Jump to content


Photo

OIII Filter Choice

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 rick-SeMI

rick-SeMI

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Michigan - USA

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:00 AM

Does anyone know of a site that shows the spectrum (wavelength) in nm that is allowed for the different OIII filters ?
Right now my choice for OIII is either the Baader, Lumicon or Orion 1.25 inch filters.

M97 the Owl Nebula is the target with an Orion XT10i.
Which OIII filter would be best suited for this one?

I figure if it is good for M97, it should be pretty good for the other nebula's ?

Thanks

#2 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23120
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:19 AM

There are many websites that show test results for particular filters, but in the case of your 3 choices, from wide at the top of the list to narrow at the bottom, they are:
Orion (about 15nm, IIRC)
Lumicon (about 12nm)
Baader (about 8.5nm)

The Baader "clips" the 496nm O-III line at about 50% transmission, but since the primary emission in the O-III lines is at 501nm, that doesn't seem to hurt that much.
Frankly, all 3 filters are good, so you won't lose with any of them.
But the Baader will likely give the maximum contrast.

In a small scope, the extremely narrow bandwidth will darken the sky and stars and make the field perhaps unaesthetically dark.
Sometimes there is a reason for a slightly wider bandwidth.
Not only do we want an enhanced nebula image--sometimes the "context" is important, too.

#3 Ernest_SPB

Ernest_SPB

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2010
  • Loc: St.-Petersburg, Russia

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:40 AM

I find Baader OIII too much dark for visual application.

It looks cutting some quote of useful light from OIII objects. I had possibility to compare it with Lumicon and saw that the last produced brighter and more contrast image over the most OIII nebulae.

OIII from Baader is preferred by my collegue who deal with astronomical photography.

#4 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13776
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:43 AM

I find Baader OIII too much dark for visual application.

It looks cutting some quote of useful light from OIII objects. I had possibility to compare it with Lumicon and saw that the last produced brighter and more contrast image over the most OIII nebulae.

OIII from Baader is preferred by my collegue who deal with astronomical photography.


The Baader O-III works extremely good on the Veil and other targets. I own the Celestron which is the Baader re-branded. The Lumicon indeed has a wider bandpass as I did a test with a friend in a dark sky situation, and I found the Lumicon slightly better on M-17 and a few other targets. However, I see no point in selling off my Celestron / Baader O-III for a touch wider bandpass.

The Baader O-III would be a good choice if you're on a budget, The Orion the same and the Lumicon is the filter of choice over ALL others IMHO if you don't mind spending top dollar for all of your gear....and we all know it can get rather costly.

One more thing to take into consideration is the 2" filter threads. Some of them are funky and screwing them onto eyepieces in the dark can be a battle in frustration. For now I am putting my Celestron O-III and Orion Ultrablock on extension tubes so I don't have to screw them onto eyepieces.

Dyslexic Nam, (Shaun), has his filters on a 2" Orion Filter Wheel, which I may end up going with.

SEE HERE

You can also get an Astrocrumb Filter Slide which is also a great way to change filters.

SEE HERE ALSO

There are many websites that show test results for particular filters, but in the case of your 3 choices, from wide at the top of the list to narrow at the bottom, they are:
Orion (about 15nm, IIRC)
Lumicon (about 12nm)
Baader (about 8.5nm)

The Baader "clips" the 496nm O-III line at about 50% transmission, but since the primary emission in the O-III lines is at 501nm, that doesn't seem to hurt that much.
Frankly, all 3 filters are good, so you won't lose with any of them.
But the Baader will likely give the maximum contrast.

In a small scope, the extremely narrow bandwidth will darken the sky and stars and make the field perhaps unaesthetically dark.
Sometimes there is a reason for a slightly wider bandwidth.
Not only do we want an enhanced nebula image--sometimes the "context" is important, too.


Don Pensack is absolutely right. :waytogo:

Cheers,

Attached Files



#5 Traveler

Traveler

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:06 PM

Don't forget to look for an Astronomik OIII filter as well.

#6 rick-SeMI

rick-SeMI

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Michigan - USA

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:24 PM

Don,

Found a few spectrum diagrams.
OIII Group A, B and Narrow Band


http://www.karmalimb...filters/o3a.jpg

http://www.karmalimb...filters/o3b.jpg

http://www.karmalimb...ters/narrow.jpg

#7 rick-SeMI

rick-SeMI

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Michigan - USA

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:27 PM

Markus,
The Lumicon OIII which normally sells for $140 is on sale for $99.95 :)

#8 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15627
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:58 PM

Does anyone know of a site that shows the spectrum (wavelength) in nm that is allowed for the different OIII filters ?
Right now my choice for OIII is either the Baader, Lumicon or Orion 1.25 inch filters.

M97 the Owl Nebula is the target with an Orion XT10i.
Which OIII filter would be best suited for this one?

I figure if it is good for M97, it should be pretty good for the other nebula's ?

