Astronomik UHC or Lumicon UHC ?

[N3ptune]

51 minutes ago, BGazing said:

well, we would have taken your word for it even without the printscreen LOL. hope you will like them.

(: It was to put weight on the event hehehehe 

[Dave In Vermont]

DGM is in my area of the USA. They list a location in New Hampshire, and their telephone-number is in Vermont. Us Vermonters' know how to keep prices low - and quality as good as possible!

Shameless plug? No - accuracy in reporting!

Dave - scribbling down DGM's contact #.

[Don Pensack]

An O-III filter is in a different class than a narrowband or UHC filter.

The UHC is more "universal" since it transmits both the O-III lines and the H-Beta line.

The O-III filter only transmits the O-III, which yields better contrast on nebulae without H-Beta emission, like most planetaries.

But the narrowband also transmits the O-III lines, so if you get just one, it should be a narrowband.  THEN the O-III filter later.

[N3ptune]

13 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

DGM is in my area of the USA. They list a location in New Hampshire, and their telephone-number is in Vermont. Us Vermonters' know how to keep prices low - and quality as good as possible!

Shameless plug? No - accuracy in reporting!

Dave - scribbling down DGM's contact #.

If the filter is had good has the review say, it's a really honest price for the quality. I am quite happy about this purchase and hopefully everything will go well with this Vermont US quality!

(;

 

[N3ptune]

16 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

An O-III filter is in a different class than a narrowband or UHC filter.

The UHC is more "universal" since it transmits both the O-III lines and the H-Beta line.

The O-III filter only transmits the O-III, which yields better contrast on nebulae without H-Beta emission, like most planetaries.

But the narrowband also transmits the O-III lines, so if you get just one, it should be a narrowband.  THEN the O-III filter later.

Yeah I agree, I have a (Low grade) 1.25 inches OIII already so I'll be able to do comparisons between the 2 kind using my 25mm and 18mm 1.25" eps. Looking at the numbers, the UHC is the over all winner (maybe not by much), so Ill see.

--> If another good deal comes to me for a 2" OIII, second hand, I could buy it.

(;

[Ben the Ignorant]

I own the UHC-E Astronomik filter, and use it at f/5 (newtonian), f/6 (apo), f/7.5 (achro) and f/10 (Scmidt-Cass). It's splendidly clean; I'll just give two examples. Recently, the Crab Nebula through the 300 dob from the middle of a city: from just detectable to easy to spot, with knotty shape. Several months ago: the most striking change in visibility was with comet Lovejoy (300 dob); at my urban and nearly worthless site except when the air is dry, it became very, very defined, seemingly white or very pale grey, with many contrasty filaments, and a "softly spiky" nucleus.

It's a striking memory because that filter is not supposed to work too well on comets, but it did. A Baader O-III was also very clean but too dim for a comet of course. I assume the "E" stands for "Economy" but I compared it a bunch of other broadbands we have at the club, and nothing in the view said it was cheaper.

[YKSE]

I'm more inclined to believe (though no experience at all) that a wide UHC filter (UHC-S, UHC-E whatever the name it may be) DO help in looking at comets. Here's the spectrum graph of Lumincon comet filter:

It keeps high tranmission at 511nm and 514nm, which most wide UHC filters do.

Here's  spectrums of a coupld of comets:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spectrum_of_Comet_Hyakutake.gif#/media/File:Spectrum_of_Comet_Hyakutake.gif

Comet Hyakutake has good peak in 511-514 region.

http://www.threehillsobservatory.co.uk/astro/spectra_10.htm

Comet Machholz peaks even better in 511-514 region.

 

[Louis D]

The UHC-E pass band is considerable wider to the right of the OIII lines than the UHC and seems to include the comet lines on purpose.   This is not the case with the Lumicon UHC.  Might the E mean expanded?

On the flip side, it clips the H-alpha line a little bit.

