Lumicon oiii filters - important information

[GavStar]

It's just been confirmed that the latest lumicon oiii filters have a significantly wider passband than the previous ones and are more like a uhc rather than an oiii.

link to cn thread attached which gives more details and confirmation from new owners of lumicon

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/580780-help-me-understand-my-lumicon-oiii-scan-report/?p=7941861

[John]

Thats dissapointing news in many ways

Interesting quote from the new owner (I think that is correct ?) of the Lumicon brand:

".. I would tend to cherish your older Lumicon OIII filters as it may not be a near term possibility to return to that tighter FWHM without doubling the price..."

[jetstream]

8 minutes ago, Gavster said:

It's just been confirmed that the latest lumicon oiii filters have a significantly wider passband than the previous ones and are more like a uhc rather than an oiii.

link to cn thread attached which gives more details and confirmation from new owners of lumicon

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/580780-help-me-understand-my-lumicon-oiii-scan-report/?p=7941861

I'm not positive Gavster, but yours look like the original ones....

[GavStar]

5 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I'm not positive Gavster, but yours look like the original ones....

Thank you. Yes Don Pensack has also confirmed this so that's good news. If anyone wants to get a new 'old' lumicon oiii before they become unavailable then I got my 1.25 from telescope express and my 2 from ganymedes in holland (good price there). The 2 was out of stock at telescope express until very recently so they may now have the new version in stock rather than the old version.

[John]

The labels on your filters look very similar to the one on my Lumicon O-III Gavin. Mine is a couple of years old. The figures are the max pass % at those wavelengths but I guess it's only part of the story because the breadth of the pass at each bandwidth is also important and the profile of the taper / cut off at the max % pass point affects the performance.

Mine has "Lumicon Oxygen III  USA" printed around the bezel of the filter itself.

It works excellently

I suspect the new owner of Lumicon is going to come in for some stick if the quality of the new production is lessened

 

 

[Piero]

Thanks a lot for the information!

Just read the thread on CN. Glad that you got one from the previous version.

They should change the name. This does not seem fair to buyers to me.

[Dave In Vermont]

The shift to the C2-bandwidth is a dramatic one. And it really should, as Piero astutely observed above, be called something else. Perhaps a SWAN-OIII Hybrid-Filter? As Don points out in the thread currently unravelling on CN, the 511 & 514nm - bandwidth is good for eliciting detail in the tails of comets if the tails are of a gaseous nature - hence my suggesting these are now also 'SWAN-Filter.'  Anywho - Cary, of the Lumicon representative-fame, should have reported this as happened before being called-out for this by people in CN. If I'd have bought one unknowing about this change and thinking I was getting their trusty, old Lumicon OIII Filter - I'd be livid!

Especially after my interview with Cary some time back had shown that Lumicons' 'recipe' for filters would remain the same after the change of ownership. In my opinion, Lumicon just shot themself in the foot.

I do believe I'll be having a little 'chat' with Cary et al. And tie his shoelaces together.....

Dave - Filter-Nut

 

ps - Here is the thread of myself and Cary of Lumicon in Nov. 2016:

 

Re-reading this, I might tie his shoelaces together - and shout 'FIRE!'

[ronin]

Looking at this site:  http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm#Astronomik Visual OIII

You can see similar on the Astronomic OIII filters. Seems "odd" that the OIII Visual filter is narrower in the OIII then the CCD OIII filter, but the CCD OIII filter is wider and includes a greater proportion of the Hb wavelength. Actually I would have expected the CCD version to be the narrower version and so deliver a few extra wavelengths to the eye.

So Lumicon may simply have decided to produce one broader filter for both applications - reduced production cost. However agreed it is now somewhat misleading unless they put the filter charactoristics up on their site before offering the filters for sale. If they have done that then it is a case of read everything first. I tend to always search out the filter charactoristics before any purchase.

