LP or UHC filter?

[bullettooth]

Hey all,

I was reading somewhere that i would be best off going for a light pollution filter rather than a UHC filter for my size scope (114 aperature)

would you agree with this?

thanks in advance.

clear skies

Martin

[rwilkey]

A light pollution filter would not help with nebula, and in my opinion the UHC filter would work fine in a 114 aperture. If you would like to compromise, the Baader UHC-S has a much broader bandpass and is specifically made for smaller apertures. The way things are going I think light pollution filters may become redundant in the not too distant future.

[bullettooth]

A light pollution filter would not help with nebula, and in my opinion the UHC filter would work fine in a 114 aperture. If you would like to compromise, the Baader UHC-S has a much broader bandpass and is specifically made for smaller apertures. The way things are going I think light pollution filters may become redundant in the not too distant future.

thanks alot for that. thats what i was thinking before i read about LP filters being better for smaller apertures. i think someone doesnt know what their talking about lol.

so you think the Baader would be the best for me? is the cheapest price around for these £51 (new) ?

thanks again

[NGC 1502]

A light pollution filter would not help with nebula, and in my opinion the UHC filter would work fine in a 114 aperture. If you would like to compromise, the Baader UHC-S has a much broader bandpass and is specifically made for smaller apertures. The way things are going I think light pollution filters may become redundant in the not too distant future.

I do think that Robin is correct. Some say that a UHC filter is not for small apertures, but mine is helpful (with selected targets) using my 70mm refractor. I've seen M76 (little dumbbell) with that combo from my light polluted town back garden, without the filter, no go. But I wouldn't use my OIII with that scope personally, too dim.

Regards, Ed.

[paul schofield]

I think the OIII filter is said to work better with larger aperture scopes over the the UHC filter. Don't know if this is where the confusion came from. I own the UHC filter and a light pollution filter also. The UHC gets a lot more use than the LPF, and has with my 130p and 200p. I am no expert with filters so others can advise better. As I only observe I have not had much use for my light pollution filter at all as I find it does little to improve what I am seeing. My UHC filter was bought for viewing various nebulae and I think this is where it excels.

Dont know if it will be of interest to you but a member is selling a Baader Neo / skyglow filter in classifieds.

[bullettooth]

Dont know if it will be of interest to you but a member is selling a Baader Neo / skyglow filter in classifieds.

thanks for your reply.

i noticed this but i dont know what it is. i assumed it was just like a light pollution filter?

[rwilkey]

I think the Baader UHC-S is the safe bet, I use both the UHC, the OIII and the Baader UHC-S in my 100mm frac and all work well I have to say. The only downside is that such good quality filters are not cheap, but it's all about results, if they perform well, that's all that matters. The UHC-S has good light transmission so works better in smaller apertures where light throughput is not so good, but not exclusively so as seen with my usage with the 100mm.

[Darkstar_1]

The Baader neodymium filter is a good compromise, it helps with LP, it enhances planetery and lunar detail and increases contrast which helps with some DSO's . I don't regret buying one.

[paul schofield]

I cant say how a Baader Neo Skyglow filter will work with your scope, but I have found it a very good addition to my observing and find it works well on certain planets, Jupiter, Mars and gives a lovely Moon view as well as coping with light pollution. So kind of a 3 in 1 filter for me. Read reviews about it online and get more info from more experienced members on here. I also have never regretted buying mine & I reach for it before even thinking about my light pollution filter.

Woops sorry it looks like I have pretty much repeated everything Darkstar 1 has posted.

[swamp thing]

Personally I don't buy into this certain filters for certain apertures school of thought.

Im not convinced either about LP filters for visual use, there's no denying they work photographically, but visualyl my jury is well and truly still out.

The LP filters may indeed be of some benefit if, and it's a big if you have the right kind of streetlighting that they can filter out.

There is also the consideration that even then, stars and Galaxies emit light at these wavelengths too so you will be filtering them too. So they will be dimmed too. If they can reduce sky glow they may increase contrast but TBH I'm not convinced. I do have a Astronomik CLS myself but almost never use it. It just seems to do almost zip in any of my scopes, and TBH the performance of this compared to my O-III is not even close the O-III blows it away.

The narrowband UHC filters have much more purpose IMO and really cut all light except from the narrow band that nebulae emit. These work, and work well. They cannot turn an urban sky into a deep sky haven though. So don't get the thought that they are some kind of magic wand. UHC filters also cut light from stars and galaxies so they appear dimmer. They vary quite a bit in their band width. Some are considerably wider than others.

The line filters (O-III & H-Beta ) are exactly that and only allow light of certain lines through. These are aggressive filters that considerably darken the sky background. I find these the best myself but they do work best with a fully dark adapted eye and this is difficult to achieve from urban sites.

Line filters can make dim stars disappear from the field of view and the sky in the eyepiece ink black. For using either narrow band, or line filters from an urban location I would recommend a head cover to block extrenuous light from reaching the eye (although you do look a tool doing this ).

I often use my O-III filter held up to my naked eye for certain targets and it works very well, you cannot get a smaller aperture than this

[Spec-Chum]

I can certainly recommend a UHC filter for DSO's. I bought the Castell version a couple of weeks ago and I was quite surprised at the difference it makes on nebula.

Don't judge it on first impressions tho; when you first try it you think "well, that helps. Not!" Take it off and look again, you'll notice it not there. You don't realise how well it works until it's gone...

[umadog]

Yeah, I don't buy into this notion either. Adding a light pollution filter will limit the range of useful exit pupil sizes you can use so you're limited to about 7x per inch (give or take). Other than that, these filters should work in any aperture. The UHC is possibly a better starter filter than the OIII, but the OIII isn't all that much darker. Either should work in your scope. You need to be well dark adapted to use them. On the right objects you'll see a huge difference.

[euphony]

I'm glad this topic came up as it has answered some of my doubts about getting an OIII filter.

I currently have a skywatcher light pollution filter and I can honestly say that I see no difference whatsoever whether I am using it or not.

I definitely want to get an OIII filter as soon as possible to help me see emission nebula. I can see planetary nebula easily enough at the moment, but i can't see anything emission wise.

[bullettooth]

some very good replies to my questions. its really cleared up my choice of filter.

thank you all very much its really appreciated.