Nebula Filter

[Dave Wall]

Hello,

Been looking at some Nebula filters online seems most are priced up to around £120.00 which ones would you recomend.

Dave.

[Spec-Chum]

Blimey, my castell uhc was only 36 quid. Even the 2" is only about 46 quid. Serves me well

[Qualia]

I have a UHC-S Baader filter which I use with my 4" frac. It is useful on occasions (Dumbbell M 27 was very nice) but it does cut out a lot of light with such a small aperture, so most of the time I simply don't bother. I think it would be a mighty fine thing to own with a larger scope if funds permit.

[jimmyjamjoejoe]

I like my orion ultrablock. Takes the veil from being barely visible with averted vision, to obvious with direct vision. Still no filimentary detail etc, but that was on an almost full moon night. It's a good filter

[John]

It depends on the scope you will use the filter with but either a UHC or an O-III filter will enhance the contrast of many nebulae. You can get decent ones for a lot less that £120 as has been said, even in the 2" size.

[Dave Wall]

Skywatcher 200 John.

[jimmyjamjoejoe]

Only just noticed your name, and have to ask since i recently spoke to an old friend (dave wall) about getting a scope etc, are you dave wall from wimborne?

[Dave Wall]

Coseley are you marc.

[rwilkey]

I would recommend the Sky Watcher UHC and OIII filters, as they work very well and are a reasonable price as well. Will work well in the 200P.

[Dave Wall]

Just been looking at the skywatcher ones Robin whats the diffreence between the UHC and Olll filters, which one would you buy first.

[John]

Just been looking at the skywatcher ones Robin whats the diffreence between the UHC and Olll filters, which one would you buy first.

Dave,

The UHC is the most versatile so that would be the one to get first. The O-III is slightly more effective on some object types but the UHC improves those too so you are not loosing out. In due course you might decide to get an O-III as well but that depends on how much you view nebulae.

If you use, or plan to use, 2" eypieces you will need that size of filter rather than the 1.25" ones.

[Bart]

_{I have the skywatcher UHC 2" and the Castell OIII 2". The UHC I bought first and is probablythe most used. The OIII does enhance some objects more than the UHC, but if I had to give one up, it'd probably be the OIII, but it would be sadly. Saying that, I'd miss the Veil in a 30mm with the OIII !!! (leans back, sighs, and lights a cigarette....)}

[Stargazer33]

Is there any difference between the Baader and Skywatcher UHC filters - apart from £17.00 that is?

Does the Baader use a better quality glass for instance, or is this just another case of paying for a particular name that the factory prints on part of a batch of filters it is running off? Ooh, did that sound bitter?

[Bart]

Is there any difference between the Baader and Skywatcher UHC filters - apart from £17.00 that is?

Does the Baader use a better quality glass for instance, or is this just another case of paying for a particular name that the factory prints on part of a batch of filters it is running off? Ooh, did that sound bitter?

Terribly

[Stargazer33]

I take it back then!

[John]

I've used Baader, Telescope Services, Skywatcher and Orion (USA) filters and the optical quality of those seemed pretty much the same. The band pass width of the various brands does vary a bit so that is worth researching. The Baader UHC-S for example has a more generous band pass width so is good with smaller aperture scopes (say < 150mm) but the enhancement of nebula contrast is not quite so effective when used in a larger scope as, say, the Skywatcher UHC.

I now have an Astronomik O-III in the 2" size which does seem to produce tighter star images than other UHC / O-II filters I've used in the past. The Astronomik is an expensive filter though.

Lumicon is another excellent brand of filters but, again, you do pay a bit for for them.

[rwilkey]

Hi Dave, looks like you've got all the answers you need, however, I agree that the UHC is the best and first one to get, then the OIII, though on some occasions I use the OIII first, esp. on the Veil. The physical differences is that the UHC isolates three of the relevent wavelengths (two doubly ionized oxygen lines (496 and 501nm) in addition to the hydrogen-beta line (486nm)) and the OIII (just the two doubly ionized oxygen lines (496 and 501nm), the more diffuse nebula). to quote directly from the FLO website: http://www.firstligh...al-filters.html

[Dave Wall]

Thanks very much for your help very kind of you all. Looks like i will be getting me the UHC filter.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Blimey, my castell uhc was only 36 quid. Even the 2" is only about 46 quid. Serves me well

I remember a couple of yrs ago, the Castell UHC was hot in demand and proved to be a great filter.

Its something i will add to my collection at some point.

http://www.365astronomy.com/castell-uhc-deepsky-filter-for-125inch-eyepieces-p-1878.html

[Bart]

I remember a couple of yrs ago, the Castell UHC was hot in demand and proved to be a great filter.

Its something i will add to my collection at some point.

http://www.365astron...ces-p-1878.html

Paul

if the UHC is as good as the OIII its a bargain!

Barry

[Spec-Chum]

So, the OIII is better than a uhc on the veil? Interesting, I was in awe when I saw it through my uhc. Is there enough difference to warrant getting both?

[LukeSkywatcher]

Paul

if the UHC is as good as the OIII its a bargain!

Barry

I can only assume so.