Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep3_banner.thumb.jpg.5533fb830ae914798f4dbbdd2c8a5853.jpg

Littleguy80

Astronomik UHC vs DGM NBP

Recommended Posts

I have an Astronomik UHC filter which is excellent. However, I find myself considering giving a DGM NBP filter a go based on the number of positive comments I've seen on this filter. People seem to most commonly reference the views of M42 with it. I'd be interested if anyone has ever tried these filters side by side? Any thoughts or experiences appreciated :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

I have an Astronomik UHC filter which is excellent. However, I find myself considering giving a DGM NBP filter a go based on the number of positive comments I've seen on this filter. People seem to most commonly reference the views of M42 with it. I'd be interested if anyone has ever tried these filters side by side? Any thoughts or experiences appreciated :) 

Yes I have. Much preferred the Astronomik uhc. The DGM had a red double star effect I really didn’t like. Further comments in this thread 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GavStar said:

Yes I have. Much preferred the Astronomik uhc. The DGM had a red double star effect I really didn’t like. Further comments in this thread 

 

Thanks Gavin. That was a surprisingly easy answer. Sounds like an odd effect with the red stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done the same comparison and, overall, preferred the NBP. Yes there was a red tint to stars but I thought that the DGM NBP bought out a little more structure in nebulae than the Astronomik UHC did with my scopes / eye / skies and it's the nebulosity that I use such a filter to see.

I recently asked about the Astronomik UHC again (it's been a while since I owned one) on another forum and it got a bit of a rasberry from the folks there, which surprised me because Astronomik make good filters, if a little "wide" for some tastes.

Filter preferences are pretty personal though so I've no doubt that opinions will vary as is often the case !

I'd love to try another Astronomik O-III though. That one was all the deep sky filter that I needed for quite a while.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John said:

I've done the same comparison and, overall, preferred the NBP. Yes there was a red tint to stars but I thought that the DGM NBP bought out a little more structure in nebulae than the Astronomik UHC did with my scopes / eye / skies and it's the nebulosity that I use such a filter to see.

I recently asked about the Astronomik UHC again (it's been a while since I owned one) on another forum and it got a bit of a rasberry from the folks there, which surprised me because Astronomik make good filters, if a little "wide" for some tastes.

Filter preferences are pretty personal though so I've no doubt that opinions will vary as is often the case !

I'd love to try another Astronomik O-III though. That one was all the deep sky filter that I needed for quite a while.

Thanks John. Very interesting comments. I have the Astronomik OIII, UHC and H-Beta which all served me well. I do tend to reach for the OIII over the UHC but that’s probably doing the UHC a disservice. When I had the 1.25” version with my old scope it gave the best views of the Lagoon nebula. 

I also have an original Lumicon OIII which is noticeably darker than the Astronomik OIII but does seem to draw out the fainter detail better than the Astronomik. I originally thought the Lumicon would replace the Astronomik but overall I think they both deserve a place in my eyepiece case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all the filters mentioned are quality items but they just do things slightly differently so it's up to personal preferences which are preferred perhaps.

I tried a couple of low cost UHC filters recently that worked up to a point but the better quality brands seem much more effective. I think the cheaper ones have more generous band pass widths and perhaps lower overall % peak pass rates which hold them back.

There is obviously more to making a good filter than there might seem initially.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you’re absolutely right, John. The little differences will make certain filters lend themselves better to particular targets. So maybe the NBP has the edge on M42 but the Astronomik wins out on the Lagoon. Once you add in personal preference then it becomes even more difficult to separate the better filters. The answer with astronomical equipment always seems to end up being “give it a try”!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2019 at 16:17, John said:

I've done the same comparison and, overall, preferred the NBP. Yes there was a red tint to stars but I thought that the DGM NBP bought out a little more structure in nebulae than the Astronomik UHC did with my scopes / eye / skies and it's the nebulosity that I use such a filter to see.

I recently asked about the Astronomik UHC again (it's been a while since I owned one) on another forum and it got a bit of a rasberry from the folks there, which surprised me because Astronomik make good filters, if a little "wide" for some tastes.

Filter preferences are pretty personal though so I've no doubt that opinions will vary as is often the case !

I'd love to try another Astronomik O-III though. That one was all the deep sky filter that I needed for quite a while.

Astronomik have narrowed their bands a couple of years ago. I have their new OIII and it is superb.

I also have DGM NPB and it is good on nebulas, but I honestly did not compare it with Astronomik. It has some ghosting on the stars, for those who are concerned. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BGazing said:

Astronomik have narrowed their bands a couple of years ago. I have their new OIII and it is superb.

I also have DGM NPB and it is good on nebulas, but I honestly did not compare it with Astronomik. It has some ghosting on the stars, for those who are concerned. 

I believe Astronomik are now making Tele Vue's new range of narrowband and line filters, which are also starting to get some great feedback. Much better than the previous versions of the Tele Vue Bandmate O-III and UHC I understand.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to chip in:  I’ve tried most of the well-known UHCs over the years and ended up favouring the NPB.  As for OIIIs, I think the Televue (by Astronomik) is exceptional, best of the bunch to my eye, and that includes Lumicon etc. But then, as John says, there is an element of personal preference in these choices and the subtly different renditions they give. Though not in the same league as the above, the relatively inexpensive Ex Sci filters I thought were decent value and an inexpensive way of gaining some idea of what such filters do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2019 at 18:06, John said:

I believe Astronomik are now making Tele Vue's new range of narrowband and line filters, which are also starting to get some great feedback. Much better than the previous versions of the Tele Vue Bandmate O-III and UHC I understand.

 

I received the Tele Vue OIII and "UHC" last week and have compared the OIII to an older Astronomic OIII and an excellent copy of the Lumicon OIII.

The new TeleVue OIII equaled or beat my  excellent Lumicon OIII, with more structure shown in M1 for example. IC 443, the Jellyfish showed more contrasted in the TV as well, with the Eskimo neb equal in both. I believe transmission is higher with the Televue.

The nod goes to the TV with the OIII. It is excellent.

My very tight and superb Lumicon UHC appears tighter than the TV UHC but more testing is needed. Oddly the TV shows a lighter background but very similar nebula contrast. IC 443 had the Lumicon a tiny squeak ahead on contrast but the TV offered a different and unique view with VG contrast.

Both TV's have really high transmission which is altering my oh so familiar view of many objects- and I'm liking it. Can't wait for the Veil to come back round...

note: the TV UHC showed some very faint sky texture in places around the Jellyfish neb, the Lumicon UHC did not... rumor has it there is much more nebulosity around the main visible streak....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argh! You're supposed to say nothing beats the Astronomiks! Just kidding. I think the TV filters are hand picked or have slightly higher criteria? PS the Veil is popping up very early mornings now, but around 4 or 5 am this side of the pond. My head's usually swimming by that point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ships and Stars said:

Argh! You're supposed to say nothing beats the Astronomiks!

lol!

I just speak (my version of) the truth :grin:

Actually the newer Astronomiks are tighter than my old version, so alls well. If purchasing new filters I would choose TeleVue or Astronomik... really pleased Tele Vue has revised their line up.

BTW, if I had a newer Astronomik I would not, out of necessity, buy the TV- they are most likely the same or very close IMHO.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the Televues were made by Astronomik and essentially identical to the Astronomiks, Televue claiming to select to meet their own supposedly uncompromising standards.  Certainly the recent TV OIII filter I have is excellent and very tight. That said, and I’ve not put it to the test, but I bet you’d be pushed to notice any difference between the straight Astronomiks and the ones made by Astronomik for Televue.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had 1.25" Astronomik UHC and OIII filters  but these were replaced by 2" DGM NPB and Lumicon OIII. No direct comparison was done between the NPB and the Astronomik UHC.

Both are very fine. I prefer the NPB for the reasons stated by John. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All multilayer filters depend on the layer design that can be tweaked for every batch, no reason people are not improving things if they can ensure the stability and repeatability of the process.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm,

  • Not for all Astronomical filters
  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 26/02/2020 at 13:34, JTEC said:

I thought that the Televues were made by Astronomik and essentially identical to the Astronomiks, Televue claiming to select to meet their own supposedly uncompromising standards.  Certainly the recent TV OIII filter I have is excellent and very tight. That said, and I’ve not put it to the test, but I bet you’d be pushed to notice any difference between the straight Astronomiks and the ones made by Astronomik for Televue.

Except the UHC.  Astronomik's UHC filter passes the H-α wavelength at a high percentage, whereas TeleVue's Nebustar II (their version of the UHC) has no red transmission at all.

Star images in the Astronomik have a bit of red tint to them, where the stars in the TeleVue are the usual blue green seen in a filter lacking red transmission.

The current Lumicon Gen.3 UHC has the same profile as the TeleVue, while the DGM admits a much broader patch of red than the Astronomik.

Edited by Don Pensack
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.