What filters?

[Rumpelstiltleg]

I am fairly new or this but am blessed with some good kit following my retirement lump sum (haven't told her indoors how much I've spent tho').

Current kit :

Orion Optics ODK 10

WO 110mm Apo triplet

TV Ethos 8, 13 and 21 mm eyepieces, Powermate x2, TV dielectric.

I need advice on what type and make of filters I should be buying for nebulae and for planetary viewing. Should I stick with TV and accept the added expense or should I look at other options?

Any advice is welcome.

Mike

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[red dwalf]

hi Mike, by no means am i an expert, but i use a baader moon and skyglow filter sometimes for visual use and nothing else, if you have a goos sky you can get away without too many filters, but if your thinking of imaging with your william optics at any time i would recommend the astronomik lrgb type 2 filters.

[Stargazer_00]

A UHC and O-III filter, whatever brand, for Nebula. UHC being the most useful but some show up very well in O-III and not so well in UHC.

Baaders would be fine.

[rwilkey]

Hi Mike, the UHC (Ultra High Contrast) and the OIII (Oxygen III) are the best nebula filters to get and there are a number of different makes out there besides the Baader. The cheaper ones from Sky Watcher do the job very well and have a slightly wider bandpass. Other good quality makes include Castell, Astronomik and Lumicon. Out of choice I prefer the Lumicon as they are better engineered. Orion (USA) filters are also good, by the way.

[alan potts]

If you are fairly new to the hobby I would wait a while before buying filters. the Olll filter only really benifits a few targets, I have only last week bought one myself after 6 years back in the hobby. I believe the UHC filter is more useful and you have a scope big enough to get the best from it.

I have gone for Astronomik filters myself with, like you having Televue eyepieces, but Lumicon's would be just as good . Try to pick your moment and go for a secondhand one, new are very expensive for what the are, by that I mean they are not very big for 170 quid.

Alan

[Codmate]

If you like looking at the moon, I can heartily recommend the Orion variable polarising moon filter.

[Rumpelstiltleg]

Thanks to you all. It looks like I will go for a UHC filter first, probably a second hand Lumicon.

Mike

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Ohmless]

good. I agree with the UHC filter for you. I have had good luck with the quality from lumicon IRT the color filters I have.

[Moonshane]

someone once told me that TV filters are not as good as others on the market. not really looked into this. you seem to have a good budget (although from your kit list, maybe you have spent a good proportion of it already!) so I'd suggest Astronomik as the best to buy.

basically, filters take things away; they don't add anything. they restrict the wavelengths that you can see and are different for visual and imaging so you need to buy visual filters for visual observing, usually imaging ones specify for CCD.

Nothing benefits faint objects more than darker skies, then aperture then filters. I have quite poor skies at home and a range of scopes and genuinely feel that I benefit greatly from filters for many objects.

my requirements for filters in order of importance is as follows:

they should

1) reveal something that I cannot see without the filter

or

2) improve something that I can see without the filter

For this reason I'd suggest two imitially:

1) Oiii - this is a magic bullet for certain objects like the Veil Nebula, North America Nebula and Rosette Nebula which from my site are completely invisible in my 16" scope from home. With the filter the Veil is a mass of detail and nebulosity. From a dark site with my 6" scope I saw the NA Nebula and Pelican Nebula easily.

2) Baader Neodymiun Filter - this provides enhancement of contrast for the moon and planets, particularly Jupiter and Mars. It's a good all round light pollution filter but I don't use it for that.

I have three other filters:

3) UHC - this improves many objects but in truth, I prefer the unfiltered view of them more. M42 stands out as being really improved with this filter and for what I paid, it's honestly worth it just for that object.

4) Baader Solar Continuum - this provides good contrast on the sun vs no filter - must be used with a white light solar film or Herschel Wedge - and improves detail such as granulation/sunspot detail.

5) Hb - I bought this specifically for the Horsehead and California Nebs but the sky has been cloudy since buying it and not used it yet.

Personally, if I can get away without a filter, I prefer it but hopefully the above will provide some food for thought.

[astronymonkey]

Ive been considering what filters to purchase aswell so this threat is really useful

Would you recommend 2" or 1.25" filters though ?

Cheers

[Moonshane]

personally I went for 2" as I use them either on my 2" eyepieces or on my 2-1.25" adapter (usually with a baader fine tuning ring to ensure no nosepiece accidents in the dark). this means less changing about especially when viewing Jupiter/moon at high powers with 1.25" eyepieces.

[Stargazer_00]

I also buy 2" filters, i screw them into a 2" barlow in place of the barlow element so that eyepieces can be swapped without the filter.

I have a few 1.25" filters and for these I do the same thing but with an old SW 2x barlow without the element. Just makes changing EPs so much easier.

[John]

Thats a very good overview Shane

Like you, I generally prefer the views without filters wherever possible.

An O-III really does work wonders on some objects though and those make it worth having. Actually just the Veil is such a fabulous object with an O-III that it justifies the cost IMHO