Help with eyepiece filters please?

[0030]

So I Have decided that my next upgrade is going to be a steering nob and a filter. I would like the forum’s recommendations and experiences with eye piece filters to reduce light pollution and/or for reducing moon and planetary glare and increasing contrast. Thanks in advance for your help.

PS.  I have a dob and I am only interested in viewing, not imaging.

[John]

I have a 12" dob but I don't find I need to use filters on the planets or the moon. I have tried them, including Tele Vue's new planetary filter but I didn't experience an increase in contrast that I felt made the filter worthwhile.

The filters I do find very useful are designed to enhance the contrast of nebulae and those are the UHC and O-III type filters.

I do have some light pollution to deal with but I find the best approach is to concentrate my viewing on parts of the sky that are least affected and, where possible, are reasonably high in the sky.

[damnut]

Hi there,

Many guides to filters, personal fave is a rotating polarising filter for the moon. Description of what is commonly available here :-http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_filter

I don't use a lot outside a baader semi apo , UHC and a neodymium filter.

[0030]

Thanks Guys-

[Dave In Vermont]

I'd suggest an Orion Skyglow-Filter for the light pollution:

http://uk.telescope.com/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/125-Orion-SkyGlow-Broadband-Eyepiece-Filter/pc/-1/c/1308/sc/1374/p/109839.uts

And to act as a dimmer-switch, I agree with a variable polarising-filter:

http://uk.telescope.com/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/125-Orion-Variable-Polarizing-Filter/pc/-1/c/1308/sc/1374/p/109834.uts
 

Another filter you may find helpuf for boosting contrast on things like Jupiter is a Blue 80A filter. These can be found all over the map. Inexpensively too.

An Avowed Filter-Nut,

Dave

[gooseholla]

I own a UHC and OIII filter. If you are serious about deep sky observing you need these in your arsenal. LP filters are okay, but I notice they no longer turn my streetlights black, so maybe they've upgraded the lights? They are also okay as a kind of nebula filter, but do have a tendency to make everything purpleish I find. Moon filters I find are essential for viewing the moon past about 5 or 6 days in a large reflector. I think I am going to upgrade from a fixed one to a variable filter.

For planets, I have a set of coloured filters. Some see little to no value in them. I found in my observations of Mars last year they really made a difference to what I could see. Some of them need a large telescope to work properly though - they just make things too dull on smaller scopes due to decreased light levels. Because no one seems to want them, you can pick them up relatively cheap secondhand. Even new they don't cost the earth.

John

[0030]

Thank You Dave and gooseholla-

[SpaceWalker]

I have a bunch of various filters and found that overall the most useful for Jupiter and Mars is the Baader Moon & Sky Glow.  It increases contrast significantly. I recommend you to get it first. Some other colored filters might be useful on certain planetary features but they are not top priority, you can live without them, IMO. Saturn usually doesn't require any filters. Polarizer or neutral density (ND09 or 25%) filter is useful on Venus, the Moon or bright double stars. Although, if you raise magnification on the Moon the brightness will drop so you won't need any filters.

Light pollution. Well, to some extent broadband filters like the Baader UHC-S, Celestron UHC/LPR, Orion Skyglow  (not Ultrablock!) might work, but... in fact there is no any highly effective filter against light pollution except darker skies and darker observing spot. If you can't get to a dark spot than build some light blocking screens, search this site or CN, I saw a number of reports posted on how to make them. Remember, that filtering the skies with some filters it's only part of equation. You also need eye dark adaptation what can be achieved only if you eliminate/block stray light preventing dark adaptation.

As others have suggested for nebulae you'll need narrowband filters like UHC (Lumocon, 1000 Oaks, Astronomics) and line filters like OIII and H-beta. If you can afford only one get the UHC. In some situations the OIII filter works better, but you can get it later.

[Astro_Baby]

I have loads of them but most are seldom used.  I almost never use my deep sky filters. I mostly use  moon filter or Neutral Density filter on the moon and very often a light yellow on my TAL 100RS to cut down on CA when looking at the moon.

I did find a light orange one a few years back helped with Mars and I could just about make out some of the mara and the polar caps using it - but that could have been my imagination

[Merlin]

Just an added point: I've heard on the grape vine that deep sky filters are ineffective against the LED lights that are becoming increasingly common on roads. Where do we go from there? We can't all head for deepest Galloway.

[gooseholla]

Yes they cannot work with LED lights. But most LED lamps shine straight down and are shielded.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

for planetary i dont use any filters as despite trying different ones,i found them to do nothing.Only one what might help and could be used is moon filter to reduce its brightness if that really bothers you,but other than that i agree with John:Planetary:no filters and UHC/OIII for DSO`s.

[scarp15]

Quite right, an UHC or OIII filter is entirely relevant and ought to be of a primary consideration, whilst a planetary type is more of an optional consideration. I use a Televue Planetary filter, there are divided opinions regarding this filter type. Mine perhaps gets used 50% of the time that I am observing Jupiter, this is wholly dependent on sky circumstances. Sometimes the view is much more pleasing and enhanced with the filter at other times without and I like having the choice. 

