Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_beauty_night_skies.thumb.jpg.2711ade15e31d01524e7dc52d15c4217.jpg

GavStar

Lumicon oiii filters - important information

Recommended Posts

Here, for comparative purposes, is the transmission-graph for the Astronomik OIII visual filter one:

 

5944752a48f13_AstronomikOIIIspectra..png.5fa7ceb080954da2da3d9abaf5fc553b.png

 

Zip ------------------------------------>

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a number of O-III filters band pass graphs bought together for comparison:

 

o3a.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lordy, John - where on Earth (or anywhere!) did you find THIS?! Or did YOU create this work of ART+++!?

I Stand Amazed!

Dave a Filter-Nut (deferring)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm wondering whether I dodged a bullet or not. What do you think @John or @Dave In Vermont ?

This was the Filter report included in our February purchase...

It's not exactly the same as the one posted by Dave given it also shows passes at the 420nm mark. But then again so did some on the graph you posted John. What do you think chaps ? 

image.thumb.jpg.090e2f83c6001f891fbba0fabb3cbbfd.jpg

 

image.jpg

Edited by Racey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

Lordy, John - where on Earth (or anywhere!) did you find THIS?! Or did YOU create this work of ART+++!?

I Stand Amazed!

Dave a Filter-Nut (deferring)

I think it's Jim Thompson's measurement done in 2000:smiley: As seen on the graph. You can find many of these graphs here:

http://www.karmalimbo.com/aro/pics/filters/

The one linked by John is namned O3a.jpg

I posted a question on CN about reading these graphs, Jim gave his comments in the end of the thread.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/512332-ranking-of-uhc-filters-by-this-chart/?hl=%2Bfilter+%2Branking#entry6787299

23 minutes ago, Racey said:

Well, I'm wondering whether I dodged a bullet or not. What do you think @John or @Dave In Vermont ?

This was the Filter report included in our February purchase...

It's not exactly the same as the one posted by Dave given it also shows passes at the 420nm mark. But then again so did some on the graph you posted John. What do you think chaps ? 

image.thumb.jpg.090e2f83c6001f891fbba0fabb3cbbfd.jpg

 

The FWHM for your filter is around 12nm (50% transmission is about from 492nm to 504nm), a very good narrow range, transmission for OIII lines (496nm and 501nm, however, is a bit lower (around 90%) than we usually than top Lunimicon OIII.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Racey said:

Well, I'm wondering whether I dodged a bullet or not. What do you think @John or @Dave In Vermont ?

This was the Filter report included in our February purchase...

It's not exactly the same as the one posted by Dave given it also shows passes at the 420nm mark. But then again so did some on the graph you posted John. What do you think chaps ? 

image.thumb.jpg.090e2f83c6001f891fbba0fabb3cbbfd.jpg

 

image.jpg

My initial reaction (sorry to have to say this) is that this looks more like the chart for a lower cost O-III :undecided:

The peak of the O-III lines should be at 90% plus and the top of the curve should be flatter - the flatter top, with sharper cut off edges high up the pass % scale gives better contrast as I understand it.

The chart you have posted looks more like the one for Skywatcher O-III filters, which work, but are not to the traditional Lumicon quality IMHO.

 

 

Edited by John
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Thanks John. I appreciate the candour. That's pretty much what Susie and I thought. 

I'm sanguine as we managed to get it for $99, so it may be annoying, but it wasn't as costly as some might be finding...

Which might you recommend if we wanted to ensure we got a top quality one ? Astronomik?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought my 2" o111 in 2014 but they exchanged it in March 2016 because of a fault with its fitting, ( there's a thread about it on here somewhere.) This is the one I received back. I presume it's still the older version?IMG_2383.thumb.JPG.f8d7ce0191da146b39806c13586daa2c.JPG

Edited by Scooot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scooot -

I can't tell much from it's box, the time-line of March, 2016 is prior to Lumicon going under, so your's should be fine.

I have made a Pdf. of an excellent article available on the net: ASTRONOMICAL FILTERS SPECTRAL TRANSMISSION. This has a great many transmission-graphs for many types of filters from many different sources. So grab a copy and add it to your files:

ASTRONOMICAL FILTERS SPECTRAL TRANSMISSION.pdf

So what are you waiting for? Give yourself a crash-course in Filter-Spectra, and bore your friends' to tears! :D 

Well off to check in on CN. See if they've finished building the scaffold for the hanging of Lumicon.....

