RGB Filter question - Baader vs Astronomik DeepSky - Forums

Topic starter

Sep 15, 2017

Hi,

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.

CS,
Marc

Respectful Engaging

Die Launische Diva

Sep 15, 2017 · Edited: Sep 15, 2017

Hello Marc,

I have no experience on the subject but maybe this LRGB filter test be helpful.

HTH and Clear Skies!

Marc

Topic starter

Sep 15, 2017

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.

Well Written

Caspar Schumann

Sep 17, 2017

Marc, take a look at my Pictures, i only take Photographs with Astronomik- Filters. CS Caspar

Tareq Abdulla

Oct 6, 2017

Marc, did you buy or decide on which RGB filters yet?

I have an option for you if you still look for one.

Marc

Topic starter

Oct 6, 2017

Hi,

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..

/M

Helpful Engaging Supportive

Tareq Abdulla

Oct 6, 2017

Great, congratulations then!

Marc

Topic starter

Dec 19, 2017

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)

Helpful Engaging

Tareq Abdulla

Dec 22, 2017

Congratulations!

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.

Marc

Topic starter

Mar 26, 2018

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.

Helpful

bobzeq25

Mar 27, 2018 · Edited: Mar 27, 2018

Marc:
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.

I use the milder Baader Neodymium for this, halos haven't been a problem.

https://www.astrobin.com/333099/?nc=user

Robert Huerbsch

Mar 27, 2018

I would get the DeepSky RGB and Astrodon for narrowband… I have the Deepsky filters

Marc

Topic starter

Mar 27, 2018 · Edited: Mar 27, 2018

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.

Marc

Topic starter

Sep 23, 2019

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.

Cheers,
Marc

Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive

Roman Pearah

Jul 22, 2020 · Edited: Jul 22, 2020

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.

Engaging

Marc

Topic starter

Jul 22, 2020 · Edited: Jul 22, 2020

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.

bobzeq25

Jul 23, 2020

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>

Jarrett Trezzo

Jul 23, 2020

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.

Helpful

Roman Pearah

Jul 23, 2020

Very helpful, thanks. Sounds like I should stick to the L3 plan.

Well Written

Tareq Abdulla

Jul 23, 2020

I am still thinking about which RGB filters set i should buy, give me votes or recommendations.

Miguel G.

Oct 18, 2021

Hi there!

This is a rather old post but I'm also interested in more feedback about these filters.

Cheers

Well Written

bobzeq25

Oct 22, 2021 · Edited: Oct 22, 2021

I'm sticking with what I said in my two posts, after a lot more experience.

For RGB, the Astronomik Deep Sky. For L, one of the Astronomik L filterss, or the Baader neodymium.

Note that Marc spent some time with the Baaders, didn't like the results, sold them, bought Deep Sky, and is now happy. I don't think that's an idiosyncratic response.

Helpful

Peter Maasewerd (pete_xl)

Oct 22, 2021

In case you use a refractor I would strongly recommend to use L and B filters that open way above 400nn. Changing from Baader CCD L and Blue to Astronomik Deep Sky Blue and L3 significantly improved the FHWM values and star colors with my 130/910 and 80/480 apos.

Helpful Concise

Marc

Topic starter

Oct 22, 2021

I am still happy with my Astronomik filters - although I was never able to really figure out what made the Baader filters behave so poorly in my imaging train.

Baader has since revised their filters and now advertises a new version specifically optimized for CMOS sensors. And many people are getting good results with Baader - so I would not count them out. They are certainly cheaper than Astronomik… but my personal experience in the hobby has been (several times…

that trying to cut corners/costs always came back to bite me in the behind

Engaging

Ruediger

Oct 22, 2021 · Edited: Oct 22, 2021

Marc:
I am still happy with my Astronomik filters - although I was never able to really figure out what made the Baader filters behave so poorly in my imaging train.

Baader has since revised their filters and now advertises a new version specifically optimized for CMOS sensors. And many people are getting good results with Baader - so I would not count them out. They are certainly cheaper than Astronomik... but my personal experience in the hobby has been (several times...) that trying to cut corners/costs always came back to bite me in the behind ;)

Hi Marc,

I have the new LRGB an NB 4nm Baader CMOS filters. Meanwhile they are at the same price range. e.g. LRGB Baader 50,4mm: 545,00EUR, Astronomik LRGB 50mm: 579,00 EUR.
I think it is still too early to really give an statement about the new CMOS types. I have replaced all my old Baader filters with the new ones, but I did not notice a significant change, which was quite disappointing to me. Normally I am a huge fan of Baader products since they are really good, but about the filters I have mixed emotions. I consider them as solid mid range class filters, but there is still a gap to the best ones.

CS
Rüdiger