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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge.thumb.jpg.b7f10f594317507d0f40662231b0d9a8.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.

  • 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 1

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 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.