Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Best OIII filter for visual purposes

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 737
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:12 PM

hi guys I’m currently thinking of purchasing my next OIII filter for visual purposes.and is 

nesscery on certain deep sky objects for exsample the veil in Cygnus and various planetary objects also.my current filter is a baader OIII and is considered more for photography purposes as I’m lead to believe the one I need covers 2 lines of the wavelengths.

i must admit the objects on occasions can still look quite dark is this because I’ve maybe got the wrong filter.any advice in pointing me in the right direction will be appreciated!?



#2 vdog

vdog

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,763
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2018
  • Loc: California Central Valley, U.S.A.

Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:17 PM

I haven't compared it to others, but I'm pretty happy with the Lumicon Gen 3.


  • havasman and airbleeder like this

#3 sickfish

sickfish

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,566
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Watertown Ma. Cape Coral Fl.

Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:19 PM

TV Bandmate


  • havasman likes this

#4 sg6

sg6

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,368
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:32 PM

Photographic filters are often narrower, so would appear dimmer/darker.

If you get one with OIII and Hb (2 wavelengths) then they can be termed UHC or Nebula filters.

Some UHC and Nebula pass the OIII and the Hb (the 2 I assume you mention) and they can pass Ha at the red end as well.

Some do 2 some do 3, you need to check the filter specifications details.



#5 RLK1

RLK1

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:35 PM

If you look at the 2019 nebula filter guide posted in CN, you'll want an 0111 that covers two lines with a bandwidth below 15nm. That leaves three choices: Astronomik, Lumicon and Televue. I don't believe you can go wrong with those choices...



#6 CeleNoptic

CeleNoptic

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,428
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Mid-Atlantic, Bortle 7

Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:42 PM

Check out this recent thread

 

https://www.cloudyni...d-oiii-filters/

 

 

BTW, I have a Celestron OIII which is actually the relabeled Baader OIII (10nm I guess) and it's pretty good, IMO. Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe it's just photography filter, I don't do AP.


Edited by CeleNoptic, 05 July 2020 - 12:49 PM.

  • Markovich and j.gardavsky like this

#7 RLK1

RLK1

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 05 July 2020 - 01:08 PM

Check out this recent thread

 

https://www.cloudyni...d-oiii-filters/

 

 

BTW, I have a Celestron OIII which is actually the relabeled Baader OIII (10nm I guess) and it's pretty good, IMO. Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe it's just photography filter, I don't do AP.

I have the Celestron 0111 and as a rebadged Baader, it covers one line, is primarily photographic and, depending on the size of your scope, will likely be too dark for visual applications. I wouldn't recommend it and I've compared it to my Lumicon, Thousand Oaks, Zhumell and generic 0111 filters. The Celestron/Baader 0111 will work visually, especially in light polluted areas where you want to block as much unwanted light as possible but if you  want more user friendly view of the objects noted by the OP, I'd go with another choice...


Edited by RLK1, 05 July 2020 - 01:09 PM.

  • Jon Isaacs and Miranda2525 like this

#8 havasman

havasman

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,205
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 05 July 2020 - 01:52 PM

I am very happy with the performance of my Lumicon Gen3 O-III. It and the latest generation O-III filters from Televue and Astronomik are generally recognized as the top visual O-III filters. All 3 consistently measure very well and, more importantly, get great reports from experienced users. It is unlikely you can do better today.


  • Allan Wade and airbleeder like this

#9 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 06 July 2020 - 12:29 PM

My OIII filters are from Astrodon (5nm, for just 1 line in the doublet), Astronomik (12nm, both lines), Baader visual (10nm, both lines), Lumicon (old, both lines).

 

The most use on my optics finds the Baader visual OIII # 2458395, followed by the Astrodon.

 

The other Baader, is the Baader CCD 8.5nm #2458435 filter for the optical systems f/10 to f/2.8, which may eventually dim the second spectral line in the OIII doublet. I have also been using this filter in past, before replacing it with the Astrodon.

 

The problem with the reviews and curves publishing people is,

1. The reviewers either don't know the technical and applicational difference between these both filters

2. Or they can't read the product number on the filter thread

3. Or ...

 

Hoping, this helps,

JG


  • CeleNoptic likes this

#10 airbleeder

airbleeder

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,991
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Powder Springs, Georgia

Posted 06 July 2020 - 01:31 PM

   I really like my Gen3 Lumicon OIII from my suburban yard or dark site. Works great on the Veil, Orion, Dumbell, etc.



#11 RLK1

RLK1

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 06 July 2020 - 03:11 PM

My OIII filters are from Astrodon (5nm, for just 1 line in the doublet), Astronomik (12nm, both lines), Baader visual (10nm, both lines), Lumicon (old, both lines).

 

The most use on my optics finds the Baader visual OIII # 2458395, followed by the Astrodon.

 

The other Baader, is the Baader CCD 8.5nm #2458435 filter for the optical systems f/10 to f/2.8, which may eventually dim the second spectral line in the OIII doublet. I have also been using this filter in past, before replacing it with the Astrodon.

