Question about the Orion ultrablock and UHC filters

[Richardisgreat]

Just wondering if anyone could steer me in the right direction, i have a Skywatcher 200p (8 inch) and live in the light polluted area of Berkshire. I have thought about getting a filter to help with observing nebular, i kind of get the impression that UHC filters are the way to go, The Castell UHC is only £40 so i thought that would be quite a good buy if it is any good. However i have recently discovered the Orion Ultrablock i gather it is not considerd a UHC but more of a Nebular/Light pollution Filter. Quite a bit more expensive than the Castell UHC at just over £100. I am a liitle confused as to the difference between a nebular filter and a UHC filter.

Just wondered if anyone could tell me the effect that each of these filters will have for my scope. I am beggining to fancy the Orion Ultrablock on the grounds that it might help reduce the effect of light pollution and work to improve nebular contrast. however it may have to be a request to santa clause

Also what other nebular/uhc/light pollution filters should i consider. I would like to sharpen up some of the nebulars as at the moment M27 for instance looks like a fuzzy egg timer shaped haze.

I would also like if possible to bring out a little colour if atall possible (long exposure photography is not possible for me im afraid as my 200p is a flextube dobsonian and i havent discovered webcam photography just yet

I am still a newbie to this hobby but eager to learn, i would like to combat some of the light pollution problems aswell as bring out more contrast or detail in some of the nebular if possible. I hope you guys know the sort of thing i need or can offer some advice or experience on these or similar filters. Budget wise lets say if i can get a filter for around £40 or £50 i can probably spend that but anymore will need authorisation from the boss, i mean wife

Thanks for any advice guys and gals.

[Spec-Chum]

I really like my Castell UHC filter and was well worth the £36 I paid for it. But. Whilst I have no idea how the ultrablock performs I honestly doubt it'll be £60 "better" than a UHC filter. We're talking quite small contrast boosts at the best of times, it's not a night and day difference from any filter, regardless of price. They help, but don't expect too much.

My advise would be to get the Castell UHC, I can tell you it works well in your scope.

[Richardisgreat]

Thanks Spec-Chum i quite like the fact that the Castell is that much cheaper, but just to throw another spanner in the works i wonder if anyone can comment on the Baader UHC-S filter. It also claims to combat the effect of light pollution whilst acting as a UHC filter and at around £50 could this be a serious contender?

[Spec-Chum]

The Baader is a broader filter, ie it allows more wavelengths through, I'd stick with a "normal" UHC filter. They all combat light pollution as a consequence of their design, but that's not really what they're used for.

They don't make objects brighter but try to make the very dim ones easier to see against the sky.

[John]

I've owned a 2" Orion Ultrablock. It is the equivalent of a UHC filter (ie: similar band pass width) and a rather good one. It worked well for me with a range of scopes from 4 to 12 inches in aperture. It did a great job on the Veil and Owl nebulas. I've since moved on to an Astronomik O-III which is slightly better but a lot more expensive. I'd recommend the Orion Ultrablock if you can get one at a reasonable price. I preferred it to the Baader UHC-S and the Telescope Services (TS) UHC filters that I'd owned before the Ultrablock although all of these worked well enough.

[Richardisgreat]

Thanks for the feed back guys. So i guess im looking at he castell uhc, im happy about that as it is quite a bit cheaper. I wonder are there any rubbish ones to avoid? Are the skywatcher ones any good?

[RikM]

I have a SkyWatcher Oiii and it works very well for me. I bought it as a stand-in while Astronomic filters were out of stock (I also have an Astronomic UHC, which is great) but actually it works so well that I don't see any need to replace it.