# 15 Sep, 2017 09:48
first off, I am almost certain this must have been asked before, but wasn't able to dig up a thread. Apologies!
I am about to pull the trigger on a QHY163m + QHY 7-slot filter wheel in combination with my 4" TS Triplet APO and 3" Reducer/flattener.
I have now to decide which LRGB Filter(s) to buy and am torn between:
Baader LRGB and Astronomik DeepSky RGB + L2
I did a bunch of searching on the interwebs, but there seems to be no clear recommendation one way or the other. Astronomik had somewhat mixed reviews in the past (2011ish), but seems to have improved a lot in the past year or two. Baader on the other hand has consistently produced good filters, but are not marketed quite as "top notch high end" as the DeepSky Set from Astronomik.
The way I see it:
Baader seems cheaper and narrow band filters in particular are a lot cheaper than the Astronomik ones (Baader 7nm Ha = 150€, Astronomik Ha 6nm = 280€). But they are twice as thick (i.e. add around 1mm to my working distances after the reducer) and may or may not produce halos around brighter stars. Baader filters have also been reported to not be fully parfocal, which would be annoying of course when running exposure series.
Astronomik are more expensive, but marketed as reflection free, super resistant and are thin enough to not matter as far as my working distances are concerned (not an issue one way or the other, really). Astronimik filters are also said to be fully parfocal.
So..what do do?! Any experiences that could help me decide? The price difference for the LRGB Set really isn't the issue, but it starts adding up when considering NB filters (which I want from the same manufacturers for focusing purposes). Leaning towards Astronomik - assuming the criticism of Baader filters is in fact warranted. But wouldn't mind saving a few hundred bucks if the Baader filters would give me similar results.
# 15 Sep, 2017 11:20
I have no experience on the subject but maybe this LRGB filter test be helpful.
HTH and Clear Skies!
# 15 Sep, 2017 11:36
|Thanks, I also stumbled across Tommy's little review/test. His images seem to support the idea that Astronomik has a bit of an edge over Baader (stars look a bit tighter to me), but that both brands will produce some degree of artifacts; this seems unavoidable.|
# 17 Sep, 2017 17:42
|Marc, take a look at my Pictures, i only take Photographs with Astronomik- Filters. CS Caspar|
# 06 Oct, 2017 08:34
Marc, did you buy or decide on which RGB filters yet?|
I have an option for you if you still look for one.
# 06 Oct, 2017 08:42
yes I went with the Baader ones but haven't had time to test them yet. i've been told that the halo and reflection issues are very much dependent on the imaging system - no way of telling beforehand how it will work out. Some people have had zero problems with Baader filters, others did - sometimes with only one color channel, or a particular NB filter. But the same is true for Astronomik.
So I am hoping that I won't run into problems Will update this thread once I had the chance to take a few subs..
# 06 Oct, 2017 09:38
|Great, congratulations then!|
# 19 Dec, 2017 10:35
Maybe as a small update since I haven't had too much time to test them yet (awful streak of bad weather here):|
10mins Ha exposures - little to no problem (minor artefact around very bright stars, see my gallery for example)
LRGB Galaxy imaging - no issues at all, looking good (nothing to show yet, need more integration time)
LRGB imaging of bright stars - well, this is where we get into some problems. Tried the Pleijades the other night and am getting very noticable reflections on the blue channel. This is likely an issue with my imaging system overall and not specifically with the filters (triplet apo + multi-lens flattener/reducer). Some things I can try, like flipping the B filter over (recommended by Baader in such instances). Or stay clear of very bight stars (less ideal, but of course an option, plenty of objects left still)
# 22 Dec, 2017 18:02
I tested mine and sounds it is doing fine, i am talking about LRGB only, i don't have NB set yet, and my Astrodon Ha 5nm 1.25" is definitely a top quality no doubt.
# 26 Mar, 2018 09:38
Here are a couple of things I have learned in the meantime:|
I had to fashion small black card board rings (width about 1.5mm) to put on top of the filter to cover the edge of the glass. It seems that the multi-coating does not stretch all the way to the edge, which can produce unwanted reflections inside the filter when taking flats. Cost me grant total of 15 bucks, but debugging the issue resulted in more than a few grey hairs.
I have since added the Baader UHC-S filter to deal with skyglow in my area. The background really benefits from this and the filter produce stighter stars than the normal L filter, but it also results in "nasty" halos around even moderately bright stars.
# 27 Mar, 2018 03:22
MarcI use the milder Baader Neodymium for this, halos haven't been a problem.
