ES UHC 1.25" Filter

[sheremetov]

Hi folks,

Just got my first "serious" filter for the scope, haven't found any review so far - Explore Scientific UHC 1.25".

It costed me ~ 60 EUR including delivery. 

It came nicely packaged in hard box with great graphics. 

Haven't had a chance to test it yet, as it always happens, once you buy new gear the rainy/cloudy season begins.

I'll post here impression as I test it, planning to check firstly on M42 (I use 5" short newt/john-bird set on my 6th level balcony in relatively light polluted area  ).

The only thing I was disappointed, is that they claim that every filter is tested and you get a report in box - filter test sheet, but I haven't found one.

Also their sales do not respond on my email. Not that I'm so keen to have it, but once you spend $$ for a new toy you want to get full package. Now, that feeling of "exclusivity" is missing 

[Paul73]

Don't worry. The test report isn't very exciting. But it is usefull for comparing different makes of filters.

Here is mine. The ES packaging is always a bit on the chunky side, but the filter seems to work pretty well!

Paul

[Dave In Vermont]

Very nice images, Sheremetov. Thank you for posting your un-boxing-ceremony!

And while we're at it - welcome to SGL. It's nice to have you aboard. We're friendly here and rarely bite. And we love helping people find answers to all questions in the multi-faceted universe that is astronomy. So don't feel shy and make yourself at home!

Clear skies,

Dave

[sheremetov]

Paul, agree, I think that paper has nothing to do with filter usage

Btw it appears to be the cheapest choice of UHC among popular brands as I understand..anyone compared to say Lumicon?

Thanks Dave! I'm kinda new at hobby ~ 3 months, will definitely have bunch of questions! 

[sheremetov]

Had an opportunity today to look at the sky a bit, no couds for 30 min.

I must admit, I'm fully satisfied with my purchase, this filter is great (can't compare though to others) for the reasonable price. 

Looked mostly at M42 and it has a great visible enhancement comparing to no filter. Much darker background and you can see more nebulousity around. 

[John]

Thats good

Push the filter further though. M42 looks good even without a filter. The Veil Nebula or the Owl Nebula (for example) can hardly be seen at all without the filter with a small aperture scope. You really do think "thats money well spent" when you see something that is otherwise invisible

[jetstream]

Had an opportunity today to look at the sky a bit, no couds for 30 min.

I must admit, I'm fully satisfied with my purchase, this filter is great (can't compare though to others) for the reasonable price. 

Looked mostly at M42 and it has a great visible enhancement comparing to no filter. Much darker background and you can see more nebulousity around. 

How well does it show unfiltered there? can you see the wings? I have an interest in filter performance...

[sheremetov]

Yes John, I will definitely check it on other objects and from really dark site, right now I have terrible weather during past 10 days.

From my location I can see just the brightest part of nebula with no filter. With filter I can see the wings and lot of nebulousity, esp. with averted vision.

[Mak the Night]

I seriously considered an ES UHC filter for a while, they look good. I like the useful included plastic transportation case. There is the CLS version as well: http://www.explorescientific.co.uk/en/Optical-accessories/Explore-Scientific-1-25-CLS-Nebula-Filter.html?listtype=search&searchparam=CLS%20Nebula%20

They are very well priced and easily obtainable in the UK. 

[alan potts]

They look very good for the money and the box is impressive, Meade used to over do the boxes as well. I bought Atsronomiks myself and they don't have any fancy packaging, apart from the plastic case, they do manage to charge 3 times the price though, I wonder if they are 3 times better. I think not. 

[YKSE]

They look very good for the money and the box is impressive, Meade used to over do the boxes as well. I bought Atsronomiks myself and they don't have any fancy packaging, apart from the plastic case, they do manage to charge 3 times the price though, I wonder if they are 3 times better. I think not. 

I would like to think that it is just the same as eyepieces   Do Naglers perform 3 times better than ES 82? I think not. But, we do make choices based on our own preferences, nothing wrong with either choices and I am glad that there're many choices available for different preferences.

[jetstream]

The issue I have with filter brands is quality control, the "I got a good one" deal. Once you have had a "bad one" and returning the item is not easy, thinking twice before buying becomes mandatory (for me). ES makes good stuff in general- this is a good sign.

[SDV]

Hi all!

I have 3 ES filters (UHC, OIII, H-Beta) for about a year, bought them in summer 2014. I use them in 12" and 16" dobsonians.

Overall, the OIII filter is much more in use than others.

Sadly, but there is no other filters to compare around me. My friend ordered Astronomik 2" OIII, but it somewhere in the way to us, need to wait.

I found, that UHC is relatively wide in light transmission, but seems it works in my light polluted sky (SQM20,5) or i don't know how good UHC filter works.

[agrauballe]

Sadly, but there is no other filters to compare around me. My friend ordered Astronomik 2" OIII, but it somewhere in the way to us, need to wait.