Thanks


Here is a site that has some of the current OIII filters transmission curves:

http://www.astroamat...ilter/oiii.html

I still like the Lumicon OIII (if you can get one), but the DGM Optics OIII or Thousand Oaks OIII are pretty good as well. Clear skies to you.

#9 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13776
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:59 PM

Markus,
The Lumicon OIII which normally sells for $140 is on sale for $99.95


All of my filters are 2" size, as you can see in my sig. Was that sale for a 2" Lumicon O-III? I doubt it, plus I am ok with what I have right now. I just looked here in Canada and the 2" Lumicon O-III sells for $240.00 + tax + shipping, LOL. This is exactly WHY I am keeping what I have right now.

The Baader O-III works extremely good on the Veil and other targets. I own the Celestron which is the Baader re-branded. The Lumicon indeed has a wider bandpass as I did a test with a friend in a dark sky situation, and I found the Lumicon slightly better on M-17 and a few other targets. However, I see no point in selling off my Celestron / Baader O-III for a touch wider bandpass.



#10 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15627
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

Don't forget to look for an Astronomik OIII filter as well.


The Astronomik filter is a little on the broad side in terms of bandwidth, so I would probably pass on it. If you want the contrast, you have to have a filter that just lets through the two OIII lines and almost nothing else. Lumicon's OIII would be my first choice with the Thousand Oaks OIII a close 2nd. Clear skies to you.

#11 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23120
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:12 PM

Don,

Found a few spectrum diagrams.
OIII Group A, B and Narrow Band


http://www.karmalimb...filters/o3a.jpg

http://www.karmalimb...filters/o3b.jpg

http://www.karmalimb...ters/narrow.jpg

It should be noted that these are not test reports, merely the superimposition of many manufacturers' bandwidth diagrams.
Great illustrations, though.

#12 mitaccio

mitaccio

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 514
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Oahu, Hawaii

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:57 PM

I bought my OPT OIII 1.25" a year ago for about $40, best investment I have made.

#13 Cabrillas

Cabrillas

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Madrid. Spain.

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:45 PM

Another vote for the Astronomik. I've compared it against others, and it is the best in my refractor. A friend has a C9.5. We checked the Astronomik against the Baader in both scopes. We agreed the astronomik was the clear winner.

But of course beware that the performance of such restrictive filters are very affected by aperture and quality of the sky. Regards.

#14 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 3026
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:57 PM

Another vote for the Astronomik. I've compared it against others, and it is the best in my refractor. A friend has a C9.5. We checked the Astronomik against the Baader in both scopes. We agreed the astronomik was the clear winner.

But of course beware that the performance of such restrictive filters are very affected by aperture and quality of the sky. Regards.


Yet another vote for the Astronomick. I have the narrow band, OIII and H-beta filters all on a filter slide. All work great for me. The OIII might be a little broader than the Lumicon, etc., but the Veil really pops out when I use it in my scope, showing exquisite filamentary detail. Another standout is Thor's Helmet. Just a great filter for planetary nebulae (and the Veil).

Two things I really like about the Astronomick. One, they have very durable coatings, which are essentially scratch-proof and impervious to dew. Two, the view is very aesthetically pleasing, with nice pinpoint stars. In contrast, a couple of the other OIII filters I've seen (the older version of the Lumicon specifically comes to mind) yielded rather funky-looking bloated stars...

#15 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 955
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2006
  • Loc: South West England

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:42 PM

And yet another Astronomik O-III advocate here. I like it for the same reasons that Rob describes well above.

Prior to the Astronomik I'd tried the Telescope Services 0-III (which is the same as the Skywatcher one) and the Baader and Celestron O-III's which are, again, the same as each other.

I find the Astronomik O-III works very effectively in all my scopes from 4 to 10 inches in aperture.

#16 rocketsteve

rocketsteve

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011
  • Loc: Southeast Louisiana

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:52 PM

Another vote for the Astronomik. I've compared it against others, and it is the best in my refractor. A friend has a C9.5. We checked the Astronomik against the Baader in both scopes. We agreed the astronomik was the clear winner.

But of course beware that the performance of such restrictive filters are very affected by aperture and quality of the sky. Regards.


Yet another vote for the Astronomick. I have the narrow band, OIII and H-beta filters all on a filter slide. All work great for me. The OIII might be a little broader than the Lumicon, etc., but the Veil really pops out when I use it in my scope, showing exquisite filamentary detail. Another standout is Thor's Helmet. Just a great filter for planetary nebulae (and the Veil).

Two things I really like about the Astronomick. One, they have very durable coatings, which are essentially scratch-proof and impervious to dew. Two, the view is very aesthetically pleasing, with nice pinpoint stars. In contrast, a couple of the other OIII filters I've seen (the older version of the Lumicon specifically comes to mind) yielded rather funky-looking bloated stars...


And I'd like to register another vote for the Astronomik O-III filter. :waytogo: Rob's experiences are very similar to my own. His experiences with the Veil and Thor's Helmet are right on the money. Overall, I'm completely satisfied with my filter purchase.

