What's the best UHC filter ?

[spaceboy]

Hi

What's peoples verdict on what the best affordable 2" UHC filter is.

The choice is from:-

Celestron UHC/LPR filter

Baader UHC-S Nebula filter

Sky-watcher UHC filter

Orion Ultra block filter

Castell UHC filter

Grateful as always for anyones comments.

SPACEBOY

[John]

Depends on the aperture a bit. I've used the Baader, the Skywatcher and the Orion Ultrablock from that list. All did their job well, the Skywatcher and the Orion are a little more selective in terms of band bass so tend to have more impact.

The only Celestron I've used was an O-III which was identical to the Baader O-III so I guess there is a chance that the UHC's are the same as well.

Of the ones I've tried from that list I guess I'd go for the Orion Ultrablock but it's quite possible that the Skywatcher and Castell filters would be more or less identical to it in performance.

If you can budget a bit more or come across a bargain, the Lumicons are excellent

[spaceboy]

Thank you John. Which do you currently use ? As you know I have the Skywatcher UHC and TBH from what little use I have had out of it I don't rate UHC filters over OIII but there is no denying the UHC dose show some nebulosity over having no filter at all. My concern was that the nebula's I have used the UHC on were not the favorable choice to get the most from the filter. (M42, M1, NGC2239, NGC1893) This said I would rather have one than not purely for the flexibility of seeing if one can coax more detail than the other. Trouble is after loosing a fair bit of money damaging the one I have now I can't really afford to be throwing money away but at the same time if I was to get a better alternative to the SW one it may soften the blow of having to put my hand in my pocket again. Having the Castell OIII I found the build quality given the price is much better than SW offering but as it's the coatings at the end of the day that are doing the work I needed members views on the subject. I know it is a hard as as at the price of these things it's not likely anyone will have more than one for side by side comparisons but it is handy to have input from such people like yourself who have had the chance to try several filters in the past.

As far as Lumicons John I don't want to go into this kind of money given the previous experience I have of how easy one can be damaged.

[John]

I appreciate that you have had some bad luck with your current filter. My current (and only) filter is an Astronomik O-III but they are not a low cost item. Good though.

Another I tried was the TS UHC from Telescope Services (Germany) although I bought mine from Modern Astronomy. That was as good as the Orion Ultrablock and I reckon was a clone of the Skywatcher one.

I don't use these things that much to be honest as I prefer unfiltered view where possible. But for planetary nebulae and supernova remnants like the Veil an effective UHC or O-III is really helpful in seeing anything of interest with the sort of apertures I have at my disposal

Perhaps some others who have used these filters will chip in - it would be good to get a range of views on them

[spaceboy]

Perhaps some others who have used these filters will chip in - it would be good to get a range of views on them

I think the trouble is the whole filter question has been asked far too often. Add to the fact these things are not in the top priority list of most astronomers due to the cost it doesn't make for a great topic of conversation.

Thanks all the same John you have helped

I doubt I would be asking this question if it wasn't for the Castell's being out of stock for the foreseeable future I'm impressed with the OIII so I can't imagine the UHC version would be any worse than the SW one.

[Nexus 6]

Have checked on those Castells, was after a 2" for use with my 35mm Panoptic, hoped it would help me with seeing bit more of the Veil. Have failed to see much of it at all with the 1.25 formatt and both UHC or OIII. Shame we can't get hold of one Nick.

[spaceboy]

Hi Alan

It is a pain having supply and deman problems but judging from a thread of FLO's this could become a regular occurrence for all astronomy equipment coming out of Asia.

I managed a hint of the vail the other night with the OIII filter but I don't know for sure if it was me willing it to be there or if it actually was there.

[Nexus 6]

Ye, agree about am I actually looking at it? well for sure with the 925 and as I am aware of the size of the veil I know its there just not revealing itself! Of course those light skies are not in anyone's favour. I failed with a few dso's which are fairly faint when I had my 6se, not taking into account the conditions or bothering to sit and observe. Now there's not much else we can do except get the best out of the equipment. Have yet to buy a 2". Will have to take the plunge though.

Like yourself I was unsure what if not the Castell?.

[John]

I managed a hint of the vail the other night with the OIII filter but I don't know for sure if it was me willing it to be there or if it actually was there.

Which scope were you using ?

The Veil is visible with my 4" refractor with the O-III. Invisible in that scope without it. It's a very large object (actually there are number of segments to it) and your lowest power eyepiece would be best.

I usually focus on the star 52 Cygni to get my bearings - the western portion of the Veil (Witches Broom) snakes past that star. Then I pan across slightly to find the slightly brighter feathery arc of the eastern segment (Bridal Veil). This web page might help:

Observing at Skyhound: The Veil Nebula

An O-III is definately the tool for this job

[spaceboy]

Which scope were you using ?

The Veil is visible with my 4" refractor with the O-III. Invisible in that scope without it. It's a very large object (actually there are number of segments to it) and your lowest power eyepiece would be best.