[Ben the Ignorant]

59 minutes ago, Louis D said:

The UHC-E pass band is considerable wider to the right of the OIII lines than the UHC and seems to include the comet lines on purpose.   This is not the case with the Lumicon UHC.  Might the E mean expanded?

I'm nor sure, I bought the UHC-E because it costs 2/3 of the UHC's price, and it has an excellent curve. I figured the broader curve around the O-III group would help with my smaller scopes. The lesser transmission in H-alpha didn't matter a lot because it's for visual. In practice this filter always gave me sharp and clean images of everything with all my scopes; I'd recommend it to anyone for any conditions and any scope.

It also improves some galaxies and globulars, I don't remember which because I experimented with too many.

Held it in front of my eye the first evening, looked at a row of distant sodium lamps, it killed them outright, and I was immediately relieved of new gear doubt (means I avoided new gear remorse).

Since it's the least expensive filter in the Astronomik range, I assumed the E stands for economy, but it's not E for Eeww!

[BGazing]

1 hour ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

I'm nor sure, I bought the UHC-E because it costs 2/3 of the UHC's price, and it has an excellent curve. I figured the broader curve around the O-III group would help with my smaller scopes. The lesser transmission in H-alpha didn't matter a lot because it's for visual. In practice this filter always gave me sharp and clean images of everything with all my scopes; I'd recommend it to anyone for any conditions and any scope.

It also improves some galaxies and globulars, I don't remember which because I experimented with too many.

Held it in front of my eye the first evening, looked at a row of distant sodium lamps, it killed them outright, and I was immediately relieved of new gear doubt (means I avoided new gear remorse).

Since it's the least expensive filter in the Astronomik range, I assumed the E stands for economy, but it's not E for Eeww!

have you compared it alongside narrowband or line filters in your scopes?

[Ben the Ignorant]

Yes, compared with my Baader 10nm O-III; the result is as expected: blacker background, space is more desert with fewer stars, nebulas pop out of nothingness with more details and extensions. A handful of stellar, continuous-spectrum deep-sky targets have their bright core enhanced but the rest dimmed a lot. No surprise.

[MarsG76]

I have both except the Lumicon is 1.25" and the Astronomik is 2". I directly compared the and the lumicon is a little bluer than the Astronomik but they both show the same about of detail in nebulae like the Carina and Orion... so which ever you choose/chose you will be happy.

 

[Dave In Vermont]

The new Lumicons are not the same as they were 1 year ago. Under new ownership and cutting costs, the general advice of us 'Filter-Nuts' is to steer clear of current production Lumicon anythings. So an Astronomik is your best choice. Under a 6" telescope, a UHC-E is being recommended by a colleague of mine who has been doing extensive tests on these. Over 6"- the UHC.

Woof,

Dave

[BGazing]

On 10/08/2017 at 09:19, Dave In Vermont said:

The new Lumicons are not the same as they were 1 year ago. Under new ownership and cutting costs, the general advice of us 'Filter-Nuts' is to steer clear of current production Lumicon anythings. So an Astronomik is your best choice. Under a 6" telescope, a UHC-E is being recommended by a colleague of mine who has been doing extensive tests on these. Over 6"- the UHC.

Woof,

Dave

Uh-huh...very difficult to follow those changes. I remember Farpoint being the new Lumicon, then Lumicon resurrecting and Farpoint not to be seen...gotta scratch my head. Anyone has data from the new Lumicon filters, in what respect are they inferior?

I saw that new Lumicons are considerably cheaper. I am very happy with my Astronomik OIII. 

[Dave In Vermont]

This band-pass was conducted with a new OIII-filter from them. Note it's being wider than earlier OIII graphs - including more into the carbon-region. Which is to say - it also works similar to a SWAN-filter (Comet-filter):

 

 

If I wanted a true OIII-filter, I'd aim for an Astronomik now too.

Dave

[BGazing]

Ahh, I see, found it https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/580633-new-econoline-lumicon-filters/

and this https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/580780-help-me-understand-my-lumicon-oiii-scan-report/

Econoline Lumicon, huh. Odd. 

