Sky-watcher filters vs. Baader filters

[emadmoussa]

I can see that the Sky-watcher's O-III and UHC filters are fairly cheaper than their Baader equivalents. Is the cheaper price justified as far as quality and performance are concerned?

Insights are appreciated.

Thanks!

[Sir-Henry]

I don't think the Baader ones would have a leg to stand on

What?

Too soon?

[emadmoussa]

LOL...what?!!

[pmlogg]

I've not used the Skywatcher ones but I bought a set of Baader LRGB, H Alpha, OIII, S2 and then added an H Beta because they were supposed to be parfocal and I didn't want to have to refocus during imaging.  Just last week I had a try with a focus mask fitted.  Cycling through the filters they were all spot on.

[rwilkey]

The Sky Watcher ones are better than the Baader in my view as they are a bit broader than the Baader, which I find too narrow and darken the sky too much.  If you are new to filters I suggest the Sky Watcher.

[John]

The Baader O-III has a narrower band pass width than most other O-III filters and is too harsh for some tastes (including mine). The Baader UHC-S filter, on the other hand, is somewhat more generous in it's band path width is wider than other UHC's which is good for small aperture scopes but not as effective for many than other, "narrower" UHC filters. 

Personally I feel that Baader filters are, in general production terms, a little better than Skywatcher ones but I don't like the narrow band pass width of the Baader O-III. For me, the best lower cost narrowband filter I've used was the Orion (USA) Ultrablock which is a UHC-type filter. It's not the cheapest but it did seem very effective on a wide range of objects.

[emadmoussa]

I had the Baader UHC-S filter and stupidly sold it out of need for some cash and now I regret it My main targets are usually emission nebulae and galaxies and without a filter I find it extremely hard for example bagging the veil or the North American nebula albeit being easy targets. I'm planning on getting both the O-III and UHC for the sake of - like above mentioned - harsh vs. smooth argument as well as 3 different telescopes: 4" and 6" fracs and 10" Dob.

[LDW1]

I can see that the Sky-watcher's O-III and UHC filters are fairly cheaper than their Baader equivalents. Is the cheaper price justified as far as quality and performance are concerned?

Insights are appreciated.

Thanks!

. I have a Celestron UHC filter and on the back of the case it came in is the Baader name etched right into the plastic, so don't be surprised that the Skywatcher filters aren't made by Baader also as both Celestron and Skywatcher are owned by the same company !?

[rwilkey]

. I have a Celestron UHC filter and on the back of the case it came in is the Baader name etched right into the plastic, so don't be surprised that the Skywatcher filters aren't made by Baader also as both Celestron and Skywatcher are owned by the same company !?

I don't doubt that some filters are made by the same company, however the Sky Watcher and the Baader do perform so differently in my opinion.

[LDW1]

I don't doubt that some filters are made by the same company, however the Sky Watcher and the Baader do perform so differently in my opinion.

Maybe they are made by Baader to Skywatcher specs ? Happens all the time with all sorts of things as it is cheaper than designing / building their own ! It's called out sourcing over here !

[chrisbk]

I have the Skywatcher UHC and a 1990's Lumicon UHC filter but not the Baader. Looking for the veil last week in my 80mm APO the old Lumicon was better. The brighter portion ENE of 52 Cygni was definitly easier in the Lumicon even though its seen better days!

[RikM]

The Baader and SkyWatcher filter housings are quite different so I would be surprised if they were the same spec.

I have the SkyWatcher OIII visual filter and it is quite nice. I bought it as a stop-gap because the Astronomik was out of stock but the SkyWatcher is so good that I want to try a side-by-side test against the Astronimk before shelling out close to £200. I have compared to a Castell OIII and this was, to my eyes, indistinguishable from the SkyWatcher.

I have Baader CCD imaging filters and the build quality is a step up from the SkyWatcher certainly but have never used a Baader visual filter.

[Moonshane]

I doubt that these filters will have any noticeable beneficial effect upon galaxies. I have the Castell Oiii and UHC and both are very good. I have a Skywatcher Hbeta and have not really had a chance to use this at a dark site yet. I'd expect the Baader to be better in terms of polish and build quality but like Rik I would only upgrade to Astronomik I think but even then only after I compare them with my Castell.

Personally, I'd recommend the Castell or try to get a used Skywatcher initially.

[cotterless45]

I'd go for the Skywatcher. It's very user friendly and is great taking the glare off planets. It's bang for bucks and shows the Veil up beautifully.

I borrowed a broadband Lumicon filter, but it cut most of the view out. Very useful if you need to part with money,

Nick.