# 27 Mar, 2018 03:27
|I would get the DeepSky RGB and Astrodon for narrowband… I have the Deepsky filters|
# 27 Mar, 2018 13:33
|That would probably be my recommendation as well, in hindsight. The price is a bit higher, but I have at least not heard of any such issues. That said, for LRGB I am mostly happy (color representation etc looks good), but I had to put in some effort to make them work in my setup. People's mileage may/will vary, I suppose.|
# 23 Sep, 2019 13:16
And another update -|
ended up selling the Baader Filters. The price is unbeatable to be sure, but it comes with certain sacrifices in my experience. I was getting pretty severe halos especially on the OIII filter (see my image of the North America Nebula for an example), but also the blue channel. I was never quite able to tell for sure how much this was due to my imaging train or the filters. I also disliked that the filters did not come with blackened edges or a plastic ring to make handling easier, and togive you any chance of knowing which filter was which just from looking at them And lastly, for some reason Baader decided to make one side of each filter highly reflective, almost mirror-like. I am sure there is a reason behind it, but I also fail to see how this is going to work in certain imaging trains - like refractors with reducers. It just screams "problem" to me.
Anyway, I now did what I probably should have done in the first place - buy Astronomik filters (UHC, Deepsky RGB and Ha 6nm for now). Out of the box these make a very good impression, no weird reflective surfaces, nice protective (and labelled!) rings. Fit in my filter wheel without problems and my first tests look promising so far.
# 22 Jul, 2020 17:23
I'm thinking of going with Astronomik across the board as well, but I'm a bit stuck on what to get for the Luminance filter (when not just using Ha for that). Their site suggests the Deep-Sky RGB set should be paired with the L1, L2, or L3, but possibly the CLS-CCD if you live in high light pollution. I'm not sure what constitutes "high" but I can say that I live in Bortle 4 verging on 5 plus a lot of close street/security lamps where I set up in my driveway (probably enough to make it a solid 5 effectively). They also say that the L3 is designed to work with the Deep-Sky to minimize halos. I'm thinking the L3 is right for me given that I'd probably want at least the L2 for having corrective optics in the chain and because I'm working with a short focal length. I'm curious why you went with the UHC, which I hadn't even been considering as it's classed as a "visual" filter.|
My equipment for context: AT72EDII (72mm APO refractor) + 0.8x reducer/flattener + OAG + EFW (1.25) + ASI1600MM Pro.
# 22 Jul, 2020 19:17
|I am in a bortle 4 zone as well and find that the CLS filter gives very good results. The background separation at least feels more easy during processing.|
# 23 Jul, 2020 21:14
I'm Bortle 7, use (with Deepsky RGB) either the L2 or a Baader neodymium. On emission nebulae, Ha , sometimes O(III) also.|
The CLS cuts out too much signal for me, particularly on targets other than emission nebulae. On emission nebulae, I think narrowband is far more effective.
Bottom line. A CLS gathers dust on my shelf. <smile>
# 23 Jul, 2020 21:41
Definitely agree with Bob. I never recommend any kind of light pollution filter in something like a Bortle 4 (that's considered basically as a dark site in my book). A UHC is very extreme too, having two wide bandpasses only around OIII/H-beta and H-alpha, so I'm perplexed by that choice as well.|
I'm in Bortle 5 verging on Bortle 6 and only use standard Luminance filters and the gradients are pretty easy to clean up with the right tools. In my opinion you only lose by using strong LP filters like the CLS in anything lower than a Bortle 7. Even when I lived in Bortle 7, I had good results with just the Luminance filter too, just needed a lot of time.
# 23 Jul, 2020 23:00
|Very helpful, thanks. Sounds like I should stick to the L3 plan.|
# 23 Jul, 2020 23:04
|I am still thinking about which RGB filters set i should buy, give me votes or recommendations.|
|У вас нет новых уведомлений|
This page or operation is not available at the moment, because AstroBin is in READ ONLY mode. For more information, please check out our Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/AstroBin_com
This feature is only offered at higher membership levels.
Would you be interested in upgrading? AstroBin is a very small business and your support would mean a lot!
If this user has been harassing you, and you shadow-ban them, all their activities on your content will be invisible to everyone except themselves.
They will not know that they have been shadow-banned, and the goal is that eventually they will get bored while having caused no harm, since nobody saw what they posted.
You will remove your shadow-ban on this user, and their comments, messages, etc, will appear again on your content.