 

[Dave In Vermont]

When asked about this, they stated some confusing/confused rhetoric about how they'd have to charge too much money to suppy the same product as they had for years. So they were planning to (a few months ago this was) release an economy version (!?).

Confused? So was all of us present! All that is known is the new OIII are NOT the same OIII-filters as they had been. The transmission-graph above bears this out. They had stated earlier they would absolutely NOT change the filters. They DID change the filters. And that was quite enough for my eyes/ears. I walked away.

I repeat: I suggest Astronomik OIII's (at least) to anyone wanting top-line performance.

All the Best -

Dave

 

 

[John]

I have owned a like the Astronomik O-III. It worked well in a wide range of apertures too. Some folks (including David Knisely) feel that it's band pass width is too generous for a "true" O-III but it worked well for me. I now have a pre-owned Lumicon O-III which is excellent. It will be a pity if the illustrious brand name is now going to be linked to a less effective item.

 

[Louis D]

Guess I'll have to hang onto my 20+ year old 2" Lumicon OIII a while longer.  I paid $125 (used) for it in 1999.  No rust or discoloration issues like some have reported for 1990s vintage Lumicons.

[Dave In Vermont]

If a "less generous" OIII is desired - the Baader OIII truly fits the bill on that.

I have one of these as well. For visual applications, I find the Astronomik OIII superior. For CCD imaging, the Astronomik OIII is available which differs by including a IR-Blocking compnent. Both can be used for visual applications. If you have the visual model of the Astronomik - you can simply stack it with an IR-Filter to create a CCD-OIII version of your own.

Dave

[John]

I did try the Baader O-III and the Celestron which is exactly the same filter (or at least it was a couple of years back). I found them too narrow for my tastes. Most of the background stars either vanished or were markedly dimmed. They are good quality items but the band pass is just a wee bit too selective IMHO, as least in the scopes up to 10" aperture that I used them in.

For me the Astronomik and used Lumicon's have got the band pass just right for the sorts of scopes that I use.

For me, the band pass chart above is not quite what I want to see from a O-III filter. What I look for is:

- A pass of over 90% in the 2 O-III lines.

- No HB or HA trespass

- A flatter top to the pass curve with sharp drop offs either side rather than a long tapering sharp point. I feel that something like this, provides optimum visual performance (this is the older Lumicon O-III):

 

 

[BGazing]

21 minutes ago, John said:

I have owned a like the Astronomik O-III. It worked well in a wide range of apertures too. Some folks (including David Knisely) feel that it's band pass width is too generous for a "true" O-III but it worked well for me. I now have a pre-owned Lumicon O-III which is excellent. It will be a pity if the illustrious brand name is now going to be linked to a less effective item.

 

Astronomik have tightened their OIII to 12nm a couple of years ago. Prior to that it was almost 20nm, Knisely's comments were made with respect to an earlier version. I asked them about this and reproduced, with their permission their answer here https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/527199-spectroscopic-analysis-comparison-of-nebula-filters/?p=7422639

[John]

Just now, BGazing said:

Astronomik have tightened their OIII to 12nm a couple of years ago. Prior to that it was almost 20nm, Knisely's comments were made with respect to an earlier version. I asked them about this and reproduced, with their permission their answer here https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/527199-spectroscopic-analysis-comparison-of-nebula-filters/?p=7422639

Good to know - a responsive astro equipment manufacturer

[BGazing]

1 minute ago, John said:

Good to know - a responsive astro equipment manufacturer

So far in my experience they are the the very top of the responsiveness, right up with Ron Keating of DewBuster. I am sure there are other super responsive folks...

[N3ptune]

What a strange decision from Lumicon, I wonder what is their true outcome, insulting the people who are willing to pay whatever the price, to own the very best filter. The only thing I see, to boost profit selling a cheaper and inferior filter (but still very expensive) to twice the amount of amateurs. Their reputation goes down the drain at the same time.

I would have stick with the highest quality filter for the serious amateur.