2" Filters that don't break the bank

[DRT]

I am in the process of upgrading my EPs. My plan is to have a mix of good quality 1.25' and 2" and I have started by pulling the trigger on a Pentax 10mm XW and Baader Hyperion-Aspheric 31mm and Hyperion 8mm-24mm Zoom.

All of the filters I currently have are budget stuff but I want to buy Moon, Nebula and Light-Polution 2" filters without breaking the bank.

I am attracted to the Baader range, but those will prevent me buying my next Pentax EP. Are there any other (cheaper) ranges I should be looking at or would I simply be putting cheap glass in front of expensive glass and wasting the money I am spending on the EPs?

[Qualia]

I'm no expert on this, DRT and really just figuring from my heart which says to me that before forking out on filters, I'd prefer to get out to a dark site. This would be the cornerstone of doing some wicked nebulae viewing. I've also found that nebulae generally prefer larger exit pupils (5mm) which isn't always that useful in LP sites. It would only be after a decent run on a dark site that I would start looking into filters, figuring out what type I needed from the kind of nebulae I enjoyed viewing. I do have a UHC-S filter which I have found useful on occassion, but I truely feel nothing beats dark skies. Other than that O-III filters are said to be useful but are probably a little more aggressive (dimmer image) than the UHCs.

I've never bothered with moon filters. I have some Baader one which came with my purchase of the Tal but I've never really used it. I've also experimented with a variable polariser which I need for white light solar, but again, didn't enjoy the experience of it with the Moon. To be honest, I'm not convinced the Moon is any brighter naked eye than it is through a scope. It's probably a psychological disposition that says it's so,, rather than any fact dependent on hard numbers. Nowadays, if the glare or brightness of the Moon seems too much in the 10" or 4", I just up the magnification. Personally, if I was wishing to go down that road, I'd think about a Baader Neodymium which would act well on the Moon and double up as a nice filter on Jupiter and maybe be useful on occassion for LP skies cursed with sodium based street lights.

[jetstream]

Like Qualia states,nothing replaces dark skies.I do observe from dark skies and have found that my Astronomik OIII filter is used most-it espc enhances the Veil nebula,one of my favorites.John the mod told us about this particular filter-and the fact that it works with a variety of apertures-well.I would save up for one of these and re-think the moon and LP filters.Once in dark,transparent skies a lot of neb look great without any filter, i.e the Ring neb-fantastic in my 10mm EP.Since the OIII purchase,my UHC hardly gets used-but a lot of people like them-they do work well in light polluted skies on M42-but so does the OIII.DRT,try finding a nice dark site and give it a try,I'm sure you will be impressed.Have fun!

[Bart]

My garden is reasonably dark, NELM of 5.6. I can see the Veil, but I can see more of it with both an oiii and a UHC. However, I prefer it without either. I'm sure most folk would prefer stuff unadulterated.

If I had lighter skies, I'm sure I'd like the oiii and the UHC.

Same goes for m42, I can see more, but I prefer it coming straight to my eyes without being tampered with.

Saying all that, I'm glad I have them, but if it was them or a Pentax, the EP would be on its way :)

Barry

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have found that even on dark sites (near Olly's place in southern France) filters can give an extra edge, especially looking at the difference between the view with and without filters. They also help in picking out emission nebulae in dense star fields. I have fairly cheap UHC and O-III filters, and they do a good job (officially APM branded, but same as skywatcher I believe). I also have an Orion moon filter (mounting looks very Baader-like). No doubt the Baader, Lumicon, Tele-Vue, and Astronomik are better, but for now these 69-89 euro filters will do.

[russ]

I have found that even on dark sites (near Olly's place in southern France) filters can give an extra edge, especially looking at the difference between the view with and without filters. They also help in picking out emission nebulae in dense star fields. I have fairly cheap UHC and O-III filters, and they do a good job (officially APM branded, but same as skywatcher I believe). I also have an Orion moon filter (mounting looks very Baader-like). No doubt the Baader, Lumicon, Tele-Vue, and Astronomik are better, but for now these 69-89 euro filters will do.

That's what i find too. Even observing from deepest New Forest i still find the OIII noticeably enhances the view of a select number of objects. We've found the Veil, M97, M27, M76 are all much better with OIII and Ultrablock (narrowband) filters. We're also only using the cheap Skywatcher versions. The Veil is the one that responds best for me. Yes i can see the Veil unfiltered and no problem in the 12" dob but the filtered view dispenses with a lot of the stars and leaves you with a detailed view of the Veil itself. On really good nights its almost photographic.

Everyone has there own view but for me the Narrowband filters are the only filters worth having in the kit bag. Oh plus a good ND filter for the Moon.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have just stretched to an H-beta filter from APM, specifically for hunting the Horse Head Nebula from the Alps in a few weeks' time. Again I am choosing a cheap filter because I do not feel like investing a large amount of money on a filter which is best for just a few objects.

[ronin]

2 thoughts come to mind:

On a thread over on CN it was said by quite a few that the Baader filters are supplied to Celestron so in effect they are the same or very close. I suppose differences may have been any coatings and the quality of the holder that the filter is housed in.

The other thought is check out the Sky's the Limit site, Alan seems to get and sell fairly good items. Just no idea how much a filter of any particular type costs.

After that it is the used market, ABSUK, and that could be a fair source of items

[DRT]

Thanks, guys, all very helpful.

Unfortunately, my circumstances mean that I will be confined to the back garden for 99% of my observing so filters will have to be part of the toolkit unless I can find a way of turning off the electricity within a 20 mile radius when I want to go out

[todd8137]

Most if not 85 % of people do view from home and not every one can get out and about go for it I say

Pat

[russ]

Thanks, guys, all very helpful.

