OIII. Lumicon vs Astronomik vs TV bandmate vs Baader

[bomberbaz]

 I have a baader version at the moment which according to the filter has a 8nm bandwidth. The current version on FLO website advert claims to be 10nm. 

So given my apparent current 8nm bandpass is the difference going to be worth it if I decided to upgrade. 

The Lumicon appears to be to be just 6 nm, I cannot find details for Astronomik or TV.

I found this review http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/user-reviews/accessories/accessories1405754339/forbidden-lines-mini-oiii-filter-shootout-r2057although at 6 years old and not withstanding the apparent change in bandwidth on the OIII Baader filter, I do not think this is very reliable although as always and expected the TV product rates highly. 

Your thoughts ?

Steve

[John]

The Baader seems to have had a consistently narrower pass width than almost all other O-III filters. A little too harsh for my taste. The Astronomik is a little wider than the Lumicon but both are really excellent. The Tele Vue O-III Bandmate has a pretty wide band pass I believe, wider than the Astronomik. I expect it's well made but might not prove as effective in medium to larger aperture scopes.

I'd tend to steer you towards the Lumicon because it's got such a fearsomly good reputation with all who use it. They do cost a bit more though   

[bomberbaz]

The Baader seems to have had a consistently narrower pass width than almost all other O-III filters. A little too harsh for my taste. The Astronomik is a little wider than the Lumicon but both are really excellent. The Tele Vue O-III Bandmate has a pretty wide band pass I believe, wider than the Astronomik. I expect it's well made but might not prove as effective in medium to larger aperture scopes.

I'd tend to steer you towards the Lumicon because it's got such a fearsomly good reputation with all who use it. They do cost a bit more though 

I do have a SW UHC filter John, so I see that as my broader bandpass filter which is why I was looking at other possibilities. However if the information is correct then the Lumicon is even narrower than the Baader at 6nm vs 8nm. So if you feel the Baader a little harsh, then surely the Lumicon would be even more so or am I (probably) missing something here. 

Steve

[bomberbaz]

Forgot about this, if you compare the filter curves it backs up the Lumicon being a very narrow banded filter indeed. Pity baader isnt on there but this helps.

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm#Lumicon[OIII]

Time to do more studying and research. 

[jetstream]

Hi Steve, research is fun, but I echo Johns sentiments- get the Lumicon OIII and also their UHC eventually.Here is the Baader...it only hits one OIII line really and at not too high of transmission. YKSE provided this link a while back http://www.reinervogel.net/index.html?/Filter/Filter_UHC.html

[John]

I do have a SW UHC filter John, so I see that as my broader bandpass filter which is why I was looking at other possibilities. However if the information is correct then the Lumicon is even narrower than the Baader at 6nm vs 8nm. So if you feel the Baader a little harsh, then surely the Lumicon would be even more so or am I (probably) missing something here. 

Steve

I don't know about the figures or the charts Steve but IMHO the Lumicon O-III is the best O-III there is. Astronomik is very, very close as well.

I did own a Baader O-III for a short while and a Celestron O-III which is the same filter. I found both just too harsh for me (ie: too much dimming of background stars while the Astronomik and the Lumicon have done nothing but impress each time I've used them.

[bomberbaz]

Ok more information, thnaks Don Pensack. (in danger of turning into a blog this)

I had missed something, it is of course not only down to the bandwidth of the filter but also the transamission in which the filter operates. Just past halfway down this page (thanks Don), there arew posted some charts made of the bandwidth and transmission which shows the Lumicon to be a front runner.

In the link I posted here however, http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm#the difference between Lumicon and Astronomic are not so clear cut and if anything, favour the Astronomic version

[rwilkey]

Hi Steve, I have the Lumicon and can highly recommend it.  I do not take any notice of bandwidth charts as I cannot relate to them.  But I can only vouch for the practicle use of the Lumicon, and it works very well.

[bomberbaz]

Thanks Gerry, John and Robin. Seems you guys all posted at once whilst I was in the middle of seemingly reaching the same or similar conclusion as you guys. 

