If you could only have a variable polarizer and 2 filters...

[AstroKerr]

If you could only have a variable polarizer and 2 filters, period, in your kit - which would they be?

 

I ask because I am interested =)

 

Jim

[John]

I'd forgo the variable polariser and have a good UHC and O-III filters for nebulae plus a Baader Solar Film filter for white light solar observing.

 

[Littleguy80]

My Astronomik OIII, UHC and, like John, I’d forgo the polariser but I’d have the Baader Neodymium instead. I’m yet to enter the world of solar observing 

[alanjgreen]

Astronomik UHC and O3 filters would be my first 2 choices. Expensive but very very good. They are all you need really.

if I was a moon man then I might add a Baader neutral density ND filter (aperture dependant)

if I was a nebula man, I might add a Hb filter for emission nebula.

if I lived in light polluted area I might add a Baader neodymium filter.

i would not prioritise a polarising filter at all.

Alan

[AstroKerr]

Excellent! - just three posts and already I can reassign polariser resources elsewhere & focus on quality O-III / UHC / Hb - that is a handy thing to know at my level and much appreciated! I was wondering about the polariser, because I was told "you really can't view the moon without one" and although it is a bit bright, it hasn't bothered me. My wife likes it a bit dimmer so we did pick up an inexpensive Orion 1%~40% that seems to please her - I was pretty sure we hadn't 'underbought' even tho' the local advisor muttered "it'll do, I guess, if that's all ya have..." without actually mentioning at any point what would be 'better'. The way he said that did have me thinking I might have made an obviously notch-below-dullard purchase. You kind souls have put, I believe, a proper perspective on that - my  thanks =) .

[research intermission w/ Bowie Heathen]

Okay - went for a look and now better understand the utility and application of the UHC / O-III / H-b filters from Astronomiks, Lumicon and a couple others. Astronomiks doesn't seem to goof around - they give you the filter data - bandwidth, transmission %s, right up front - nice. Others just claim to be the best without anything to support the claim - so I see why Astronomics has a following. So, they are indeed on the purchase list. I found it interesting as well that some mfrs provide 9% (or more) less transmission for a cost ~30% greater than Astronomiks. Lot of "ultimate best/worst as long as you don't check" claims floating around out there from mfrs and consumers. Here though I get good, solid, hands-on advice and that is precious.

 So, this has been quite enlightening and informative just on day one!

Grateful James

[ronin]

I don't own a variable polarizer, or even a non-variable, and I have no filters. Basically in the collection nothing that screws into the eyepiece or daigonal at all. So I guess that means their importance is minimal, at least to me.

[Stu]

3 hours ago, ronin said:

I don't own a variable polarizer, or even a non-variable, and I have no filters. Basically in the collection nothing that screws into the eyepiece or daigonal at all. So I guess that means their importance is minimal, at least to me.

@ronin I am uncertain how you can comment on a thread when you don't have experience of the subject?

I assume you have no interest in viewing emission nebulae of any kind? Good UHC and OIII filters make a significant difference in viewing these targets so it is inaccurate to describe their importance as minimal, despite the qualifier 'at least to me'

@AstroKerr I would stick with Astronomik currently as there seems to be some double by about Lumicon since the changed hands. As John says, a good OIII and UHC will serve you very well. They do roughly similar jobs but each enhance different targets or aspects of targets better. I would probably leave a Hb as they are limited to a very few tough targets. I have one but have never used it properly! Certainly never seen anything through it!

[Littleguy80]

A variable polariser was the first filter I bought and for similar reasons. It doesn’t get a lot of use now though. The common theme on most filter discussions is that a UHC and OIII filter are the big two of you want to see/enhance nebulosity. Once you start talking planetary or light pollution filters then it seems to come much more down to individual preference or the conditions you normally observe under. 

[domstar]

14 hours ago, John said:

plus a Baader Solar Film filter for white light solar observing.

I was wondering about this. There seem to be some big solar enthusiasts on this forum. Do they use the same inexpensive filter or specialist equipment? Is it just for an occasional quick look at the sun or does this open up a new branch of astronomy? I suppose what I'm really asking is, is visual solar observing something your average stargazer enjoys regularly too or is it mainly for a few solar specialists?

[Paul73]

I am ashamed to say that I have all of the filters mentioned.....think that I may have bought some of them from people on this thread!

