Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

N3ptune

Astronomik UHC or Lumicon UHC ?

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the picture Jetstream. If the OIII act like that on the Veil then it's close to a miracle. (:

--> I took a decision: Am not going to buy 2 inches this time, I want to complete my 1.25 inches setup first.

I called the Astro shop to ask about what the have right now and this is it:

- UHC-E - 1.25 Astronomic. (Less aggressive UHC for small telescope, it will preserve more star brightness around the nebula)
- UHC - LPR de celestron by baader. 89.95
- Baader UHCS idem  Celestron  124.95 (Could be a good choice)
==========================
- OIII - Celestron 1.25 = 99.95
- ORION - OIII = 109.95
- Lumicon OIII = 129.95  <-- the last lumicon left

Hemmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd avoid filters such as the UHC-S and the UHC-E. You have a decent aperture scope and it will do well with a "full strength" UHC or O-III. My back yard skies have some moderate light pollution issues and yet my 4" refractor still does really well with the Lumicon O-III.

The decision to stick with 1.25" for now seems sound. Of the filters listed above I would pick the Lumicon O-III. OK it's $130 but you will get really significant results with it on many nebulae including showstoppers such as the Veil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John said:

I'd avoid filters such as the UHC-S and the UHC-E.

I read the same thing elsewhere too, they are not good supposedly. The Lumicon OIII looks like the best choice of the list (: i might own it soon

=================

Those are the exit pupil for my EP

28mm = 35.7 (28/5 = 5.6 exit pupil)
25mm = 40 Barlow x2 = 80  (25/5 = 5.0 exit pupil)
18mm = 55 Barlow x2 = 110 (18/5 = 3.6 exit pupil)

Now i don't know about the 25mm using a barlow, if the exit pupil is modified by the barlow. The difference between the 25mm and 28 one is kind of important, 0.6mm, so more light into my eye to see the nebula?

Edited by N3ptune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the barlow will change the exit pupil, eg: the 25mm eyepiece will effectively become 12.5mm with an exit pupil to match (2.5mm in your F/5 scope).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made up my mind for a filter.

--> I wish to have the Lumicon UHC filter, I asked the AstroShop to place an order for me.

I think it will enhance a lot of nebulas while preserving more luminosity from the stars. I understand it's not going to surpass a 2 inches filter on a 2 inches EP and it's not going to surpass the OIII on some nebulas.

--> But it's less aggressive, it's going to be a great all-around filter.

--> It will help on a lot of nebulas.

I am walking my own path a little bit right now but I truly believe this is not going to be a mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats great :icon_biggrin:

Please post some reports of how that filter performs for you - compared to the "filterless" view I'm sure you will be very impressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh why not? I can write a little review for the UHC.

I also have a low grade OIII filter to test against (50CAD). I can't wait to start watching and see the difference (:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that a good O-III filter (like the Lumicon) should be a SECOND nebula filter.

O-III filters really don't do much for nebulae that emit a substantial amount of light in the hydrogen spectral lines, which many large emission nebula do, like M8, M20, M17, M16, M42, etc.

And since a narrowband filter also passes the O-III lines, it is more "universal", i.e. requires less knowledge of astrophysics to decide which filter would be best.

Some examples of a good narrowband, which should be one's FIRST nebula filter are:

Lumicon UHC

Astronomik UHC

Thousand Oaks LP-2

DGM NPB

Orion Ultrablock

Farpoint UHC

These may not be the only truly narrow narrownad filters, but many private label brands out there don't even publish a bandwidth or a chart of transmission to let us know.

and there are a host of narrowband ("UHC") filters that have very wide bandwidths and which will not enhance the nebulae as much.  Most of those are significantly less expensive.

 

Why would one add an O-III filter later?  To maximally enhance nebulae that emit more strongly in the O-III wavelengths: most planetaries, The Veil, Thor's Helmet, NGC6888, and so on.

So it's a good thing, eventually, to have both.  But, to start out, I'd recommend a narrowband ("UHC"-type) first.

 

Edited by Don Pensack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the astronomik uhc and lumicon O111 and both are high quality and work very well in my 4 and 8 inch scopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2016 at 19:55, Don Pensack said:

O-III filters really don't do much for nebulae that emit a substantial amount of light in the hydrogen spectral lines, which many large emission nebula do, like M8, M20, M17, M16, M42, etc.

I find that M42 looks great in an O-III filter.  I'll have to do a more detailed comparison next winter between my Lumicon UHC and OIII filters on M42.  I don't have much of a recollection with the rest of your list with regards to filtered viewing.  Guess I'll have to get out and give them a look with the filters sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I find that M42 looks great in an O-III filter.  I'll have to do a more detailed comparison next winter between my Lumicon UHC and OIII filters on M42.  I don't have much of a recollection with the rest of your list with regards to filtered viewing.  Guess I'll have to get out and give them a look with the filters sometime.

M42 emits quite strong in both OIII and H-beta spectrum, both OIII and H-beta filters should show good contrast increase compare to without filter, and with different nebulosity, UHC should be the best overall filter on it:

 

orion_nebula_alpdmk_20140202_001.jpg

Edited by YKSE
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer M42 without a filter generally but the DGM NBP (a UHC type) enhances the outer most swirls and curves of nebulosity nicely so when I do filter, thats the one I use on that target. I have used my Lumicon O-III on M42 and it seems to enhance the central area of nebulosity, around the Trapezium to the extent that it was looking a little "burnt out" which is why I prefer the NBP. Yongs chart above probably explains this effect.