[swamp thing]

Just an added point: I've heard on the grape vine that deep sky filters are ineffective against the LED lights that are becoming increasingly common on roads. Where do we go from there? We can't all head for deepest Galloway.

True enough but the more of us that do the more we will be seen to be out there doing it. There aren't may truly dark places left in this country and if we aren't out using them I fear they will disappear for good.

No ones going to Defend a place if no one is using it. 

[niallk]

I tried an O-III filter - first time ever using a DSO filter + first time seeing the Veil: simply magical!! It really exceeded my hopes/expectations in my 250px - literally made me say wow

[todd8137]

Hi there I love filters , I have pretty dark skies here and the Milky Way is easily seen but I love filters ,if you like the moon you would be surprised just how much they help hers a few of mine sorry for the low quality pic as the ipad camera is rubbish

A good around filter is the neoydium one get the best brand you wallet can get these are all for viewing

Pat

[Piero]

UHC and/or OIII are very useful filters to me. I like both of them a lot.

I find a polarising filter useful on the moon, but this because I like watching it in all its phases. You don't need it if you only observe it before the first quarter or after the last quarter.

I don't use planetary filters. I was convinced to buy 3 planetary filters by a seller 16 years ago, and frankly I think I wasted my money..I hope the green filter might be used with the Lunt wedge.. Cross my fingers.. So at least one can be used.. After 16 years in a box!

[Dave In Vermont]

pant! pant! I must have posted this a few hundred times! This is one of the best articles available on which filter has been found best for many DSO's:

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

I have a copy on my wall.

Enjoy!

Dave (A filter-nut)

[John]

pant! pant! I must have posted this a few hundred times! This is one of the best articles available on which filter has been found best for many DSO's:

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

I have a copy on my wall.

Enjoy!

Dave (A filter-nut)

It's an excellent piece - I must have read it about as many times as you have posted it Dave

I've now got the authors 3 favourite filters so I'm all set

[Dave In Vermont]

It's an excellent piece - I must have read it about as many times as you have posted it Dave

I've now got the authors 3 favourite filters so I'm all set

Me too! And enough others that, if I stacked them, might either win me a Nobel or blow up the planet!

Ta ta,

Dave

[Piero]

It's an excellent piece - I must have read it about as many times as you have posted it Dave

I've now got the authors 3 favourite filters so I'm all set

How do you find the UHC, eventually? 

[John]

How do you find the UHC, eventually? 

My UHC is an Omega DGM NBP filter which is one of David Kniselys favourites. I've not used it a lot (I don't use filters too much generally) but it did bring out some interesting details in M42, especially the more extended and tenuous regions. I'm looking forward to seeing what it does to M27 in due course

I tried it on M97 but my Limicon O-III was quite a bit more effective on that one.

I've still not seen anything worth posting about with the Lumicon H-Beta

[alan potts]

John,

Judging by your last comment I assume you had no luck on the Horses head nebula. I really think having read a number of times your comments with regards your local sky that it may well be beyond the range of your 12 inch Dob, but then that is no reason not to try. I think next year it is going to have to be attempted at SGL 11. I have not had any luck with Dobbin eitherbut that is largely due to the filter not being here, I think it must be on it's way from Neptune.

Sadly Orion has all but gone for me this year as it is really too low to attempt this target, so I look forward to November time.

Alan. 

[Piero]

Looking forward to reading your opinions on M27. I haven't tried my UHC on M27, but I did on M57. Unfortunately, it was too low in the sky and could not spot it. 

I think M42 is a target which reveals interesting and different details depending on the use of UHC or OIII.  For planetary nebulae, my impression is that an OIII works better, possibly because they work as point sources. On the other hand, for extended sources, I think the OIII and UHC are more complementary.

I don't know whether this is the true, but it seems to reflect my selection. I guess that for extended source targets, an user chooses UHC or OIII depending on whether he/she is more interested in target extension or contrast, respectively. Instead, for point source targets, such as planetary nebulae, contrast becomes much more important, and there isn't much extension to detect.

dunno, just an idea..

[John]

Looking forward to reading your opinions on M27. I haven't tried my UHC on M27, but I did on M57. Unfortunately, it was too low in the sky and could not spot it. 

I think M42 is a target which reveals interesting and different details depending on the use of UHC or OIII.  For planetary nebulae, my impression is that an OIII works better, possibly because they work as point sources. On the other hand, for extended sources, I think the OIII and UHC are more complementary.

I don't know whether this is the true, but it seems to reflect my selection. I guess that for extended source targets, an user chooses UHC or OIII depending on whether he/she is more interested in target extension or contrast, respectively. Instead, for point source targets, such as planetary nebulae, contrast becomes much more important, and there isn't much extension to detect.

dunno, just an idea..

Sounds logical to me Piero