[Stu]

Just to back up the Baader comments, Faulksy, Swampthing and I used both Baader and Lumicon in 14" and 16" scopes on the Crescent nebula at SGLX and the Lumicon was definitely better, showed brighter nebulosity and better contrast.

[Mike73]

Steve have you got specific targets in mind which makes you want to upgrade your OIII before your UHC?

Unless I know that the target I want to look at will respond to OIII my goto filter is always a decent UHC type filter (something like the Omega NPB works very well alongside Lumicon/Astronomik OIII's).

[bomberbaz]

Ni Mike. Specific things to look at are planetary nebulae and I simply want to get more out of my pretty crappy viewing from my over light polluted garden. I made a post ref top 100 planetary nebulae and it got me thinking quite hard. It has brought me to think that perhaps I am not getting as much out of my garden as I could be doing.

Of course I know nothing really beats dark skies but I have not always got that options. However viewing from my garden is something I can do on a more regular basis. Also I am just in the process of upgrading a few other bits and so well is now the time to get a better filter. I have had this one nearly 3 years, it has been well used and looked after and maybe now is the time.

Steve

[John]

Ni Mike. Specific things to look at are planetary nebulae and I simply want to get more out of my pretty crappy viewing from my over light polluted garden. I made a post ref top 100 planetary nebulae and it got me thinking quite hard. It has brought me to think that perhaps I am not getting as much out of my garden as I could be doing....

Thats just how my approach has changed over the past 10 months or so Steve. While my garden still is far from optimum for deep sky observing with a bit of planning and some patience in waiting for objects to get to my better bits of sky I've been pleasantly suprised at what I've been able to achieve deep sky-wise

I doubt that the Horsehead Nebula is possible from my back yard but lots of interesting galaxies, nebulae and clusters are visible - far more than I thought.

[Mike73]

Yeah completely understand Steve.

I don't really observe DSO's from home but the only ones that I do are PN's, even the smaller, dimmer PN's can handle LP and even moonlight.

Where some of the more aggressive OIII's are very good at dimming background star fields making little PN's easy to spot they can also dim the actual PN aswell (maybe something to do with smaller exit pupil?).

More often than not I'II use a OIII with low power EP's and UHC with medium and high powers.

Smaller PN's can also handle ridiculous amounts of magnification, at x200 a small PN can appear almost stellar but at x500 or more you'll see differences in contrast inside and you'll pick out its shell or lobes.

One last thing is PN's are quirky little objects, chuck everything you have at them and experiment! 

[bomberbaz]

Thats just how my approach has changed over the past 10 months or so Steve. While my garden still is far from optimum for deep sky observing with a bit of planning and some patience in waiting for objects to get to my better bits of sky I've been pleasantly suprised at what I've been able to achieve deep sky-wise

Yeah completely understand Steve.

I don't really observe DSO's from home but the only ones that I do are PN's, even the smaller, dimmer PN's can handle LP and even moonlight.

Where some of the more aggressive OIII's are very good at dimming background star fields making little PN's easy to spot they can also dim the actual PN aswell (maybe something to do with smaller exit pupil?).

More often than not I'II use a OIII with low power EP's and UHC with medium and high powers.

Smaller PN's can also handle ridiculous amounts of magnification, at x200 a small PN can appear almost stellar but at x500 or more you'll see differences in contrast inside and you'll pick out its shell or lobes.

Seems we are on similar wavelengths gentlemen.

One last thing is PN's are quirky little objects, chuck everything you have at them and experiment! 

Now you REALLY ARE talking my kinda language 

I will have a play around next time conditions allow, first stop, any PN 

[Northern Soul man]

Hi Steve, Great Thread - I was out the other night and just bought the scopes out of summer "Hibernation" - I was just using the 5" Mak on Saturday night, my skies are far from dark, just living a mile or so from Dudley to the North and Birmingham over to the East (about 8 miles or so) a  typical light polluted site - using the 5" I have to factor in the smaller aperture, smaller diagonal, slightly longer focal length, differing levels of light pollution (the farther you go up the sky, the darker it gets) - so you can see the list of "variables" - these are going to be very different from gazer to gazer, set up to set up and location to location.