Dave

 

 

Edited by Dave In Vermont
sp.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, YKSE said:

I think it's Jim Thompson's measurement done in 2000:smiley: As seen on the graph. You can find many of these graphs here:

http://www.karmalimbo.com/aro/pics/filters/

The one linked by John is namned O3a.jpg

I posted a question on CN about reading these graphs, Jim gave his comments in the end of the thread.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/512332-ranking-of-uhc-filters-by-this-chart/?hl=%2Bfilter+%2Branking#entry6787299

The FWHM for your filter is around 12nm (50% transmission is about from 492nm to 504nm), a very good narrow range, transmission for OIII lines (496nm and 501nm, however, is a bit lower (around 90%) than we usually than top Lunimicon OIII.

This is the shape of the preferred Lumicon OIII

Lumicon_OIII_SM.jpg

Edited by jetstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scooot said:

I bought my 2" o111 in 2014 but they exchanged it in March 2016 because of a fault with its fitting, ( there's a thread about it on here somewhere.) This is the one I received back. I presume it's still the older version?IMG_2383.thumb.JPG.f8d7ce0191da146b39806c13586daa2c.JPG

So you exchanged your OIII for an Hb?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jetstream said:

So you exchanged your OIII for an Hb?

I wasn't going to say a word! :D

But I gave the benefit of the doubt a photo of the wrong box was taken. These things happen! :p

By the by - Lumicon is smoldering along nicely over in the flames of....er....in CN! :cheesy:

<koff!>

Dave

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Racey said:

@John Thanks John. I appreciate the candour. That's pretty much what Susie and I thought. 

I'm sanguine as we managed to get it for $99, so it may be annoying, but it wasn't as costly as some might be finding...

Which might you recommend if we wanted to ensure we got a top quality one ? Astronomik?

I'd try and get either one of the good Lumicons (because when they are good, they are really good) or an Astronomik.

The Lumicons in 2" were usually around £200+ new I seem to recall so $99 is one of those "if it seems to good to be true ..." deals I fear :rolleyes2:

Edited by John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John said:

I'd try and get either one of the good Lumicons (because when they are good, they are really good) or an Astronomik.

The Lumicons in 2" were usually around £200+ new I seem to recall so $99 is one of those "if it seems to good to be true ..." deals I fear :rolleyes2:

It was a 1.25" direct from Lumicon. They are still charging $200 for the 2". 

Neither @Mrs Racey nor I are gullible enough to be taken in by a "too good to be true" deal John. This was bought directly from Lumicon with everything we read giving assurances that the new owners were maintaining everything as it had been prior to their purchase. 

I've taken what we  are referring to as our "Lumicon Comet Filter"  out of our filter wheel this afternoon, and it will be replaced with an Astronomik Oiii as you suggest. Thanks for the recommendation...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Racey said:

It was a 1.25" direct from Lumicon. They are still charging $200 for the 2". 

Neither @Mrs Racey nor I are gullible enough to be taken in by a "too good to be true" deal John. This was bought directly from Lumicon with everything we read giving assurances that the new owners were maintaining everything as it had been prior to their purchase. 

I've taken what we  are referring to as our "Lumicon Comet Filter"  out of our filter wheel this afternoon, and it will be replaced with an Astronomik Oiii as you suggest. Thanks for the recommendation...

I can understand your strong annoyance Simon. I didn't realise it was a 1.25" filter. Reading what has been going on here (including the Cloudynights posts) is very dissapointing. I don't know how the new owners of the Lumicon brand think they can get away with pushing out a 2nd rate product - they should know that highly active forums such as SGL and CN with knowlegeable members will see straight through this sort of thing and ring alarm bells, as is now happening.

They have also undermined what was a notable name in astro equipment :undecided:

I hope you get prompt redress from the supplier and can find a good replacement.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread and I hope that Lumicon has not 'shot itself in the foot'.

I bought Lumicon UHC and O-III filters which were produced in Livermore CA 94550 so the original - photo below showing the O-III. Its ironic that my Son now lives in Livermore CA with the same zip code.

At the same time I also bought an Astronomik O-III filter which I have to say I preferred. I have now sold the Lumicon although I kept the Lumicon UHC. My main O-III remains an Astronomik.

My only conclusion if you have any doubt about the new Lumicon filter I would simply buy an Astronomik - well that is my opinion.

O-III filter.JPG

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tmp_16348-DSC_05661769410248.thumb.JPG.4f43f11d787fff7fac613e056702becc.JPG

tmp_16348-DSC_0564867480932.thumb.JPG.457baaa234c88717f948327836b50224.JPG

As reported earlier here, these arrived end of April from TS. Entirely unburdened by knowledge of filters, I guess I will just have to see what the O-III does for me over time...