#17 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20470
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:36 PM

The Celestron and Baader versions are identical - except in price. Celestron-branded O-IIIs run about 30% less than the Baader versions of the same filters.

I use it successfully in scopes from 2.7" to 16". It works just fine. I also have an Orion-branded O-III. Despite "on paper" differences, at the eyepiece there's not much difference between it and the Celestron.

Regards,

Jim

#18 drollere

drollere

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2010
  • Loc: sebastopol, california

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:57 PM

i agree with david, the thousand oaks is a very good OIII filter, but note i use it for visual only.

#19 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23120
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:37 PM

Another vote for the Astronomik. I've compared it against others, and it is the best in my refractor. A friend has a C9.5. We checked the Astronomik against the Baader in both scopes. We agreed the astronomik was the clear winner.

But of course beware that the performance of such restrictive filters are very affected by aperture and quality of the sky. Regards.


Yet another vote for the Astronomick. I have the narrow band, OIII and H-beta filters all on a filter slide. All work great for me. The OIII might be a little broader than the Lumicon, etc., but the Veil really pops out when I use it in my scope, showing exquisite filamentary detail. Another standout is Thor's Helmet. Just a great filter for planetary nebulae (and the Veil).

Two things I really like about the Astronomick. One, they have very durable coatings, which are essentially scratch-proof and impervious to dew. Two, the view is very aesthetically pleasing, with nice pinpoint stars. In contrast, a couple of the other OIII filters I've seen (the older version of the Lumicon specifically comes to mind) yielded rather funky-looking bloated stars...


The point to be made here is that a slightly narrower bandwidth would enhance the contrast more, but at the expense of the stars. So which do you use the nebula filter for--nebulae, or views of stars? I'm not being sarcastic because there really is a difference in preference involved.
The TeleVue O-III is a broader one and also of superlative quality. It really does depend on preference.

#20 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15627
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:24 AM

Another vote for the Astronomik. I've compared it against others, and it is the best in my refractor. A friend has a C9.5. We checked the Astronomik against the Baader in both scopes. We agreed the astronomik was the clear winner.

But of course beware that the performance of such restrictive filters are very affected by aperture and quality of the sky. Regards.


The problem with the Astronomik OIII isn't that it doesn't work (it works fairly well). It is just that its bandwidth is nearly as broad as some of the narrow-band filters that let in both the OIII emission lines as well as the H-Beta line. The Astronomik has a full width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of a whopping 204 angstroms (the Lumicon OIII is around 115 angstroms for example). The DGM Optics NPB filter has a FWHM figure of nearly 230 angstroms and I suspect that the views with it would equal that of the Astronomik OIII, not to mention that the DGM NPB would be useful on more nebular objects than a standard OIII might be useful on. If you want a halfway decent "true" OIII filter, I might suggest the DGM Optics OIII filter, as it is close to the bandwidth of the Lumicon OIII. Clear skies to you.

#21 Greg77

Greg77

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 02 May 2009
  • Loc: Slovenia, EU

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:53 AM

Prior to the Astronomik I'd tried the Telescope Services 0-III (which is the same as the Skywatcher one) and the Baader...


John,

...how would you describe diference between TS and Astronomik in terms of contrast and brightness of background stars (field)?

CS!

Greg

#22 Giorgos

Giorgos

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Athens, Greece

Posted 22 September 2012 - 02:01 AM

I have tried side by side the Lumicon and the Meade O-III (908X). The nebulae trough both of them seem more or less the same the Lumicon gave a pinkish tint to stars though. I prefer the Meade that shows more natural color on stars.

#23 Richard Low

Richard Low

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2005
  • Loc: 1 deg N, GMT+8hrs

Posted 22 September 2012 - 02:11 AM

I have the Celestron O-III which works well with great contrast on the Veil Neb. in my 15" dob. I recommend to get filters in 2" versions as it is very useful on 2" widefield eyepieces 30-40mm.

#24 reiner

reiner

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Freiburg, Germany

Posted 22 September 2012 - 02:57 AM

The Astronomik has a full width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of a whopping 204 angstroms (the Lumicon OIII is around 115 angstroms for example).


Hi David,

this is true for the older Astronomic OIII filters. According to their website, they have reduced the bandwidth now to 12nm, which is perfect for an OIII filter. It is on the german webpage only
http://www.astronomi...er-visuell.html

I haven't tried one of these newer ones, though.

@all: I have compared extensively the Baader and the Lumicon. Sure, the Baader offers excellent contrast on the Veil and other bright OIII sources. If it comes to faint targets, like some faint Abell PNe, the Lumicon is a considerably better choice.

#25 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13776
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 22 September 2012 - 03:19 AM

I don't see why some people have to be so "nit picky" about a few Nm here. Sure the Lumicon has a wider bandpass, but there really is NO POINT in spending $200.00 or more on a 2" filter when you can pretty much get the same results with the Baader / Celestron. This is supposed to be a "fun hobby", not a competitive one.

If you feel the need to go out and blow that kinda cash all the power to ya bro, knock yourself out, :lol:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics