80a blue and 82a light blue filters

[N3ptune]

I would like to know more about the filters 80a and 82a, with your experience what difference do you see between these to similar filters?  Shall I get both of them?

They seems to be appreciated for planetary viewing, the moon and some even say they are useful to enhance view of certain galaxies.. which is impressive to hear. 

Did some of you saw improvements on DSO's with 80a and 82a 

What about these 2 filters?

Thanks

[Dave In Vermont]

Hello there -

Colour-Filters are primarily used for planetary details on their surfaces or clouds. The No. 80A Blue is what could be called the "Swiss Army Knife" of colour-filters, this being due to it's being useful on the most objects. For DSO's like nebulae, broadband-filters and narrowband-filters are most often employed - such as OIII and UHC filters.

Here's a chart or two on Colour-Filters:

Filter Usage on Different Targets.pdf

&

Filters Table.pdf

And for the DSO's and filters for such, these links takes you to the writings of David Knisely of the Prairie Astronomy Club - an acknowledged authority on these:

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

&

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/useful-filters-for-viewing-deep-sky-objects/

That should get you started. If you're also fond of our Moon, the Baader Moon and Skyglow Neodymium-Filter is considered a must. Most often simply (!) called the 'Neodymium-Filter,' between this and a No. 80A Blue is where I'd suggest starting a collection.

An acknowledged Filter-Nut,

Dave

 

 

[N3ptune]

@Dave In Vermont

Did you tried the 80a and 82a on DSO's ? I am just checking because sometimes people can find special things to look at with a filter that is known to be good for something else, that's my primary interest. Another person said to me he had results on a a galaxy (whirlpool) with a 82a, I think that's interesting. 

I remembered reading here a very specific statement that impressed me, this is a part of it: On nebulae a OIII will reveal what's invisible and a UHC will only enhance what's already visible.  That's a strong statement and I said to myself: This is it.

But since I have my nebula NPB, I see otherwise because the fact of the matter for me was that the NBP IS revealing what's absolutely invisible for my instrument and my eyes (without the filter): North America, Pellican, Soul/heart for example. (Those were extraordinary observations)

What should I think now?

Lot's of different opinions, now a person said to me the 82a had some positive effects on the whirlpool and I believe him.

 

[Dave In Vermont]

Nobody sees things the same way. Our eyes register things differently, and this individually changes - even from day-to-day. So my advice it to take other people's accounts of what a specific filter did for them with a grain of sodium chloride (salt). So: Experiment!

Try a filter out on things, even if other's have said they won't work on z,y,x, try it on z,y,x! Never has the admonishment "Your mileage may vary" been so accurate. So you can (and probably should) read the accounts by David Knisely, and these can get you into the right idea, but consider this a beginning - rather than an end-all and be-all.

You may end up as a 'filter-nut' like yours' truly. I was at number 40 when I stopped counting.

Dave

[Mak the Night]

I find the 82A more subtle for highlighting lunar features than the 80A, in fact, I think it is similar to neodymium filters in this respect. I also found the 82A very good for planetary detail (Jupiter, Martian polar cap etc). Wikipedia describes it as a Pale Blue 'Cooling filter to increase the colour temperature slightly. The opposite of 81A.'. 

There are some claims that it is good for some bright spiral galaxies but I haven't tried it for this. Also it is supposedly good for comets and splitting binaries, but as Dave says above, filter use is usually quite subjective and results can vary. The 82A has a 73% transmission though, so is often useful on smaller apertures or possibly for very faint or subtle targets. 

FWIW I find the the three filters most useful for lunar viewing (apart from a neodymium filter) are the #21 Orange, 82A and 0.6 Neutral Density. The blue and orange filters seem to be polar opposites and I often wonder if there isn't some connection as they seem to yin and yang each other lol.

[John]

Just out of interest, if a filter has a transmission of 73% presumably it would be the brighter galaxies that benefit ?

"Loosing" 27% of the light can't help with the faint ones I'd have thought 

The 80a filter seems to have a transmission of just around 30% so presumably a non-starter on galaxies ?

This chart on the Agena website seems useful (scroll down a little to see it):

http://agenaastro.com/choosing-a-color-planetary-filter.html

Apologies if it's been posted before.

[Dave In Vermont]

Thanks John. I was looking for that article & couldn't find it. I'll add it to my arsenal. I thought I had it in my files, but looks like a Gremlin ate it...

I've never seen references to using colour-filters on galaxies. But it would be interesting to see what they'd do.

I just 'pulled-the-trigger' on an Astronomik OIII filter. I already have a Baader OIII, which transmits a narrower spectra. A side-by-side should be interesting. In fact I think someone in here gave me the idea. There's a side-by-side of the Baader OIII & Celestron OIII in 'CN's' - I'm in the middle of reading same.

Enjoy,

Dave

[John]

I had an Astronomik O-III for a few years and found it really excellent Dave

I did have a Baader O-III and a Celestron O-III and they looked and performed exactly the same. Well made things but, for me, they were too aggressive.

I'll look forward to hearing what you think of the Astronomik.

[Dave In Vermont]

I've finished reading the posts in CN on the Baader OIII & Celestron OIII. That was the conclusion - they were the same article.

Below is the transmission-diagrams of the Astronomik OIII & the Baader OIII:

 

 

We shall see this translated -

Dave

[John]

The Astonomik O-III was noticably more "generous" in terms of band pass width than the Baader / Celestron O-III's and demonstrated this by doing a great job in my 4" scope as well as my larger ones.

 

[N3ptune]

@Dave In Vermont

I want to try these filters absolutely (82a 80a) and use them on many things.

Honnestly I have a wish to own color filters even if most people say it's a waste of money. Some other people get results out of some of them.

--> But my color filter project is facing a serious threat right now, I have a leaking strut on my car and it's going to cost the price of a decent telescope literally. ):

Thanks for the links, and nice collection of 40 filters! it must be fun to own a little chest of 40 filters to try on various things.

Thanks also Mak for these informations you gave me, you are not the first one telling me the #21 is effective and it's good to know the blue could help splitting binary.

I need to go out, the weather has to get better soon...

 

[N3ptune]

@Dave In Vermont

The Astronomik diagram looks better then the Baader one  i think.

[Mak the Night]

18 minutes ago, N3ptune said:

@Dave In Vermont

I want to try these filters absolutely (82a 80a) and use them on many things.

Honnestly I have a wish to own color filters even if most people say it's a waste of money. Some other people get results out of some of them.

--> But my color filter project is facing a serious threat right now, I have a leaking strut on my car and it's going to cost the price of a decent telescope literally. ):

Thanks for the links, and nice collection of 40 filters! it must be fun to own a little chest of 40 filters to try on various things.

Thanks also Mak for these informations you gave me, you are not the first one telling me the #21 is effective and it's good to know the blue could help splitting binary.

I need to go out, the weather has to get better soon...

 

You're welcome. I actually find the #21 Orange is a more effective contrast filter, for lunar viewing especially, than the yellow #8, #12 & #15 filters. I've never used an 82A for helping splitting binaries, but I'm kind of itching to give it a try now lol. 

GSO filters (mine are branded TS Optics) are relatively well priced and decently made. Their filter threads (M28.5x0.6) fit every eyepiece and diagonal I've tried them in.

[Dave In Vermont]

I await your up & coming autobiography: The Making of a FILTER-NUT. (The Early-Years)

On that note, try this:

http://www.telescope.com/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/Orion-125-Premium-20-Piece-Color-Planetary-Filter-Set/pc/-1/c/3/sc/48/p/113384.uts

Knock yourself out!

(Sorry to hear your car is having a break-down. I ducked the "Car-Bug" - a disease common to 16 year old males, symptoms include an overwhelming desire to get a driver's permit and wrap your Dads' car around a tree or lightpole. When I was 16 I was doing graduates' work in organic chemical-synthesis and teaching chemistry in a high-school. So I never bothered to learn to drive and get a car (or - a 2-ton Shopping-Cart to use to get dinner with on roadways). Such explains how I was able to afford 40+ filters.)

Catch you around the Abattoir,

Dave

ps - I knew I'd forgotten something..... Yes, N3ptune, the bandwidth (transmission) of the Astronomik OIII is notably wider than the Baader OIII's. Such is why I finally broke down and got out my $$$ and bought it. Had to hunt around for these, too. My usual haunts didn't carry Astronomik - anything. Others directed me to photographic-filters in the 6nm range - at 2X to 3X the price. Despite what their ads stated. Finally I had to settle on OPT in L.A. I was heartened to see they at least offered free shipping - on an overland UPS-truck.

I'm not holding my breath. It'll get here - after a lovely tour of Lhasa, Tibet...

[N3ptune]

@Dave In Vermont

Waaaa that's a nice filter kit from Orion, all the colors inside! Must be really nice to own   But I now am at the end of time... it's always cloudy outside and my last observation was on 2016-10-19, that's 12 days ago...  it's been a while..  I need to watch the stars for a few hours to restore some sort of balance. I need to be concentrated behind the eyepiece again. (Now I just shop for things while not watching the sky, that's bad)

When I was 16 I was doing graduates' work in organic chemical-synthesis and teaching chemistry in a high-school. So I never bothered to learn to drive and get a car (or - a 2-ton Shopping-Cart to use to get dinner with on roadways). Such explains how I was able to afford 40+ filters.)

Lol, that's a great story.  I would like to cut on the car but.. I don't know how that would be possible, my car is kind of useful.

I ducked the "Car-Bug" - a disease common to 16 year old males, symptoms include an overwhelming desire to get a driver's permit and rap your Dads' car around a tree or lightpole.

LOL, hahaha

But I need my car... other wise how would it be possible for me to live on a medium dark region.. with no buses?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I personally never use filters on galaxies (save the odd LPR filter to block sodium and mercury lines). On planets I am generally a purist too, but some people like to experiment and get good results. Narrowband filters are indispensible for use with emission nebulae, I find, and of course EXTREME narrowband filters are great for solar . I do not think I could afford 40 of the latter