will give you one more chance of errors and distortion.

So at 140x I don't bother -  it's not worth the trouble of unscrewing and swapping over to a new lens.

The light reduction at the higher magnification seems to work like a telephoto lens on my old camera.

The higher the magnification = the narrower the view through the eyepiece = less light transmitted.

[Pig]

I have a Crystalview 2" moon filter that I use,  but as with the other suggestions above there is no real need to use one, it can be surprisingly bright though 

[rwilkey]

I nearly always use fixed density Moon filters, the two I most use are the Baader ND96 (0.9) (13% light transmission) and the Lumicon ND96 (0.6) (25% light transmission).  I prefer to use one or the other most of the time when looking at the Moon.

[Herbig]

Of course the other option is to stop down the aperture. Some newts have a small cap on the dust cap specially for this purpose.

[RichieP]

Of course the other option is to stop down the aperture. Some newts have a small cap on the dust cap specially for this purpose.

You will, of course, lose resolution if you do this as you are effectively turning your scope into a smaller aperture scope. A filter is the best bet if you must reduce the brightness.