 

The problem with the reviews and curves publishing people is,

1. The reviewers either don't know the technical and applicational difference between these both filters

2. Or they can't read the product number on the filter thread

3. Or ...

 

Hoping, this helps,

JG

JG,

Help me with a clarification on the visual Baader 0111. Although you've stated it covers two 0111 lines, it appears from the baader website that model you've listed covers one:

https://www.baader-p...nm)-visual.html

Additionally, the nebula filter guide here in CN lists it as having one line and it appears the searchlight spectra viewer does the same. 



#12 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 07 July 2020 - 05:25 AM

JG,

Help me with a clarification on the visual Baader 0111. Although you've stated it covers two 0111 lines, it appears from the baader website that model you've listed covers one:

https://www.baader-p...nm)-visual.html

Additionally, the nebula filter guide here in CN lists it as having one line and it appears the searchlight spectra viewer does the same. 

Hello RLK,

 

by tomorrow, I will dig out the links to the spectral characteristic of the Baader 10nm OIII visual filter, as measured by some reviewers in the past.

The filter has been designed to transmit on normal incidence the both OIII spectral lines 500.7nm and 495.9nm in a 10nm window. The separation of the both OIII spectral lines is 4.8nm.

The filter blue shift should allow to use the filter also for the telescope speeds like F/5, like my refractor.

 

My filter pair is from the first series batch, sold out of the standard box.

Through my Zeiss visual hanspectroscope, the filter bandwidth is close to 10nm and correctly positioned.

The H-Beta line is cut away, the 495nm wavelength of the Zeiss KP 495nm is passed. The 500.7nm wavelength of the single line Astrodon is passed without any significant loss.

 

During the manufacturing life time, the filter bandwidth of the Baader has been reported to show some shifts towards the shorter wavelengths, dimming the main line at 500.7nm.

I would not exclude that there might have been also some manufactured batches with the transmissivity loss at the 495.9nm line.

 

Best,

JG


Edited by j.gardavsky, 07 July 2020 - 05:26 AM.

  • RLK1 likes this

#13 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 07 July 2020 - 10:53 AM

As I have found three different Baader OIII 1.25" filters on the web,

# 2458396

# 2458436

# 2458395 (that one I am using now)

and all of them having different passbands, I have sent an enquiry to Baader.

 

I have been using just two of them, not all three,

JG


  • payner likes this

#14 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 737
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 07 July 2020 - 11:58 AM

filters seem to be a little more tricky making that initial transition to not as easy as the eyepiece upgrade path think generally you do get what you pay for!?.my exsisting Exsplore scientific OIII filter is not much cop to be honest.and even it stats on the box it’s a visuel OIII filter I would say it’s not completely the truth and would be classed as a photographic filter maybe I’m wrong.as from my very little experience so far in learning about filters.the cheaper alternatives are claimed to have both OIII lines through the visible spectrum which is needed to see the nebulous object clearly even with my ES OIII fiter I have to use averted vision on occasions observing the veil nebula.mind you when higher in the zenith the nebulousity is more apparent.im started understand a little more about the narrowband and broadband wave lengths

and so far from I’ve been hearing from most forum members that the Lumicon,Astronomic and Televue seem to be the standard in great visual filters.i think it goes down to telescope aperture a little perhaps a little which filter works best as Astronomic do a cheaper alternative designed for smaller scopes.ive also heard it goes down to manufacturing and something to do with cavities!? etc and the difference between a mass produced filter and something of quality 


Edited by Supernova74, 07 July 2020 - 12:00 PM.

  • j.gardavsky likes this

#15 CeleNoptic

CeleNoptic

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,428
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Mid-Atlantic, Bortle 7

Posted 07 July 2020 - 03:34 PM

Baader visual (10nm, both lines)

........................................................................................................................................................................

The problem with the reviews and curves publishing people is,

1. The reviewers either don't know the technical and applicational difference between these both filters

2. Or they can't read the product number on the filter thread

3. Or ...

 

Hoping, this helps,

JG

waytogo.gif lol.gif



#16 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 07 July 2020 - 04:46 PM

Back to the OP question on what is the best OIII

 

For most of the nebulae dominated by the ionized oxygen, including the popular deep skies candies, the 12nm passband OIII filters, like the Lumicon and Astronomik are certainly the best and the most popular choices, and offering the best observing comfort. No way around.

 

On the difficult-to-see OIII nebulae, the 12nm passband may turn out to be too wide and passing too much light not used for seeing the nebula - either plainly distracting, or lowering the contrast.

 

This is the reason, why Baader has designed the narrower OIII filters, and why Astrodon has later designed the extra narrow passband filters, the 5nm and 3nm.

 

So, it is not the question which is better and which not, but for which specific nebula you will take a filter with a matched passband, similarly to the astrophotography. It is just the spectral filtering of light on purpose.

 

The good message is: These all filters can be purchased for money.