Fortunataly, the polorizer is the cheapest so, if people find the moon too bright, why not? Most just up the magnification until it isn't too bright or just accept that you'll be bumping into things in the dark for a few mins after viewing.

As everyone else says, UHC and OIII are the heavy hitters in the world of Nebula observing. The fact that the experts above sold me the others as being "surplus to requirements" speaks volumes.

Paul

Re, Solar - A solar film based filter across the front of the scope is great for viewing sun spots. It gets more expensive from there..... The general safety rule for solar work is that, if you have any doubt about the safety of what you are thinking of doing, don't do it! Ask advice.

 

 

[billyharris72]

Okay, I'll vary just for the sake of it.

• A UHC filter (I'm not going to vary that much; this is a no brainer).
• One of either an #80A Blue or a #21 Orange. Former is great for Moon, Jupiter and Saturn, producing a small but noticeable improvement in contrast. The latter is great for the Moon, so less flexible (not bad on Mars also for albedo features), but has 2 advantages:
  • Kills blue light, so observing the Moon during the day gets a dark sky background and almost the same level of contrast you would get at night. Features that would be completely washed out become easily visible.
  • Being at the red end of the spectrum it helps with seeing, and it helps a lot. If unfiltered seeing is limted to around x150, for example, expect to get x200 with a #21, maybe even x250.

Billy

 

[Stu]

3 hours ago, domstar said:

I suppose what I'm really asking is, is visual solar observing something your average stargazer enjoys regularly too or is it mainly for a few solar specialists?

I probably do more solar than anything else currently, for two reasons. One is that the opportunities seem to be more frequent, clear days and cloudy nights! Secondly, the views with a good Herschel wegde really are stunning, photographic at times when the seeing is excellent. Viewing a large active region at x200 in great conditions really can knock your socks off!

[AstroKerr]

On 9/25/2017 at 08:18, Stu said:

I probably do more solar than anything else currently, for two reasons. One is that the opportunities seem to be more frequent, clear days and cloudy nights! Secondly, the views with a good Herschel wegde really are stunning, photographic at times when the seeing is excellent. Viewing a large active region at x200 in great conditions really can knock your socks off!

Glad you mentioned that - I've done no solar observing - other than a hole in the bottom of an oatmeal cylinder & tissue across the top contrivance (very nifty) for the g-daughters, but my wife has in Astronomy class and she enjoyed it very much. She's requested a solar filter, but until she decides which 'scope it's for, I'm stalled. She  originally requested one for the 8" Newt, but it was 10 days before the eclipse...

Solar observation, from the images and things she's showed me, is going to get a solid go here in Kerr Garden - you can see, at home, those lovely processes from TV occurring in/on/near the most important star of all.  I wasn't aware of what you could see and how much filtering was required until the missus told me.

Solar observation is likely underdone - Sol is taken for granted.

 

Jim

[AstroKerr]

On another note,

  I'd like everyone who's chimed in to know that I am taking action on advice or discussions here and in the minimalist thread(s) - your responses have been most helpful!

Powermate 2.5 - due in Friday - i had to fight the urge to get the 2x PM or bail to just the TV 2x Barlow - those less expensive ones do dance seductively.

UHC Filter - Due in Friday - I ordered the Astronomik  - it appears top be very good choice - they document well & up front.

H-beta - I want the Astronomik - would've ordered it with the UHC if they had had it. Not many places carry Astronomik stateside it seems, but I will get one. (High Point Scientific does.)

I've ordered just 1 TV plossl - 18mm 20mm - they don't make a straight 18.0. I also ordered 1 Celestron X-cel lx 18mm, their 8~24 Zoom in lieu of a Baader at the moment, and Zhumell Z 18mm (the only size I could find actually currently in stock for all 3). The wife's kit will get all TV Delite /Delos maybe Nagler - doubt she'll ever sign off (knowingly) on Ethos - she's just too sensible .  I'm going to use the TV 18mm as a standard and gauge others against it first hand. We currently have 9 scopes and I need to get 2 of them kitted for the g-daughters, 6 & 8 - unfortunately, they're probably not getting sets of TVs all at once, hence the start of the comparison - I can't just give them utter spuds, either. I'll add two or three more to the mix ,'Orion Expanse' is a candidate, 

Now, some of that was kind of off topic, but I wanted to let you kind folks know I value your answers in whatever thread - you save me loads hands-on comparing & thinking or get me thinking about that which I had not.  I have missions and time/budget/knowledge constraints behind all this.

I hadn't much thought about ER or parafocality - before bumping  into you lot - I'm fresh off the trawler. What I find extremely helpful/insightful is when such things are brought up, unexpectedly to me, and I find they deserve consideration. It's all a whirlwind at times, but the Brass Ring (or perhaps one of many) is 'Enjoyable Viewing of Wond'rous Things'.  Cricked necks and sore eyes'll put anyone off most anything - so I listen (I think).

Safety in All Things, Pleasure in Most & Happy G-Kids/Spouse/S.O./Wife, Happy Life!

Our very first deeply discounted SC (equipped with a seemingly decent  Celestron diagonal and e-Lux 25mm) Orion Apex 127mm came in - much more betterer than I expected! Now, this isn't really saying a lot because I have little experience, but I was impressed - crisp and tight and my wife generated love-eye instead of stink-eye =) The dated e-Lux was nicer enough to make the spanking new Sirius plossl 25 smell bad. 

Jim

On 9/25/2017 at 07:23, billyharris72 said:

• One of either an #80A Blue or a #21 Orange. Former is great for Moon, Jupiter and Saturn, producing a small but noticeable improvement in contrast. The latter is great for the Moon, so less flexible (not bad on Mars also for albedo features), but has 2 advantages:
  • Kills blue light, so observing the Moon during the day gets a dark sky background and almost the same level of contrast you would get at night. Features that would be completely washed out become easily visible.
  • Being at the red end of the spectrum it helps with seeing, and it helps a lot. If unfiltered seeing is limted to around x150, for example, expect to get x200 with a #21, maybe even x250.

Billy

Billy,

I have color eyepiece filters - #12 Yellow(66%), #23 Orange(??%), #25 Red(14%), #58 Green(24%) and #80A Blue(28%) - from the Orion accessories kit, so I am guessing they're generic low in quality / performance. I guessing I should be looking for something like the Baader Orange 570 nm Longpass (~98%) (or Bandpass version?) or the High Point #21 Orange(46%). 

I'm leaning towards Baaders at the moment because they're the first ones I've run into this evening that just give you the transmission graphs up front - with no digging required. And shouldn't that be the standard if your mfr'ing filters? Either the graphs or the pertinent numbers right -=bang=- there in the description? meh...

when you have time, please (anyone) let me know what you'd consider a good brand

Thanks,

 

[Littleguy80]

3 hours ago, AstroKerr said:

H-beta - I want the Astronomik - would've ordered it with the UHC if they had had it. Not many places carry Astronomik stateside it seems, but I will get one. 

I’d suggest getting the OIII filter before the H-Beta. Have a read of the article below. It’s commonly shared on here and gives you an idea of which nebula respond well to filters. You’ll notice that there a lot more targets for the UHC and OIII filters than the H-Beta. 

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

The article was written prior to Lumicon changing ownership so I’d suggest sticking with Astronomik for the OIII. 

[billyharris72]

4 hours ago, AstroKerr said:

I have color eyepiece filters - #12 Yellow(66%), #23 Orange(??%), #25 Red(14%), #58 Green(24%) and #80A Blue(28%

Thats a good set, so be honest i would save your money. For colour filters I suspect the Orion ones are as good as any. Wratten filters are not optically active in the way lenses are; they admit a broad frequency range and are not designed to exclude specific bands within this range. Regardless of what any manufacturer tells you, they are just pieces of coloured glass. I've heard of people using film sweet wrappers and getting comparable results.

I get all mine from Astroboot and have made it a point of principle that my upper budget is £7 for a colour filter.

I'd save some pennies and put them towards better quality UHC or Oiii filters, though even here id be aware that, for visual use, these filters are cheap and easy to make well. Personally (and others will differ) I wouldn't shell out on Atronomik filters for visual use. Filters do make a difference, but usually not that much of a difference that there will be a very obvious difference between a competently made filter and a good one.

Billy.

[John]

I've never found a use for colour filters personally. I've tried them a number of times over the years (usually for planetary viewing) but I didn't find that they did anything for the views I was getting "filterless" apart from adding a tint of colour. They don't cost much though so I guess that most people end up with a few in their toolbox even if thay don't get used much.

I have an H-Beta filter but the target range that it's useful for is much more select than for my UHC and O-III filters and H-Beta targets tend to be very challenging and indistinct anyway, so I'd agree that the H-Beta need not be very high up the priority list.

My personal experience is that good quality filters do perform better than low cost ones although there are some good brands out there that do not cost too much such as Castell and Orion (notably the Ultrablock).

[alanjgreen]

Astrokerr,

i would leave the Hb for a later date and target the O3 filter first. O3 will get plenty of use and Hb is limited use.

the general rule is : if you make out the nebula and you want to improve it then try UHC, but if you can see nothing and you want to see it then try the O3.

O3 work better with more aperture, but my Astronomik produces good results on my 89mm refractor so it is worth spending the extra if you only have smaller aperture. Cheaper O3 filters block too much light and you are left with not much to see if your scope has small aperture. ( I had a skywatcher O3 and it was dark as dirty dishwater showing very little indeed  I can't even bring myself to sell it for fear of upsetting a buyer - it is that bad! ). My opinion with filters is that you get exactly what you pay for!

I have never tried colour filters so cannot comment on that.

i found the baader neodymium filter enhanced detail on mars and Jupiter as well as doubling up as a moon filter on smaller aperture scopes. It can also cut out moon glow if you are viewing other objects on a moon affected night. Sold it when I moved up to 20" though.

dont get the buying bug all at once, buy a few things and try them out to formulate an opinion on what you want to improve based on your experience. Astronomy is a hobby that can last a lifetime, you don't have to do it all in the first month

take your time and expect to learn a lot as you go along.

whatever you miss this year will be back next year for you to try again (with greater experience and probably different kit! )

Alan

[domstar]

2 hours ago, alanjgreen said:

dont get the buying bug all at once, buy a few things and try them out to formulate an opinion on what you want to improve based on your experience. Astronomy is a hobby that can last a lifetime, you don't have to do it all in the first month

take your time and expect to learn a lot as you go along.

whatever you miss this year will be back next year for you to try again (with greater experience and probably different kit! )

Wise words indeed.

[AstroKerr]

Gentlemen!

Okay - so -

Wouldn't have guessed @ Orion filters, which is funny because I like the folks over there and ref the site often. I went and looked and they DO have nice filters - I still think the Sirius plossls, IMLE, smell bad.

O-III is on the way - High Point Scientific does carry them, fortunately. H-beta next and I'll have a filled-in, better basic set with 'standards' if you will. That lets me do comparisons, and, more importantly, meet the minimums for observing. Now, I know saying that is a bit reachy - but there are minimums - and I don't want the ladies, g-daughters especially, to go after a pretty and get caught short on a basic.

I also don't want to disagree with experience, but I was looking at two similarly described filters (one @ price, the other price+50%) and being stingy as a result of being thrifty earlier in life, I was gravitating to the less expensive offering. A little research and I found 'inexpensive' had transmission @ 28% stated just textually, 'pricier' was at 66% with a graph - nice 'Devil's Tower' bandpass profile - 135% performance increase and a ref profile for just 50% more cost. That profile aids the 'spectral analysis/profile' option - which is something my Princess would be prone to - "Look! See? That peak, there - means it's this old / burning that/ yaddablah".

I do like the idea of inexpensive filters forming a gradient set.

"dont get the buying bug all at once, buy a few things and try them out to formulate an opinion on what you want to improve based on your experience. Astronomy is a hobby that can last a lifetime, you don't have to do it all in the first month  "

Indeed wise words - at the moment, I am really trying to get 'the basics' in equipment. Some things seem to be 'givens'  - TVs/Leicas/Pentaxii are a good example - you can just go buy a series set and know you're good for what they do for life. Which series seems to take a bit more effort - fast/slow tube, visual/imaging. But, yes, measured pace - and I am at the edge of intake overload because I'm cheating - skimming the cream here. It helps immensely, but at the same time I have a lot of catching up to do - the whos, whats, wheres. I do need to slow down and observe - right now I'm the Observatory assistant - "Did you make my tea? Did you get the 120 out yet? No no no - west, WEST... We need two piers... This lens - ugh - are the new ones coming?"

I much prefer that over "You bought WHAT?! You don't need one!" Every two or three years she goes back to school =) - (last time was to be an instrument tech (so we have that,solar, RC & now Astronomy together)) - and I get my stuff caught up.

Thank you, all, again =)

Jim

 

[AstroKerr]

And more also -

That PAC link on Filter Perf on Nebs is nice!

above somewheres should've Baaders & Astronomiks and now Orions, which have nice profiles now that I've looked.

And, Dom (& crew)- film or glass? I think 'glass' - just gotta (maybe) buy it once twice (big ap/ small ap?)- and which SC/MC/Refr/Refl @ f/?.? would you use? I don't know how deep she or I will go, but better than oatmeal tin & tissue by a margin. Page in the day is ringed by clouds and very Sol friendly except for this year's PSE - at night, we get some clouds - like for the Perseids, the Mars-Merc, etc. or if I really really wanted to catch Saturn with the MC the other night...

Okay - how about this - just setup the scopes in the most comfortable or handy position for visual/imaging and use MIRRORS to get the light to them!! Huh!! Yeah! ... I know, riiiight!? 

I need a nap.

[AstroKerr]

On 9/25/2017 at 00:04, ronin said:

I don't own a variable polarizer, or even a non-variable, and I have no filters. Basically in the collection nothing that screws into the eyepiece or daigonal at all. So I guess that means their importance is minimal, at least to me.

I know where you're coming from, Ro - I was just there. And who could say I won't be there again someday... if I do return, maybe we can hang out, figger out why those 'false imagers' wanna do it 'that' way. Not sayin' I'm 'recon' or 'undercover' or nuthin - just sayin'... ain't nuthin wrong with seein' it right.

Props,

Tainted Jim

 

[Luna-tic]

I can see putting the variable polarizer down the priority list, but it's a handy thing for lunar viewing. You can dial in from 1% to around 40% light passage to suit your preference and for the particular phase you're observing.  I don't own one (yet) but borrow the club's when I need to dim the lunar view. The 1st two I'm buying are a UHC/LPR narrowband, and an O III. I'm going to stick with 1.25's for the time being.

[LukeSkywatcher]

On 10/9/2017 at 04:34, Luna-tic said:

I can see putting the variable polarizer down the priority list, but it's a handy thing for lunar viewing. You can dial in from 1% to around 40% light passage to suit your preference and for the particular phase you're observing.  I don't own one (yet) but borrow the club's when I need to dim the lunar view. The 1st two I'm buying are a UHC/LPR narrowband, and an O III. I'm going to stick with 1.25's for the time being.

A variable polarizing filter isnt really needed for either Solar or Lunar observing. If you want a polarizing filter for Lunar observing, a plain old Moon filter is a LOT cheaper than a variable Polarizing filter. 

Regarding filters.........UHC and OIII. I have the Skywatcher branded ones and they work for me. They cost about 30-40 quid each. 

[JOC]

I'm like Paul, mine are not expensive ones and I've got them all second hand as I don't have a lot to spend on 'luxuries' just to kind of get a feeling as to what they might offer.  I own a Skywatcher 2-plane polariser, Skywatcher UHC, Skywatcher Light Pollution; Optics O-III. 

I am a novice astronomer and have only just started to find things like nebulas and the odd deep sky object (recently = mainly last night!) so don't read too much into this.  These are thoughts from a novice with cheaper filters

The polariser - I read a lot that people find the moon too bright, as you wrote, I don't have a real problem with it either.  However, when used the tuning of the 2-plane polariser does offer some flexibility to tone things done brightness wise.  I don't bother on the moon, but it is interesting to experiment with it on something like Jupiter.  A couple of good tips for it is to split it in half and either put one bit on the bottom of the EP and rest the other on the top of the EP if the eye relief allows then you can move is around easily.  Or put one bit on the bottom of a Barlow and the other on your EP so you can easily spin the EP to get the changes.

The Light pollution - haven't tried it yet, but don't know why - I do have poor light polluted directions and maybe I should see if it makes a difference

The UHC and O-III - I took the UHC out last night - I don't think it improved the dumbbell nebula, or the ring nebula for me, Even with the UHC on I couldn't find the catseye or the Veil.  However, I think the 0-III is supposed to be better for the veil, though I have tried it in the past and still not enjoyed success (it is entirely possible I haven't been looking in he right place though!!).  At the moment I am still experimenting, but so far I haven't gone 'wow' with what I've tried, and if I am being honest the ring and the dumbbell were better for me with the naked eye.  However, there are loads of objects left to find and maybe they will become useful soon and I will continue to try with them