It's fun to try things out though :icon_biggrin:

 

Edited by John
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Knisely, of the Prairie Astronomy Club and author of many popular articles on filters and filter usages on many DSO's, has the H-beta filter as one to avoid on M42, the Great Orion Nebula. As a matter of record, the H-b filter doesn't get called anything 'good' on most objects. The Horse-Head Nebula - B33 - also in Orion, is one example of things the H-beta is suggested for. From many people's accounts, this filter may be the only way to glimpse this elusive creature. At least speaking visualy, though with imaging gear it becomes much less difficult to bag.

Unless you have deep pockets, I'd put the H-beta on the back-burner for the time being.

UHC filter - Astronomik

Ultrablock - Orion

OIII - Baader

H-beta - Astronomik (collecting dust)

 

Best wishes -

Dave

Edited by Dave In Vermont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H-beta filter is not as versatile as UHC or OIII, but there's some nebulaesdefinitely have the benifit of using H-beta, here's quote of David knisely's comments on the other forum:

"While the H-Beta is probably one of the less-used nebula filters, the commonly expressed idea that it works only on a handful of objects is not necessarily true.  Here is a list of some of the more prominent objects that the H-Beta may be at least somewhat useful on.  Some may require larger apertures (and some may be slightly better in other filters), but a few have been seen from a dark sky site by just holding the filter up to the unaided eye and looking at the sky.  Some of these will also be helped by a narrow-band filter like the Lumicon UHC. 

1.  IC 434 (HORSEHEAD NEBULA)
2.  NGC 1499 (CALIFORNIA NEBULA, naked eye and RFT)
3.  M43 (part of the Great Orion Nebula)
4.  IC 5146 (COCOON NEBULA in Cygnus)
5.  M20 (TRIFID NEBULA, main section)
6.  NGC 2327 (diffuse nebula in Monoceros)
7.  IC 405 (the FLAMING STAR NEBULA in Auriga)
8.  IC 417 (diffuse Nebula in Auriga)
9.  IC 1283 (diffuse Nebula in Sagittarius)
10. IC 1318 GAMMA CYGNI NEBULA (diffuse nebula in Cygnus)
11. IC 2177: SEAGULL NEBULA (Diffuse Nebula, Monoceros)
12. IC 5076 (diffuse nebula, Cygnus)
13. PK64+5.1 "CAMPBELL'S HYDROGEN STAR" Cygnus (PNG 64.7+5.0)
14. Sh2-157a (small round nebula inside larger Sh2-157, Cassiopeia)
15. Sh2-235 (diffuse nebula in Auriga).
16. Sh2-276 "BARNARD'S LOOP" (diffuse nebula in Orion, naked eye)
17. IC 2162 (diffuse nebula in northern Orion)
18  Sh2-254 (diffuse nebula in northern Orion near IC 2162)
19. Sh2-256-7 (diffuse nebula in northern Orion near IC 2162)
20. vdB93 (Gum-1) (diffuse nebula in Monoceros near IC 2177)
21. Lambda Orionis nebular complex (very large, naked-eye)   
22. Sh2-273 "Cone" Nebula portion south of nebulous cluster NGC 2264

In addition, a number of the brighter nebulae like NGC 7000 or M42 will respond to H-Beta use for revealing certain specific detail, although other filters may provide a somewhat better view overall."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a Lumicon H-Beta for a year or so but my local light pollution seemed to render it rather ineffective so I moved it on to someone with darker skies. I used it about 10 times but I can't say for sure that I saw anything of David K's list through it. I have seen a few of them with other filters though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some faint nebulas do need dark sky in addition to filter, I got HorseHead (with C8) and California (with 80ED) with 2" H-beta filter, so that's money well spent for me:smiley:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello I am reactivating the thread with a new question, (I am still looking for a UHC filter). I saw at a local shop, they have the THOUSAND OAKS brand filters. These are the filters from the official website.

http://www.thousandoaksoptical.com/nebula.html

I want to know if some of you have tested the LP-1 Broadband for slight to moderate light pollution and the LP-2 narrowband for heavily polluted areas, I would be interested in these 2 because they contain Hb OIII and Ha. From the Bortle Scale I stand in 4 or 5 depending of the site but I can say if it's slight, moderate or heavy pollution.

It must be something like Medium ~ heavy pollution or medium at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale

Are they good the 1000 oaks filters? because I can order one easily.

sGr2Jb2.png?1

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried the 1000 Oaks LP-4 / H-Beta filter. It seemed in the same class as the Lumicon H-Beta to me, not that I saw much with either !

The 1000 Oaks brand does not seem to make it over to Europe or the UK much - you don't see many of them over here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read, Thousand Oaks seems to be in the same league as Lumicon.  The LP-2 is supposed to be quite nice for suppressing light pollution when viewing nebula without distorting star colors too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok! John, thanks for this feed back.

Louis D good news for the LP-2, thanks also!

Lumicon they are hard to get here these days, good to know both are in the same league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this deal today, it's 145$ (90 pounds) with shipping and taxes for a 2" Celestron OIII filter. They sell it 230$ taxe in (143 pounds)  at the at the local shop.

--> Does It looks like a serious deal? I read good things about the Celestron OIII

https://www.amazon.ca/Celestron-93624-Narrowband-Oxygen-Filter/dp/B0007UQNWM/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1473110150&sr=8-10&keywords=celestron+filters

It's also a difference of 115$ with a 2" LP-2 1000 Oaks UHC, that's a major difference between 2 filters with slight differences.

Edited by N3ptune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2-inch for $143CDN? With the exchange-rate where it's at - looks fine to me. Not 'super-cheap,' but about par for the course.

I have no experience with a Thousand Oak nebula-filters. But I like their Solar filters (full-aperture). Would you have a link from where you've found them? If so, please do post it. You have roused the resident filter-nut (me)!

Thank you!

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.