:rolleyes2:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, iPeace said:

tmp_16348-DSC_05661769410248.thumb.JPG.4f43f11d787fff7fac613e056702becc.JPG

tmp_16348-DSC_0564867480932.thumb.JPG.457baaa234c88717f948327836b50224.JPG

As reported earlier here, these arrived end of April from TS. Entirely unburdened by knowledge of filters, I guess I will just have to see what the O-III does for me over time...

:rolleyes2:

The Oiii looks good to me! I used my new 'old' one last night on the Veil Nebula and it gave great views. I'm very happy with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The filter stats for my Lumicon 2" OIII filter, which have received use for several years are

486mm Hydrogen Beta N/A

496mm Oxygen III      96.3

501mm Oxygen III      97.0

656mm Hydrogen Beta  N/A 

      

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jetstream said:

So you exchanged your OIII for an Hb?

Nope, it was meant to be an OIII, so I guess I've been tricked, or diddled, maybe a genuine mistake. Today is the first time I've looked at the box, and I don't use it very much. Unless of course it's just the box that's wrong?

Ps

i'm not at home to look at the moment but I think from memory the filter itself is marked as oxygen III, so I reckon it's just been sent back in the wrong box. I only have two filters and the other is an astronomic Uhc.

another edit. Thanks for pointing it out Gerry, I had no idea it was HB filter box until you mentioned it, not even when it was staring me in the face this morning :) I hope I at least have the right filter.

Edited by Scooot
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that the representative of 'Lumicon-in-name-only' over in CN stated people can send their filters to them and they'd scan it's transmission-details and send a report to the sender. Absolutely free. Notably absent was any indication of how you'd get the thing back - or what you'd get back. Maybe a cucumber-sandwich on rye with horseradish & carpenter-ants? :dontknow:

I'm not recommending that you do such.

The mess is getting deeper in my opinion. Dark-days for a filter-nut.....

Dave

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that the Lumicon brand regains it's status quickly though products that deserve that name.

I used my Lumicon O-III filter (around 3-4 years old) tonight to show my astro society buddies the Veil Nebula with my ED120 refractor and they were bowled over by the views, as was I in all honesty. The contrast enhancement was really impressive (the nebula was practically invisible without a filter even with 12" scopes from the observing location tonight) and stars still looked plentiful and star-like. Worth the price for those views alone IMHO :smiley:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John said:

I sincerely hope that the Lumicon brand regains it's status quickly though products that deserve that name.

I used my Lumicon O-III filter (around 3-4 years old) tonight to show my astro society buddies the Veil Nebula with my ED120 refractor and they were bowled over by the views, as was I in all honesty. The contrast enhancement was really impressive (the nebula was practically invisible without a filter even with 12" scopes from the observing location tonight) and stars still looked plentiful and star-like. Worth the price for those views alone IMHO :smiley:

 

It was reviews and reports like this that encouraged @Mrs Racey and me to go to the trouble that we did and fork out what we did for a supposedly premium filter.

Thus far, on the few occasions we have used the Lumicon Oiii filter without the sort of amazing results you describe John we naturally blamed ourselves for perhaps not pointing the scope correctly or we thought conditions weren't as good as required. 

Now we truly understand what this graph shows and the alteration to manufacturing quality made by the new owners we perhaps have a better understanding of why we don't get the sort of wow factor and results you and your group did. 

For me, such sneaky unpublicised changes to a tried and tested product, while maintaining premium pricing means a reputation is tarnished for a good while...

An offer of a free test and graph isn't going to placate me when it appears I paid a premium price for what you and others correctly described as a "run of the mill" Oiii. 

$100 is a bit rich for what turns out to be only a Comet Tail or an alternative to a polariser on our White Light Solar Wedge set up...

46B8E16E-2C81-4F1F-AAA6-ACE60BC7DDB0-2182-000001BF2F956173.jpeg.a5fdc0dc31806b967089ec8d72aabcb2.jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only agree with you Simon. I've had some recent data from a reliable source in the USA that the Astronomik O-III is now, with the demise (hopefully temporary) of the previously high Lumicon standards, the best quality option. Apparently Astronomik have actually improved the performance of their O-III over the past couple of years so it should do even better than the one that I used to own a few years back , and that was a really effective filter.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John we'll be able to let you know Sir in a few days. We placed an order for an Astronomik one yesterday... :thumbsup:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.