I usually focus on the star 52 Cygni to get my bearings - the western portion of the Veil (Witches Broom) snakes past that star. Then I pan across slightly to find the slightly brighter feathery arc of the eastern segment (Bridal Veil). This web page might help:

Observing at Skyhound: The Veil Nebula

An O-III is definately the tool for this job

It was in my Evo 4.75" with the OIII & 31mm Nag. Did the same as you and focus on the star 52 Cygni. I could kind of make out a line of nebulosity through this but as for the eastern vail nothing really stood out. Despite the light skies I could easily define the milky way and dust lanes through cygnus and it was for this reason I gave the vail a try. I could kind of make out the North american Nebula but again this didn't actually jump out at me. The only comment I would make is I have no way of avoiding getting dazzled by the nuisance st lighting adjacent to our garden. I have put up boards to try and limit this but because of the way the st lights are situated even if I don't get blinded directly by the light I get dazzled by there reflections in our windows I have complained to the environmental health and they supposedly sent someone out to survey the problem coming back to me by saying the reason why I was suffering from light pollution was because part of the fence was missing Idiots! the lot of them. I know exactly what they did. They never visited the property but went on google earth. Some donut drove through our fence last year and the council took months to repair it. I wouldn't mind the pictures I sent to the EH clearly showed the repaired fence. Anyway back to my point. I'm guessing my lack of dark adaption is at fault and not the equipment or seeing. I haven't been bothering to use my observatory which in a more ideal setting as it's at my parents so going down at stupid o'clock to start observing would be taking the Micky.

[russ]

I have the OIII Castell which Shane recommended. We tested it out a couple of weeks ago using my 250PX and a 31mm Nagler. I have to say the filter worked like a charm on the Veil. The Eastern Veil was especially beautiful, so much detail. But we had to wait until 1am for a decent view. We tried the Witches Broom but it simply didn't stand out at first, sky was still too light at midnight. But by 1am boy did it look good. Not side by side tested the Castell with other brands but the view appears every bit as good as the Skywatcher version i had last year and the Skywatcher looked every bit as good as the Lumicon i had previous to that. But that could be memory fading.

The Baader UHC-S also enhanced the Veil but not to the same extent as the OIII. Like John i only use these filters for a very limited number of objects and all respond better to the OIII with a large aperture scope. But the UHC is less aggressive and better suited to a smaller aperture, which is why i bought the Baader to compliment the 6" scope.

[acey]

Only filter I own is a Lumicon 1.25" UHC so I can't offer any comparison, can only say it has served me well for about 10 years and if I were ever to buy another filter I'd get another Lumicon. But I don't think I'll ever need another. I've used it with every aperture I own (80mm to 300mm) on a great many nebulae including Horsehead.

[spaceboy]

I have the OIII Castell which Shane recommended. We tested it out a couple of weeks ago using my 250PX and a 31mm Nagler. I have to say the filter worked like a charm on the Veil. The Eastern Veil was especially beautiful, so much detail. But we had to wait until 1am for a decent view. We tried the Witches Broom but it simply didn't stand out at first, sky was still too light at midnight. But by 1am boy did it look good. Not side by side tested the Castell with other brands but the view appears every bit as good as the Skywatcher version i had last year and the Skywatcher looked every bit as good as the Lumicon i had previous to that. But that could be memory fading.

The Baader UHC-S also enhanced the Veil but not to the same extent as the OIII. Like John i only use these filters for a very limited number of objects and all respond better to the OIII with a large aperture scope. But the UHC is less aggressive and better suited to a smaller aperture, which is why i bought the Baader to compliment the 6" scope.

I almost completed checkout on a Baader UHC-S last night but as always I did a bit of digging prior to committing and was shocked to find that the UHC-S actually isn't a UHC filter. UHC filters are narrow band and the bandwidth of the UHC-S is much larger.

[John]

...was shocked to find that the UHC-S actually isn't a UHC filter. UHC filters are narrow band and the bandwidth of the UHC-S is much larger.

There is no agreed spec on what is and what is not a UHC or any of the others. The Baader UHC-S is specially designed to work well in smaller aperture scopes and it achieves that by allowing a slightly broader bandwidth through. It's still not as "wide" as a broadband filter such as an Orion Skyglow mind.

Other examples of this are (somewhat ironically) the Baader O-III which has a somewhat narrower bandwidth pass than other O-III's (too narrow for my taste) and my own Astronomik O-III which is just a little more generous than other O-III's and therefore is effective even with my 4" scope.

It is worth reading the specs carefully as you have found

[russ]

There is no agreed spec on what is and what is not a UHC or any of the others. The Baader UHC-S is specially designed to work well in smaller aperture scopes and it achieves that by allowing a slightly broader bandwidth through. It's still not as "wide" as a broadband filter such as an Orion Skyglow mind.

It is worth reading the specs carefully as you have found

The UHC-S works well if take into account, as John says, that it's designed for a smaller aperture, so has a broader bandpass. Worked well with the 150 newt enhancing M97, M27 etc. And will help with the Veil.

But the OIII is just spot on with the 10" dob.

[spaceboy]

TBH tho I doubt I would use the filters in less than my 8" so would it pay to go with a more aggressive UHC ?

