baader neodymium or uhc narrowband for SKYWATCHER mak 127

[roberte76]

---

Ive read that the baader neodymium is one of the most useful general filters for observing, as is a uhc narowband ,is this the case for boh with a

the skywatcher mak 127?

I live in the south of birmingham so i do suffer from part light polluted skies,though viewing away from the centre of the city is reasonable.

Will i see the difference with either when looking at gc's oc's planets moon and nebulae?

your comments as always will be read with great interest.....

thanks

rob ps i posted this in beginners section but got no response so im trying it here

[rikyuu]

I'm only a beginner myself, but I got the baader neodymium and it does seem to make a difference. Again I suffer from light pollution and there's definately more contrast using the filter. It doesn't seem to darken what you are trying to see either, eg. I can see Bode's nebula just as brightly with it, but with better contrast than without.

[Whippy]

Hm, I didn't spot your post in the Beginner's section, these old eyes must be playing up...

You're essentially talking about two different filters here. The Baader is a general light pollution filter, what it does is cut out most of the artifical light that plagues our skies. The UHC filter as you say is a narrowband filter and really only works on Nebulae, it's useless for anything starlight based ie: galaxies, clusters etc etc.

I have a Baader Neodymium and I'm not too impressed with it visually. Like everyone else, my skies are fairly polluted and TBH I'd rather go without the Neodymium and live with the light pollution as the filter cuts out too much of the faint detail for me. However, I found when doing afocal imaging it worked a treat and made a big difference!

Like I said, the UHC is superb for Nebulae as it only lets through certain light frequencies emitted by most nebulae. You can really notice the difference on objects like M51, M27 etc etc.

For the Moon, you'd best be getting a Moon filter. For the planets, some people swear by colour filters, some think they don't make a difference. Sounds stupid but IMHO filters, especially light pollution filters are a personal thing. Horses for courses as the cliche goes!

Tony..

[beamish]

I think I fall in with Whippy here. I use the baader but only when I have the camera or webcam going and in these cases it works a treat, for visual use I don't see a great improvement. I've tried one or two coloured filters for planetary stuff and TBH in my limited experience, not worth it (yet).

Karlo

[trevboyd]

I'd agree with Tony and Karlo - I don't notice any difference visually with the neodymium, but it makes a big difference when imaging and cuts the LP down considerably. I'm considering an Astronomik CLS though too - have heard they are very good.

Trev

[roberte76]

Thanks everyone very useful,imaging is not a priority at all at the moment

so a uhc seems the most useful for me ,or this CLS,

however now price rears it ugly head (cls aound £70)

could anyone suggest a filter with value for money in mind?

[trevboyd]

After posting my previous message, I remembered a thread a while ago where some people said they had found the neodymium to be quite effective and others not.

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php/topic,22156.msg227307.html#msg227307

Might be worth trying it anyway - you might find its good in your location. Someone in the thread mentions Steve@FLO offering to take it back if its no good - might be worth asking about that too, then you've got nothing to lose (except maybe postage)

Trev

[Ant]

I'd agree with Tony and Karlo - I don't notice any difference visually with the neodymium, but it makes a big difference when imaging and cuts the LP down considerably. I'm considering an Astronomik CLS though too - have heard they are very good.

Trev

The CLS filters are indeed very good, they cut down so much light that the only light that does get through is GOOD LIGHT!

But I found that you had to increase the exposure by more than double to compensate, I felt that as I could go about about 60 - 90 seconds the advantages of the CLS were ofset by the reduction on light gathering...

I sold the CLS and bought the neodymium.

Ant

[bern]

Thanks everyone very useful,imaging is not a priority at all at the moment

so a uhc seems the most useful for me ,or this CLS,

however now price rears it ugly head (cls aound £70)

could anyone suggest a filter with value for money in mind?

You don't need to pay £70 for a CLS, they go for around £54 inc delivery.

bern

[trevboyd]

But I found that you had to increase the exposure by more than double to compensate, I felt that as I could go about about 60 - 90 seconds the advantages of the CLS were ofset by the reduction on light gathering...

I sold the CLS and bought the neodymium.

Ant

That's interesting, Ant - I was considering one (going to have to get a 2" filter of one sort or another to replace my 1.25" neodymium), so might go for nedymium again (and it's cheaper! )

Trev

[bern]

Trev,

Just be aware the Neodymium is only really effective against light pollution from low pressure Sodium fittings.

bern

[John]

I use a Baader UHC-S filter which go for around £49 new and find it pretty effective with nebulae, especially planetaries. With it I can pick out the eastern part of the Veil Nebula with an 80mm aperture scope from my back garden on a good night - the nebula is invisible wihout the UHC-S filter.

I have tried broadband filters (Orion Skyglow and Celestron LPR) and did not find those anywhere near as effective as the UHS-C.

I have not tried a neodymium filter as yet but my understanding is that it is not trying to compete with the narrowband filters but is intended for more subtle uses - it is reputed to enhance contrast of planetary details to some extent as well as reducing the effects of moonglow and light pollution.

John

[rikyuu]

I think the neodymium at £29.50 swung it for me being a 'budget' beginner!!

[roberte76]

thanks all

yes i was hoping for around the £30 mark myself

are there any uhc-s filters at this price?

[John]

thanks all

yes i was hoping for around the £30 mark myself

are there any uhc-s filters at this price?

You might get a pre-owned UHC filter for around that price.

John

[roberte76]

good thinking anybody got a spare they are willing to

relinquish for 30 notes?

[FLO]

The thing about the Neodymium is that its effectiveness as a light-pollution-reduction filter depends on the type of light pollution. If it is the classic orange skyglow from sodium street-lights then it can be 'very' effective and it'll fast become your favourite filter. If not, you'll wonder what all the fuss is about. Best buy from a dealer who'll take it back if it turns out to be unsuitable :toothy6:

Regarding the CLS v Neodymium, I have both (bought a set of Astronomik filters second-hand a while back). If a forum member would like to borrow them for a review, I'll be happy to send them out. Clearly it needs to be someone unbiased and if they could also include some before and after pix, that'd be great. Please PM me if interested.

[FLO]

Tony (Whippy) has volunteered

[Macavity]

I SENSE you can learn quite a lot about the global properties of filters from just "looking through them" - at ordinary things too! You can certainly see if they "knock out" any of the local street lighting quickly enough... But, with so MUCH orange lighting around here, I have (wryly) thought of making myself some "John Lennon glasses" from a pair of 2" contrast (or neodymium) filters.

[Vega]

Will be really intersted in this review. Will there be photographic testing on both filters? and can we see the results?

Matt

[FLO]

Tony has offered to write an review for SGL. He will test the filters effectiveness for visual and for photography. If you have any thoughts on how the test should be carried out please let him know.

[BWBlackett]

I've just ordered the Neodymium & UHC-S from FLO for use in my Dob in my light polluted skies near Blackpool (It's hopeless during the Illuminations!!!).

Mine are for Visual use rather than photographic - I will do a small writeup when they arrive and I have a clear night to test them.

Brian.

[roberte76]

great thanks look forward to that

[Whippy]

Tony has offered to write an review for SGL. He will test the filters effectiveness for visual and for photography. If you have any thoughts on how the test should be carried out please let him know.

Indeed! PM me if you have any bright ideas .

Tony..

[Vega]

I've just ordered the Neodymium & UHC-S from FLO for use in my Dob in my light polluted skies near Blackpool (It's homeless during the Illuminations!!!).

Brian.

The test is going to be Neodinium vs CLS rather than the more narrowband UHC isn't it :scratch:

Matt