Also one of the vendors who is on CN did an analysis of available filters (not sure which band they used) and found that more then one actually missed the spectral band in question altogether, made amusing reading. Forget which came out as "best" but it was one we do not see in the UK.

Wonder if we are copmplaining of what could not be a problem, and may even be useful as it appears they are still passing the OIII and visually may be getting an additional bit of Hb through and so see more as some Hb now reaches the eye.

However if it is "narrow" that is required the "old" filters had a narrower pass band as they did not imclude the Hb in the transmission.

Need to remember that the Lumicon filter have changed.

 

[Racey]

Hmmm... 

I wonder whether @Mrs Racey and I dodged a bullet in February. I doubt it sadly...

We bought 1.25" variants of the UHC and Oiii filters directly from Lumicon in February of this year, with a chum helping get them to us. 

Thats disappointing as we'd read about the new ownership but had also read assurances the "quality" would be maintained. 

I'm sure they could be argued to be of equal quality, but altering band pass is a whole different thing in my book...

Disappointing if we didn't get what we thought we were buying...

[Racey]

4 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

The shift to the C2-bandwidth is a dramatic one. And it really should, as Piero astutely observed above, be called something else. Perhaps a SWAN-OIII Hybrid-Filter? As Don points out in the thread currently unravelling on CN, the 511 & 514nm - bandwidth is good for eliciting detail in the tails of comets if the tails are of a gaseous nature - hence my suggesting these are now also 'SWAN-Filter.'  Anywho - Cary, of the Lumicon representative-fame, should have reported this as happened before being called-out for this by people in CN. If I'd have bought one unknowing about this change and thinking I was getting their trusty, old Lumicon OIII Filter - I'd be livid!

Especially after my interview with Cary some time back had shown that Lumicons' 'recipe' for filters would remain the same after the change of ownership. In my opinion, Lumicon just shot themself in the foot.

I do believe I'll be having a little 'chat' with Cary et al. And tie his shoelaces together.....

Dave - Filter-Nut

 

ps - Here is the thread of myself and Cary of Lumicon in Nov. 2016:

 

Re-reading this, I might tie his shoelaces together - and shout 'FIRE!'

Remember reading that Dave before pulling the trigger on a couple of purchases from them directly in February. 

I've PM'd you Sir seeking your insight and advice...

[ronin]

Looking at the Lumicon site they are claiming just the 2 OIII Wavelengths being passed and their filter graphs show no Hb transmission at 486nm. So either they are using "old" characteristics or something has gone wrong in production.

Suppose there is the option that these are honest and give the actual transmittance whereas the old ones were a bit optimistic on how narrow they really were.

Would almost say that visually no real problem, imaging then maybe as a slightly wider spectrum is passed then is/was expected.

[John]

The Astronomik Visual O-III has always had a slightly more generous band pass width than the traditional Lumicon O-III. I still found it an excellent filter though and a "one filter solution" for DSO observing for a couple of years.

 

[jetstream]

I'm pretty sure Astronomik tightened their OIII up a bit...

[Davey-T]

Thanks for the heads up Gavin, I've ordered one from Ganymede, Jeroen assures me they've been in stock for a while before the takeover.

After mine there are only 2 left so anyone else prevaricating about getting one needs to be quick.

Dave

[Piero]

35 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Thanks for the heads up Gavin, I've ordered one from Ganymede, Jeroen assures me they've been in stock for a while before the takeover.

After mine there are only 2 left so anyone else prevaricating about getting one needs to be quick.

Dave

Thanks for the heads up Dave!

I'm trying to get one, but the checkout form is complaining about my UK address. Basically it is not setting up the shipping costs. The payment method is also giving me a headache! 

Just sent him an email.

[Davey-T]

28 minutes ago, Piero said:

Thanks for the heads up Dave!

I'm trying to get one, but the checkout form is complaining about my UK address. Basically it is not setting up the shipping costs. The payment method is also giving me a headache! 

Just sent him an email.

No the site is a bit of a nightmare, kept changing back to Dutch and you can't access shipping costs but if you email Jeroen you'll get a quick response.