[spaceboy]

It was in my Evo 4.75" with the OIII & 31mm Nag. Did the same as you and focus on the star 52 Cygni. I could kind of make out a line of nebulosity through this but as for the eastern vail nothing really stood out. Despite the light skies I could easily define the milky way and dust lanes through cygnus and it was for this reason I gave the vail a try. I could kind of make out the North american Nebula but again this didn't actually jump out at me. The only comment I would make is I have no way of avoiding getting dazzled by the nuisance st lighting adjacent to our garden. I have put up boards to try and limit this but because of the way the st lights are situated even if I don't get blinded directly by the light I get dazzled by there reflections in our windows I have complained to the environmental health and they supposedly sent someone out to survey the problem coming back to me by saying the reason why I was suffering from light pollution was because part of the fence was missing Idiots! the lot of them. I know exactly what they did. They never visited the property but went on google earth. Some donut drove through our fence last year and the council took months to repair it. I wouldn't mind the pictures I sent to the EH clearly showed the repaired fence. Anyway back to my point. I'm guessing my lack of dark adaption is at fault and not the equipment or seeing. I haven't been bothering to use my observatory which in a more ideal setting as it's at my parents so going down at stupid o'clock to start observing would be taking the Micky.

Found the vail no problem last night in my 8" John Problem I now have is the 2" 22 & 31mm Nag with the OIII fitted just fall short of a perfect focus because they won't fit all the way into the 50mm extension tube with the filter and lack inward focus because of it. Take the extension out and it lacks outward focus Sometimes this hobby drives me nuts

[Nexus 6]

Hi spaceboy, so you managed it but am sorry to read your ep's will not focus with the filter on board. Interestingly I have both the Baader UHC and OIII in the 1.25 size and although I tried them with the 24mm Panoptic I was still unable to get any detail on the Veil. Guess it was down to the lightish skies at the time which I know will not help in this case.

[todd8137]

i there i just did a blog on this subject street lights,it took me 3 months of constant e mails phone calls and letters parish council meetings the lot i got on to my local mp and the enviroment guy light pol in my area is treated the same as oil spills and all the rest if you see my blog in the end the council must have got sick of me because they came out and said we will paint them out well a max of four which they didnow my garden is pitch black almost i also got them to consider turning the power down to save money on street lighting as this comes out of poll tax we pay get on there case as for filters i have the 0III baeder one works a treat in the 12" kills the 90mm the Neodymium filter is great on both scopes and is ok on the viel as well

[Moonshane]

can you not put the filter in the extension?

[spaceboy]

Other than the obvious difference in aperture I think the reason why I saw it in my 8" is because my eyes were dark adapted ?? What I do know is it was blatantly obvious with the OIII filter. Even with the lack of inward focus leaving me with slightly blurred stars I could see it. I will drop the extension tube in the lathe later today and take the stop a little further down the tube in the hope this will solve the problem. I just find it mind blowing how much hassle I'm experiencing with filters. Considering filters are a known accessories and almost all adapters are threaded for filters they just don't seem to work with them ???

[bish]

Glad you posted this. I've been round in circles on this one. At the moment I have an Anatres LPR filter which is quite good on some things. I've got no idea where it fits in the scheme of things compared to Oiii, UHC etc but it did give me a great view of the veil in my old 6" from a dark site. I think I could really do with an Oiii for the 10" dob now and perhaps even a UHC too but don't want to shell out a load of cash for marginal improvement over the LPR. I've tried the veil from my back garden with the LPR but no luck. Could do with some thing wider than my 26mm meade plossl too probably. Plenty wide enough in the old 6" but not sure about the 10".

[spaceboy]

can you not put the filter in the extension?

You know Shane I was just typing out my last post and realized I didn't try that DUH!!! The trouble is with all my other filters (sky watcher) they have to be in the EP to focus but I never gave the Castell a thought. TBH tho Shane I think the problem I am then going to have is fitting the extension into the focuser

Think I'm going to drop the extension tube in the lathe and shave a little of the internal stop.

[Nexus 6]

Really did'nt get on with the Celestron LP filter I bought a few years ago, in fact its the only bit of kit I have ever damaged, dropped the sod and it cracked the glass, is still in the accessories case taking up space!

[spaceboy]

Glad you posted this. I've been round in circles on this one. At the moment I have an Anatres LPR filter which is quite good on some things. I've got no idea where it fits in the scheme of things compared to Oiii, UHC etc but it did give me a great view of the veil in my old 6" from a dark site. I think I could really do with an Oiii for the 10" dob now and perhaps even a UHC too but don't want to shell out a load of cash for marginal improvement over the LPR. I've tried the veil from my back garden with the LPR but no luck. Could do with some thing wider than my 26mm meade plossl too probably. Plenty wide enough in the old 6" but not sure about the 10".

I have found LPR's a total waste of time. OIII IMO is the best filter going and all of the nebs I've used them on POP! The UHC dose bring out some detail but not as well. The only reason why I insist on having both is because it costs me time and money to journey to my dark site so I want to make sure I get my monies worth.