Let us know once you have the chance to compare the ES OIII vs Astronomik OII. Interesting to see if the ES will be in line with the Astronomik considered it quite a bit cheaper.

[inedible_hulk]

There is the CLS version as well

I've ended up with the CLS filter by accident (I'd ordered the UHC - ho hum). Still I thought the filter test sheet may be of interest for comparison.

Having had a little play with it, I'm tempted to keep it [emoji4]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mak the Night]

I've ended up with the CLS filter by accident (I'd ordered the UHC - ho hum). Still I thought the filter test sheet may be of interest for comparison.

Having had a little play with it, I'm tempted to keep it [emoji4]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It could be OK, I think it is similar to the Baader UHC-S, although I may be wrong about this.

http://ejamison.net/equipment_reviews5.html#5

‘When I first read about the Baader UHC-S filter I was intrigued by its design as it appears to be a blend of a Ultra High Contrast filter and Deep-Sky filter, so it holds the promise of being useful for a different deep-sky objects. This would include planetary nebula, diffuse nebula, and emission nebula.’ ~ op cit

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/baader-uhc-s-filter.html

[John]

The curve of the ES CLS filter is very, very close to that of the Baader UHC-S filter (below). In small aperture scopes the UHC-S is useful and showed me the Veil Nebula for the 1st time with my 100mm refractor. In larger aperture scopes a "full" UHC filter (or even an O-III) is more effective and delivers more contrast enhancement of nebulae.

[Mak the Night]

The curve of the ES CLS filter is very, very close to that of the Baader UHC-S filter (below). In small aperture scopes the UHC-S is useful and showed me the Veil Nebula for the 1st time with my 100mm refractor. In larger aperture scopes a "full" UHC filter (or even an O-III) is more effective and delivers more contrast enhancement of nebulae.

Yes, the curve between the two looked remarkably similar to me. I plan on getting the Lumicon UHC & OIII next year for when I get a much bigger scope. Meanwhile the Baader UHC should be good with my 102mm Mak. That is if I get any decent skies soon to test it. lol

[YKSE]

Hi all!

I have 3 ES filters (UHC, OIII, H-Beta) for about a year, bought them in summer 2014. I use them in 12" and 16" dobsonians.

Overall, the OIII filter is much more in use than others.

Sadly, but there is no other filters to compare around me. My friend ordered Astronomik 2" OIII, but it somewhere in the way to us, need to wait.

I found, that UHC is relatively wide in light transmission, but seems it works in my light polluted sky (SQM20,5) or i don't know how good UHC filter works.

Looking forward to your OIII comparison

If the test chart of OIII in ES homepage is representative, it will have bandpass about 25nm Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM), while Astronomik OIII have 13-15nm FWHM, my wild guess is that stars will be brighter with ES, possibly better color balance too, but OIII dominant nebulas like the Veil will show more constrast with Astronomik.

[Mak the Night]

I considered the Astronomik as well as an alternative at one time, although in my opinion they are not inexpensive, its 480-505nm FWHM curve looks good here: http://www.astronomik.com/en/visual-filters/uhc-filter.html

[John]

David Knisely, the filter guru on the Cloudynights forum, considers the band pass width of the Astronomik O-III too wide to be a "proper" O-III. I wonder what he would make of the ES O-III if it's even more generous ?.

Personally I thought the Astronomik O-III an excellent and very versatile filter. It worked really well all my scopes which range from 4" to 12" in aperture. For a couple of years it was the only DSO filter I felt I needed

[Mak the Night]

I know Knisely wasn't too sure about the Astronomik UHC filter's claims at one time, although I think the general consensus of opinion was that if their advertising spiel and graphs are accurate to their actual performance, they should be close to the Lumicon's performance. 

The trouble with filters is, if you are relatively inexperienced with them like I am, making an initial purchase is quite confusing. The price range with filters is wide, ranging from £30-40 to nearly £90 (and that's just 1.25"). And then there's how they would perform on your own equipment under varying atmospheric conditions etc.  

It's plain scary lol!

[Paul73]

Just enjoy your ES filter. I had mine out for a quick run last night.

Made no difference at all on M42 (I must have weird eyes). Subtle but welcome Flame improvements and Big big gains on the Eskimo and Owl (the eyes just pop out after a few mins).

Paul

[Stu]

Just enjoy your ES filter. I had mine out for a quick run last night.

Made no difference at all on M42 (I must have weird eyes). Subtle but welcome Flame improvements and Big big gains on the Eskimo and Owl (the eyes just pop out after a few mins).

Paul

Surprising about M42 Paul, although I guess it's a mix of emission and reflection nebula? I do find a UHC helps it but to be honest it's so long since I saw it I can't really remember!!!

Clouds!! Near floods today [emoji20] When will it end?

[Mak the Night]

Clouds!! Near floods today [emoji20] When will it end?

With the Four Riders of the Apocalypse? lol