Did mine by email this morning in 30 mins.

Dave

[Piero]

35 minutes ago, Piero said:

Thanks for the heads up Dave!

I'm trying to get one, but the checkout form is complaining about my UK address. Basically it is not setting up the shipping costs. The payment method is also giving me a headache! 

Just sent him an email.

Yup! Just sorted via paypal. He sent me a receipt. Thanks again for your swift message. 

Just 1 Lumicon OIII left then!  

 

[estwing]

8 hours ago, John said:

The Astronomik Visual O-III has always had a slightly more generous band pass width than the traditional Lumicon O-III. I still found it an excellent filter though and a "one filter solution" for DSO observing for a couple of years.

 

agree John...Astronomik filters are right up there with lumicon...to the casual observer the gap is very hard to spot

[John]

19 minutes ago, estwing said:

...to the casual observer the gap is very hard to spot

What does the experienced observer notice ? 

 

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, John said:

What does the experienced observer notice ? 

 

More contrast.

[John]

18 minutes ago, jetstream said:

More contrast.

If I didn't have an scope with more than 6" aperture then I'd have stuck with the Astronomik O-III I think. Even with the 12" dob the differences between the Astronomik O-III and the Lumicon O-III are far from pronounced but then, my skies could be darker as well

Both great filters with a slightly different way of doing things IMHO

 

[jetstream]

Completely agree John.

The Astronomik will show some things better than the Lumicon, up around the Bubble neb area is an example. It is an exellent filter no question. The Lumicon OIII shows the brighter nebs more pronounced and is superb on the Crescent. They have different personalities IMHO.

Anyone who owns either is fortunate.

[Davey-T]

21 minutes ago, John said:

If I didn't have an scope with more than 6" aperture then I'd have stuck with the Astronomik O-III I think. Even with the 12" dob the differences between the Astronomik O-III and the Lumicon O-III are far from pronounced but then, my skies could be darker as well

Both great filters with a slightly different way of doing things IMHO

 

OTOH if anyone is wanting an original Lumicon O111 they need to get in quick, presumably an Astronomik one will always be available

Dave

[Dave In Vermont]

In that my PM-box is getting questions of "is this a problem?" and "would you buy" and others, I'll say this -

In the USA, at least, if you advertise one thing, but don't actually have it, or you switch it for another, or you steer the customer to a higher priced whatever - you can be taken to court and sent to jail for what are called "Bait & Switch" law violations. It's illegal.

To you Racey: In the thread on CN, Cary states Lumicon will test any filter free-of-charge (I wonder where they gouge you...) and send you a transmission-graph. I'd look into this. Track down Cary/Lumicon and email the daylights out of them.

Would I be concerned if I had bought one of these? I sure as heck would be. 'Livid' was the word I used. But that's me. Will this new filter(s?) work? We have no idea what it does. And I, for one, will not be volunteering my services as a White Mouse in Lumicon's corporate-maze.

It's ironic: When it looked like Lumicon was going down, back in November, my major concern was that there would no longer be a source for the SWAN-Filter - which shows the C2 (Cyanogen) in gaseous comet-tails. And now - looks like Lumicon has combined the SWAN with the OIII-Filter! Maybe. Are these filters they have now any good? Don't ask me - no got. And won't. Cary, in effect, lied through his teeth to me. Now he's engaged in a new tap-dancing routine - saying that to make them like they were - it would cost $600 per filter. Uh huh. And monkey's fly out of my backsides!

So Racey & Dave - my opinion is that I love the Astronomik OIII very much. If you have an older Lumicon OIII, consider yourself fortunate - and don't drop it! It's now an antique.

<grumble> <growl> <snarl> ...

Dave - not a Filter Guinea Pig

[jetstream]

Gavster, sorry to go off topic a few times...here is one more I'll sneak in if its OK. I might try this filter for the heck of it- the Astronomik 12nm HWFM CCD OIII- it just might work well visually.