Nebula Filters

[Andy1978]

Hi Guys

This has probably been asked a thousand times but.. filters.

I believe the Astronomik filters are 'best', certainly most expensive, but is the difference between these and say the Baader's something that you would notice or is it so marginal it would be almost too difficult to tell.

I want to get a UHC and a OIII (2"versions for future proofing and use on 30-40mm 2" EP's) but naturally don't want to break the bank, the Astronomik versions of these would cost almost as much as my SW200P itself.  Optolong are the knock offs but are they close to the same performance?.

I have read the reviews and posts on here but am yet to navigate my way out of the information minefield, any help would be much appreciated.

Cheers

Andy

 

 

 

[Victor Boesen]

I have a couple of castell filters from 365astronomy and they work great for planetary nebula and other types of nebula. They aren't as expensive as the astronomik filters which is also a plus.

This picture show the light transmission between the filters and the astronomik and castell filters actually look a little like each other.

I hope it helped!

Victor

[LukeSkywatcher]

Castell filters get good reviews by people here. Baader filters are great. Astronomik filters do cost a good bit more. Do you really want to spend that much on filters, when cheaper brands are as god for their price.

Go for the Baader, Castell or even Skywatcher (i have SW uhc and oiii). 

A UHC filter will get more use than an OIII simply because there are more nebs that benefit from UHC. So, you could forget the OIII for now and opt for a more expensive UHC. 

[Victor Boesen]

+1 for going with the cheaper option. In the end you won't be able to tell much of a difference and I really think you would enjoy them.

[John]

The only caution I have regards the Baader O-III filter is that it's band pass width is quite a bit narrower than most other O-III filters which leads to a view which. in my opinion, does not lend itself to as satisfying views of nebulae in the context of the surrounding star fields.

As Paul says, the Castell brand is low cost and gets positive reviews.

This is another personal angle but I would go for an O-III filter (not the Baader) over a UHC on the basis that a UHC enhances what you can already see but an O-III can show you things that are virtually invisible without a filter. Targets such as the  Veil Nebula move from vague and hard to pick out at all to stunning and complex deep sky objects, possibly the best of the Summer season targets.

Of course dark skies still improve things, even with a filter in use.

 

[LukeSkywatcher]

"This is another personal angle but I would go for an O-III filter (not the Baader) over a UHC on the basis that a UHC enhances what you can already see but an O-III can show you things that are virtually invisible without a filter. Targets such as the  Veil Nebula move from vague and hard to pick out at all to stunning and complex deep sky objects, possibly the best of the Summer season targets."

This is very true and something i was told when deciding on a UHC or OIII.

"UHC makes the already visible, more visible. OIII makes the invisible, visible".

I was going to mention it in my initial comment but forgot.

I retract my comment about getting a UHC filter first. Get an OIII. 

[scarp15]

It would depend on what your motivation plans are for using a filter. My very first was an Orion Ultra Block, a narrow band filter that was fairly effective at enhancing views of brighter nebulae, which I primarily used from my backyard. It was an SCT type version and in due course was replaced for my second, more dedicated dark sky filter a (original brand) Lumicon 2" OIII. At that time I'd considered it to be an expensive purchase, yet was starting to increasingly venture to dark sky locations and over time, scopes came and went, whilst the Lumicon 0III filter has become my most consistently used visual astro item. Therefore the investment in an Astronomik OIII over time, depending upon how you see yourself evolving in visual astronomy, will become a valued, worthwhile purchase.   

[LukeSkywatcher]

3 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

It would depend on what your motivation plans are for using a filter. My very first was an Orion Ultra Block, a narrow band filter that was fairly effective at enhancing views of brighter nebulae, which I primarily used from my backyard. It was an SCT type version and in due course was replaced for my second, more dedicated dark sky filter a (original brand) Lumicon 2" OIII. At that time I'd considered it to be an expensive purchase, yet was starting to increasingly venture to dark sky locations and over time, scopes came and went, whilst the Lumicon 0III filter has become my most consistently used visual astro item. Therefore the investment in an Astronomik OIII over time, depending upon how you see yourself evolving in visual astronomy, will become a valued, worthwhile purchase.   

Good point. If intended for use in back garden with any level of LIGHT POLLUTION, go for cheap and cheerful. If for use from a dark sky location.....go for something a bit more.

I live in a small (almost rural town). I have access to miles and miles of farmland around me with dark skies. I dont venture out though.

[MarsG76]

You get what you pay for IMHO... I have the 2" Astronomik UHC filter and the Lumicon 1.25" UHC filters and both a great... I did get a cheaper UHC filter in the past... Orbinar, and it just sits in the case these days... there is no comparison.

As far as OIII is concerned, I have the Celestron OIII, which is the same filter as the Baader apparently and it is good but also only used during the darkest skies and darkest locations when my dark adaption has set in. 

I use the Astronomic 2" UHC filter 90% of the time on nebulae so I recommend you spend a bit more and that way you'll only spend once.... after all it is something you will be buying once and if you get the cheaper one and it turn out to be poor than you'll end up spending more money on another one.

The OIII is used rarely so I think that at the beginning you would be happy with the UHC, get the OIII later if you don't want to spend too much at one time.

[LukeSkywatcher]

"You get what you pay for".

I hate this phrase. If you have nothing to compare it to or used before..........a 30 pound filter is as good as a 300 pound filter.

[alanjgreen]

I've owned and used Astronomik, Castell and Skywatcher.

They are not all the same.

The Skywatcher OIII was fine until I got an Astronomik OIII to try, it showed the Skywatcher to be terrible, it's been in my loft for 4 years, I can't bring myself to sell it to someone else. The view through the Astronomik is so much MORE - more nebula and more stars to make the field more pleasant and natural  There was absolutely no comparison!

The skywatcher UHC when compared to the Astronomik UHC I then purchased to replace it was less bad but still no match for the Astronomik.

I now also have a 1.25" Castell that I use with binoculars and this seems fine for that purpose. I have not compared it directly with the skywatchers as I can't face using them again.

If your budget allows Astronomik then pick up a 2nd hand one and save a few quid. There was a 2" UHC on astrobuysell earlier in the week. They are scratch resistant and have a 10 year guarantee! You do get what you pay for!

- Shop around as prices vary, Modern Astronomy and Widescreen Centre seem to be about the cheapest places to buy Astronomik filters  

if Astronomik is way over budget then grab the Castell from 365astronomy, they are good value for money for sure.

Alan

[MarsG76]

26 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

.a 30 pound filter is as good as a 300 pound filter

10 times heavier!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MarsG76]

On 16/06/2018 at 21:25, LukeSkywatcher said:

"You get what you pay for".

I hate this phrase. 

I don't, it's right on the money... cheap alternatives are, 99% of the time, bad (or obviously lower quality at the very least) when compared to the more expensive items... They seem ok until you get the opportunity to compare the two. 

[LukeSkywatcher]

On 16/06/2018 at 21:59, MarsG76 said:

I don't, it's right on the money... cheap alternatives are, 99% of the time, bad (or obviously lower quality at the very least) when compared to the more expensive items... They seem ok until you get the opportunity to compare the two. 

Have to disagree. I have only bought/used SW filters and they are fine. Its only if you experience an expensive one first that you realize the difference.

[N3ptune]

I noticed one thing, I have a NPB which is UHC similar has well has a Chinese re branded OIII in 1.25" . The inexpensive Chinese lets more light in then the NPB and because of that, more stars are visible. Visually when looking at both filters, it's obvious the OIII is more light permissive then the UHC (it should normally be the other way around.) At first, I thought the NPB was much better filter but now perhaps 2 years later, I find the differences less obvious.

The OIII will show more stars but the NPB will provide a bit more contrast to the nebula, it's more aggressive.

NPB wins on nebula; OIII wins on stars so a question could be asked about how much stars and nebula I find the more pleasing to see. To examine that matter further, a filter I would like to try against my existing ones is the Astronomik UHC-E, it's supposed to be good for smaller telescopes then 150mm, it should be less aggressive on the stars too, this can be a good thing on some occasions.

https://www.astronomik.com/en/visual-filters/uhc-e-filter.html

If my thoughts can help.

[John]

David Knisely is well known in the USA for his knowledge of filters. In one of his reports he included this image illustrating the impact of using a good O-III filter to view the Veil Nebula (eastern portion in this case). This is not an exaggeration from my experience. A UHC filter provides some enhancement of this and similar nebulae but an O-III takes it a whole lot futher, even with small aperture scopes (I use one with my 4 refractors to great effect):

 

[N3ptune]

My last post can be misleading, my OIII filter does not qualify has a real OIII filter probably. What I said previously was more about aggressive filters or less aggressive filters regarding the stars. In any case, NOT a suggestion the NPB/UHC is superior to a real or good OIII on improving contrast for some nebula!!

[John]

30 minutes ago, N3ptune said:

My last post can be misleading, my OIII filter does not qualify has a real OIII filter probably. What I said previously was more about aggressive filters or less aggressive filters regarding the stars. In any case, NOT a suggestion the NPB/UHC is superior to a real or good OIII on improving contrast for some nebula!!

I wonder if your so called "O-III" has been mislabelled

As the chart posted earlier by Victor shows, O-III filters admit much narrower range than UHC's do. If a filter admits a wider range than a UHC, it's not an O-III.

 

[MarsG76]

3 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

Have to disagree. I have only bought/used SW filters and they are fine. Its only if you experience an expensive one first that you realize the difference.

Yeah, that's what I typed... I think that getting the best initially is the best way to go.

 

[N3ptune]

2 hours ago, John said:

I wonder if your so called "O-III" has been mislabelled

As the chart posted earlier by Victor shows, O-III filters admit much narrower range than UHC's do. If a filter admits a wider range than a UHC, it's not an O-III.

 

Mislabelled, it's possible.

This OIII I have is a re badged filter with the name of the store whey I got it, a very economic option they special order from China. I paid 55CAD with taxes for it, while the Baader, Celestron and others are all over 100CAD for the 1.25" version. The seller told me this batch of home branded OIII they had was not a batch of line narrowband filters to him and they looked much more like a UHCs then anything else.

I think he was right.

For sure, it's not a true OIII

[John]

It's well worth trying a true O-III if you can - they effects can be really significant on some targets, taking them from rather vague to an observing highlight. I guess some folks might think I'm stretching things in saying that, but honestly  I'm not.

(and I don't have any shares in filter companies either !)

[Andy1978]

Thank you all for your responses, I value each of them.

I have this morning ordered a Astronomik 2" OIII filter, Rother Valley Optics currently has them at the best price.  Accordingly I won't end up buying another OIII filter so this should save me money in the long term, and I'll  be hopefully spoilt in my nearby countryside  dark skies with some fantastic nebula views

I'll add the Astronomik UHC filter to my collection on another pay day, and also perhaps the Baader Neodymium moon and sky glow filter too but that requires further research.

Best regards

Andy

[JeremyS]

16 minutes ago, Andy1978 said:

Accordingly I won't end up buying another OIII filter so this should save me money in the long term

Very wise, Andy. The number of times I've done something on the cheap and then then ended up spending more.......!!

[N3ptune]

4 hours ago, Andy1978 said:

Thank you all for your responses, I value each of them.

I have this morning ordered a Astronomik 2" OIII filter, Rother Valley Optics currently has them at the best price.  Accordingly I won't end up buying another OIII filter so this should save me money in the long term, and I'll  be hopefully spoilt in my nearby countryside  dark skies with some fantastic nebula views

I'll add the Astronomik UHC filter to my collection on another pay day, and also perhaps the Baader Neodymium moon and sky glow filter too but that requires further research.

Best regards

Andy

Congratulations with your 2" filter purchase. I am sure you will enjoy it a lot when used on the right nebula with the right conditions (It should pay for itself after only one Veil nebula observation)

 

5 hours ago, John said:

It's well worth trying a true O-III if you can - they effects can be really significant on some targets, taking them from rather vague to an observing highlight. I guess some folks might think I'm stretching things in saying that, but honestly  I'm not.

(and I don't have any shares in filter companies either !) 

I think what you say about the OIII is real and I want to test it eventually. A good OIII it's also on my to do list, probably in 2" size like Andy1978.

[Andy1978]

A tad off piste but I'm hunting a 30mm~ EP for DSO viewing.  My question is would an ES 32mm 82° work well with a 200mm Dob?.  I would hope this coupled with the OIII would lead to some pleasant nebula viewing.