CCD Filter Help needed.

[ribuck]

Hi All,

I just need some help understanding the difference between these 2 different filter sets. i'm guessing they are fairly similar but there seems to be one heck of a price difference and just wanted to check what makes the astronomik filters cost £74 more which is nearly 40% more expensive.

Guess what i'm really asking is there such a big difference that it's worth the extra investment.

I'm planning to use them with a starlight Xpress SXVF-M9 and a 8" Newt Reflector.

Astronomik LRGB TYP II Set (1.25 Inch) Filters £199

True Technology Type 2 LRGB Set (1.25 Inch) Filters £125

Thanks,

Ribuck

[Andrew*]

I've often been skeptical of the value of astronomik filters which across the board are more expensive than most alternatives (although there are of course some more expensive), but I think I've got to the bottom of the reason for their price.

One thing I'm almost certain sets the two you mention apart is that Astronomik filters within reason are indestructible! They have very tough coatings that will withstand cleaning - hence long lasting.

They also have excellent light throughput (speaking from experience from comparing the OIII filter versus Baader's). I think they are also parfocal - no change to the focus point.

Andrew

[bern]

One thing I'm almost certain sets the two you mention apart is that Astronomik filters within reason are indestructible! They have very tough coatings that will withstand cleaning - hence long lasting.

That's for sure, the Astronomik filter designer said he once left a filter outside for a year as a test, it cleaned up perfectly!

Another point is that the level of IR suppression is better in the Astronomiks than the True Techs, which I believe are no longer made.

bern

[ribuck]

Think i'll just stick with a cheap baader set to start off with until i get really into it.

[Plastic chicken]

I`ve got the Astronomic LRGB filters and love them. You get what you pay for in this hobby. Ok there not Astrodons but i`ve always been happy with mine!!!

PC

[ribuck]

Yeah I agree, you do get what you pay for but i just got a great deal on a mx916 and if i spend too much more money i will wake up with no testicles, so i best keep her happy and just go with the baader one's and then come up with a grand scheme to sneakily trade them for the astronomik ones in the future when she's not looking...lol.

[Whippy]

Yeah I agree, you do get what you pay for but i just got a great deal on a mx916 and if i spend too much more money i will wake up with no testicles, so i best keep her happy and just go with the baader one's and then come up with a grand scheme to sneakily trade them for the astronomik ones in the future when she's not looking...lol.

Quite! :shock:

I recently bought the Baader ones and although I've only used them once, they seem to do the job (for now ) and they're also parfocal which is very handy. Just be aware though that the filter ring is a bit thicker than some other makes and might cause problems when they get used in some filter wheels.

Tony..

[ribuck]

Thanks tony, i'll make sure i buy the filters and the filterwheel from the same place so that if there any problems i can send them back.

[narrowbandpaul]

I dont believe that parfocality is a property of filters...

the baader should be absolutely fine, just make sure that the O[iII] emission line doesnt occur on the gap betwwen the blue and green filters. With some filters this is a problem.

The statement that you get what you pay for isnt always true.

For example the astrodon filters are very expensive and not any better than the baader ones for example...although im referring to narrowband filters

[ribuck]

Filter are affected. Unless filters are specifically parafocal, you would need to refocus for different ones. For example, If i used the baader RGB filters, if i then swapped to a different brand filter for something like the Ha, i would expect to have to refocus.

In the past, as far as i'm aware even filter sets like RGB weren't parafocal, but they tend to be these days.