I've never observed from a truly dark site - the majority of the time - like you - from my back garden - I only tend to use the Lumicon OIII and the Baader UHC - S (both 1.25 format) and have probably the same approach as Robin - I think the main thing to judge with all these line and broadband filters is that the amount of contrast each one gives - the line filters are really excellent contrast "boosters" - the Dumbell - even through the 5" with the O III is just stunning compared to the un - filtered view, showing depth in the contrast even right out to the outer edges with very subtle changes in the levels of contrast clearly visible - but as soon as your eye moves off the object - the background sky looks black with very few stars visible - just adding to the overall contrast, at the cost of a more natural FOV, but the averted vision just seems to add to the level of contrast - very impressive - if you want to see detail in the object in question - and not the star fields surrounding it.

Here's where the UHC - S comes into play - giving a much brighter background with many more stars visible - a more natural look (if you can call a filtered view more natural) but at the cost of object contrast - still much more contrast over the un - filtered view - but a more natural FOV.

Paul.

[estwing]

i have the lumicon steve...its not had much use but my,oh,my when I have used it....

[DirkSteele]

I could probably Google this, but am feeling a little lazy today and why not rely on the collective knowledge of SGL?  Are there any retailers of the Lumicon OIII filter in the UK (or perhaps Europe)?

[bomberbaz]

I could probably Google this, but am feeling a little lazy today and why not rely on the collective knowledge of SGL?  Are there any retailers of the Lumicon OIII filter in the UK (or perhaps Europe)?

Just tried rother valley but they are out of stock. I cannot find another UK supplier with stock. Bit stuck as to go for a astronomik which is slight 2nd best or try abroad 

[rockystar]

I've had a look around this German site recently, not purchased anything from them though:

http://www.astroshop.eu/oiii-filters/lumicon-oiii-filter-1-25-/p,6744

[Mike73]

TS have them in stock.

I recently bought a 2" Astronomik OIII from Rothervalley, tough decision deciding between that and the Lumicon but went with Astronomik as its not quite so aggressive which I prefer.

[Mr Spock]

I was recently fortunate enough to see the veil (not visible in my LP) through a Lumicon. Most impressive.

[bomberbaz]

teleskop express have the lumicon, more expensive and there is the postal waiting, the astronomika is there or thereabouts but not quite and would i regret not going the extra bit for the lumicon. I really cannot make up my mind.

Mike73, what scope do you use incidentally?

Steve

[Mike73]

teleskop express have the lumicon, more expensive and there is the postal waiting, the astronomika is there or thereabouts but not quite and would i regret not going the extra bit for the lumicon. I really cannot make up my mind.

Mike73, what scope do you use incidentally?

Steve

Yeah I don't think theres much between them, I think you'd have to have good eyes and transparent skies to pick them apart.

I'm using a OOUK VX12L now Steve.

[Northern Soul man]

Was out again last night with my little Mak - punched in the Veil on the Handset and you know, with the Lumicon O III and a 40mm Meade Super Plossl and allowing a while to get as dark adapted as I could with my "Hoodie" draped forward over my head and the Moon below the roof of an house to my South (yeah I know a 50 year old in a hoodie!!) - you know, with a general sweep of the surrounding area I could make out  the brighter parts - showing a nice "line" against the background sky - now I know before you jump in - the tight FOV with the Mak - you need to sweep - Also, I don't own or have never looked through a frac - so I have to put up with a very narrow FOV - so nothing like the views from a truly dark site and a relatively small FOV against a few degrees you would get from a frac - but a very good challenge non the less.

I know its very challenging from brighter skies, but to a certain extent we all have to put up with this - just nice to know that with a little practice, patience and a few tips, its just great to get out in your garden and still do some great observing - the challenge, for me, is just trying to "tease" out these very faint Nebulae - yes I know that the really good observations are going to be from truly dark skies - which I have never seen - but just seeing these faint objects from very light polluted skies makes me just go out time after time and set up - I know that the majority are only featureless wisps of "fog" but spend a little time on each one - the light has been travelling from each one for such a long time - so surely they are worthy candidates for a minute or two at the EP.

Paul.