The bad message is: The costs increase as the passband width decreases.

The comment to the bad message reads: You won't always need a very narrow passband filter.

 

Best,

JG



#17 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 737
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 07 July 2020 - 05:56 PM

ok so for an exsample let’s say the veil nebula in Cygnus which of your filters gives you the most pleasing views?



#18 LDW47

LDW47

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,121
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 07 July 2020 - 06:47 PM

Check out this recent thread

 

https://www.cloudyni...d-oiii-filters/

 

 

BTW, I have a Celestron OIII which is actually the relabeled Baader OIII (10nm I guess) and it's pretty good, IMO. Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe it's just photography filter, I don't do AP.

The Celestron UHC is the same, its a great filter as well !  Clear skize !



#19 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 08 July 2020 - 04:54 AM

ok so for an exsample let’s say the veil nebula in Cygnus which of your filters gives you the most pleasing views?

There is a report by Sven Wienstein, where he has compared the visibility of the smallest details in the Veil Nebula, through the baader and Lumicon OIII filters.

His conclusion has been, that the old narrow passband Baader OIII #2458396 has resolved more of the finest details than the Lumicon OIII 12nm.

This may also depend on the sky background glow, which is more suppressed through the narrower Baader than through the wider Lumicon.

 

For myself, I don't care.

The filters are mounted on the filter wheel, and each nebula finds its best filter.

 

JG



#20 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,745
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 July 2020 - 05:23 AM

As I have found three different Baader OIII 1.25" filters on the web,

# 2458396

# 2458436

# 2458395 (that one I am using now)

and all of them having different passbands, I have sent an enquiry to Baader.

 

I have been using just two of them, not all three,

JG

 

The Baader and the Celestron O-llls are reputably the same.

 

Some years ago, a friend and I were comparing our Celestron O-llls in this 17.5 inch on the Veil. They were very different, mine showed at much brighter view, I think his was off wave length.

 

That's supposed to be a common problem...

 

I replaced mine with a Orion O-lll, a definite step up.  One of these days I may get the TeleVue O-lll.

 

I'm using it in scopes ranging from 80 mm to 22 inches..

 

Jon



#21 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 737
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 08 July 2020 - 07:03 AM

yes I’ve only started to understand the importance of filters to partner with your eyepiece collection my baader moon and sky glow is only very subtle and god knows why they have considered it being a moon filter I never know very slight contrast improvement I would say and no way near a UHC filter as of to be expected I just don,t want it to be another scenero spot the difference so far it’s in between the baader and Astronomic.the UHC will be first as most probably be used more followed by the OIII.the price difference between the baader and Astronomic is baader OIII £112 and Astronomic £179.

ive literally just sold the Exsplore scientific OIII which new was £85 as it was my first one it’s really not that good 



#22 vdog

vdog

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,763
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2018
  • Loc: California Central Valley, U.S.A.

Posted 08 July 2020 - 09:38 AM

 my baader moon and sky glow is only very subtle and god knows why they have considered it being a moon filter

My guess is that "Moon and Skyglow" is supposed to describe the two types of light it's meant to filter out.  In other words, it's not for looking at the moon any more than it is for looking at skyglow; it's supposed to improve the view of other targets despite the interfering presence of these two types of light.  And some people do use them for DSO observing, although reviews of them for that purpose are mixed.

 

Nevertheless, it is one of the most confusing labeling choices out there.  Want to hear something even more confusing?  Moon and Skyglow filters are good planetary filters for Jupiter and Mars. waytogo.gif


Edited by vdog, 08 July 2020 - 11:29 AM.

  • j.gardavsky likes this

#23 Hernando

Hernando

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2017

Posted 08 July 2020 - 10:30 AM

I have the Explore Scientific OIII 2", which was designed for visual observation because its band is not so narrow, although it also serves for astrophotography, and I am actually very satisfied with that filter because the nebulae become spectacular through the eyepiece.
I have not had the fortune to observe through other "finer" brands. I don't know how much difference there will be in the other more prestigious brands versus the ES...

 

waytogo.gif Explore Scientific OIII



#24 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 08 July 2020 - 11:15 AM

My guess is that "Moon and Skyglow" is supposed to describe the two types of light it's meant to filter out.  In other words, it's not for looking at the moon anymore than it is for looking at skyglow; it's supposed to improve the view of other targets despite the interfering presence of these two types of light.  And some people do use them for DSO observing, although reviews of them for that purpose are mixed.

 

Nevertheless, it is one of the most confusing labeling choices out there.  Want to hear something even more confusing?  Moon and Skyglow filters are good planetary filters for Jupiter and Mars. waytogo.gif

The Moon and Sky Glow filter should dim some of the sky glow on the green wavelengths, and some of the Moon glow on the wavelengths around 590nm.

 

Physically, it is a neodymium glass contrast enhancement filter with the UV and IR block.

 

A counterpart from the Far East are the Hoya color contrast enhancement filters, as also used in the photography.

 

Best,

JG


  • vdog likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics