EXPLORE SCIENTIFIC UHC FILTER VS UHC FILTER

[Kronos831]

Heyyyyy its me againnn . I am trying to find a good UHC (Open to OIII ones aswell) filter to use for nebula observation. I ve stumbled upon these 2 : 

1 Explore Scientific UHC Nebula Filter 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/explore-scientific-uhc-nebula-filter-1-25-2-inch.html

2 UHC FILTER

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/uhc-filter.html

Can somebody tell me which is better? Or  if somebody has one themselves , can tell me if they are worth buying or just saving for a better one.

If you want to you can recommend me a good UHC OR OIII filter for viewing Nebulas thanks.

-Kronos

 

[johnturley]

I don't about the latter make, but I have a couple of Explore Scientific and Baader filters, and the threads are a lot better on the Baader filters, plus they have knurled casings making them easier to screw in and out .

[Kronos831]

thanks Do you think i should go with the Explore scientific or the Baader one?

[johnturley]

14 hours ago, Kronos831 said:

thanks Do you think i should go with the Explore scientific or the Baader one?

I don't know whether there is much to chose between them optically, probably not, although you could ask the team at FLO.

Although the Baader filters are more expensive, I think that you will find them easier to screw in and out with cold fingers in the dark, if you look at the images of the filters on FLO's website you will see what I mean.

John

[rwilkey]

Hi Kronos, I have tried both the Baader UHC-S filter and the 'Optics' one, which is a Sky Watcher product and they both do 'what it says on the tin', however, as a first time user of filters, I would say the Baader has the edge as it has a broader waveband and as a consequence, easier to use.  

[Paul73]

13 minutes ago, rwilkey said:

Hi Kronos, I have tried both the Baader UHC-S filter and the 'Optics' one, which is a Sky Watcher product and they both do 'what it says on the tin', however, as a first time user of filters, I would say the Baader has the edge as it has a broader waveband and as a consequence, easier to use.  

That sounds like good advice. The Baader UHC-S is different from the Baader UHC??

I’d consider the OIII first as the UHC enhances what is visible whereas the OIII reveals some wonders which are otherwise invisible (such as the Veil complex in Cygnus). However, if you have much light light pollution, the UHC might still be the best bet.

Paul

[rwilkey]

1 minute ago, Paul73 said:

The Baader UHC-S is different from the Baader UHC??

Yes, it has a slightly broader waveband, not that it is very significant though.

[Paul73]

As a general rule of thumb:

Smaller scope (say <12”); go for Larger Bandwidth. A narrow bandwidth cuts out too much background and leads to an unacceptably dim image.

Larger scope (>12”); go for Smaller Bandwidth. A big scope has enough light grasp to compensate for the dimmer image. Personally, I like to see loads of context, so often go with the wider dandwidth even in a bigger scope.

Paul

[Ricochet]

The brightness of extended objects like nebulae depends on the exit pupil of the telescope-eyepiece combination. So long as you use the correct exit pupil you can use any filter in any size telescope, you will just have a smaller magnification in a small telescope than a large one.

[Paul73]

Technically correct. But, my comments are based on ‘real world’ observations.

By the time you have equalised the apparent brightness, the mag on the small scope is usually too low to make out the detail. Narrow bandwidth filters seem exacerbate the effect.

Paul

[Cosmic Geoff]

I got the Baader OIII 10nm filter, even thought it was not the cheapest, to be sure I got a quality filter.

It works well on suitable nebulae with my 203mm SCT.