Unfortunately, my circumstances mean that I will be confined to the back garden for 99% of my observing so filters will have to be part of the toolkit unless I can find a way of turning off the electricity within a 20 mile radius when I want to go out

Most of my observing is done from a town centre. I found the both UHC and OIII offered a good improvement to the views i get. For instance, M97 the Owl is barely detectable from the back garden unfilitered. But with the OIII it pops out no problem at all. The same with M76 The Little Dumbell.

[acey]

My plan is to have a mix of good quality 1.25' and 2"

I want to buy Moon, Nebula and Light-Polution 2" filters without breaking the bank.

Why do you want 2" EPs? Only reason I can think of would be the wider field they potentially offer. So the question then is why you want that wider field. Personally I manage fine with 1.25" EPs. But if wide field means so much to you, then go for it.

If you start using 2", then why do you need 2" filters? Many 1.25" to 2" adapters are threaded, so you could use a 1.25" filter with a 2" EP, which would save a lot of money.

As to filters - a Moon filter is just a bit of tinted glass, so no need to spend much on that. Go for a variable polarising one if you want to get fancy (though you've got to take the EP out of the focuser to vary the transmittance, so they're not as much fun as they sound). Light pollution filters are hit and miss - they can't perform miracles, and the only way to get a dark sky is to get away from lights. For nebula filters, I have only one - a Lumicon UHC - and it's all I've ever needed. It's at the pricier end and well worth it. I use it on emission nebulae (including planetaries) - it has no use on anything else. And since the vast majority of DSOs are galaxies, this means I don't use it very much.

You mention the Baader Hyperion 8-24mm zoom - that's a great EP, and I use it for 90 per cent of my deep-sky viewing (i.e. 90 per cent of my total viewing, since deep-sky is really all I do). For the other 10 per cent I use a 32mm plossl (my finding eyepiece), a Nirvana 4mm (my only wide-field EP, which I need for easier dob tracking at high power) and sometimes a Speers-Waler 5-8mm zoom (big and clunky so not used much, though actually my most expensive EP). So I do pretty much everything with 3 high quality but not ultra-expensive 1.25" EPs (all in the £100-150 range, accumulated over the years as needed, replacing the various TV plossls I previously used). The most important thing to me is the sky I view under, which is very dark.

You say you're restricted to light-polluted back garden viewing - OK, make the best of it. It means you're restricted to a limited number of deep-sky targets - the whole smorgasbord of the NGC (or maybe even Messier) is not available, no matter how much aperture or how many filters you throw at it. Lunar and planetary, double stars and bright clusters (including globs such as M13) are all good options, and you may manage a decent number of nebulae and galaxies. The brightest nebulae (e.g. M57, M42) can be easily viewed at a bright site without a filter. Galaxies can't be improved using filters (except maybe a "light pollution" one if you happen to have the right kind of light pollution, i.e. low-pressure sodium, which is becoming increasingly rare), but a couple (M31, M81/82...) are easily seen - if unspectacular - at a bright site. See what you can manage, but don't expect to find a solution by throwing money at it. For most astronomers, petrol is the best investment.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Petrol is a good investment, but driving somewhere takes time, and breaks in clouds are often short. Being able to set the scope up in my back garden means I get to see more. 

Regarding 2" EPs: there usefulness depends much on the scope used, in my 8" F/10, they are a must have. Using a filter-switch diagonal, I can use my 2" filters on all my EPs, which is handy.

[DRT]

Why do you want 2" EPs?

Becasue I have an 11" f/10 SCT and it seems rude not to

[Moonshane]

I have the following 2" filters and they are all great value and work very well indeed.:

Oiii and UHC - Castell about £50 new each

Baader Neodymium - about £40 used

Skywatcher Hb - £40 new

I can recommend them all although the Hb has not really been used yet in earnest.

[scarp15]

An Orion Ultra block filter would be an option to consider. It works similar to a UHC filter and I use it (with my C8) for enhancing nebula, from home and at dark sites. The main requirement from home, is to always use a dew shield to reflect stray light, try - sometimes quite challenging, to keep your eyes as dark  adapted as possible and observe when your target has reached its meridian. Personally I do not use a moon filter, so lunar and planetary observing from home, with a few brighter DSO's is fine.

[John]

My deep sky filters are an Astronomik O-III and a Lumicon H-Beta although the latter has not really seen much action !

I've tried the Telescope Services (TS) UHC and that was a good filter for it's cost as is the Orion Ultrablock which is also a UHC type.

I prefer not to use a filter if possible but with a few objects the difference is very pronounced so it's worth having one or two "in the tool box" for those targets 

The Veil Nebula complex viewed using the Astronomik O-III and any of my scopes, on a dark night, is one of the finest sights in amateur astronomy in my opinion 

[acey]

There used to be a lot of f10 refractors with narrow focusers (e.g. 0.96") and non-wide-angle eyepieces (e.g. Kellner etc) and people were happy with that. But I guess once something gets invented then it becomes essential.

[bomberbaz]

Personally I have cheaper skywatcher and baader filters, cant remember what is what but they are in uhc, uhc-s and o-III.

I regularly use them, all 2" btw.

all 3 give differing views and I like to view dso, s that respondcto filters with any or all of them.

Typically I find orion throws up great views which varies tremendiusly between the filters and naked eye & each one is very pleasing. I aim to do a composite image at some point using my astrocam to see how that turns out..