UHC and 0III filters

[bluesilver]

Hi,  i am looking at getting some filters to help get better viewing of nebular.

I am using a 16 inch Skywatcher Dobsonian with goto

I have seen there are at least two different types of 0111 filters,  at least in the badder range.

I have found what they call narrow band ccd and visual nebular.

Not too sure what the difference is really,  but was mainly looking for something that is suited to the 16 inch Dobsonian.

Doesn't have to be Badder,  just read that they were suppose to be fairly good

Any information or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by bluesilver

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The CCD filters block IR, which is unnecessary for visual, as the naked eye cannot see IR. CCDs are very sensitive in IR. I have fairly cheap visual-use O-III and UHC filters (and even an H-beta, for the Horse Head Nebula), and they work fine. I haven't compared them to more expensive options. Mine are Skywatcher, TS or unbranded ones.

[John]

For visual use I recommend either the Lumicon, Astronomik or Tele Vue Bandmate II O-III filters. They are expensive but I've tried a lot of filters over the years (including the Baader visual O-III) and the are simply the best performers with the most significant visual impact on the nebulae.

 

[bomberbaz]

As a buy once add on I would agree with John, buy the best and you will never need to change it. 

I have lumicon OIII and HB although I do use a far cheaper UHC but that's because I tend to use mainly OIII. 

[Owmuchonomy]

The Astronomik UHC gives me the most contrast on common targets and is magnificent combined with my ED150.  The Great Orion nebula and the Rosette are staggeringly good with that combination.  I have a Baader 2" OIII too and that is slightly better with targets that have significant OIII such as the Veil.

[bomberbaz]

This is out of date but quite helpful

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm

[joe aguiar]

the one u mentioned ccd is for imagers so don't get that one.

There are many companies that make nebula filters in fact probably all companies do

I have thousdand oaks on a few orion but I don't think it matters too much there are what I would call 4 levels of nebula filters or sometimes called light pollusion filters

1-level blocks the least light but also has the least gain would be a broadband filter, this model can be used for any scope BUT if you have smaller scope may be best bet, as if you block too much light the image may be too dim to look at. example scopes 4.5" reflectors or 80 or 90mm refractors.

2- level blocks more light but has twice the gain would be a narrowband filter, since this one blocks twice the light I would say scopes over 6"reflectors or 4 to 5" refractors or 6"sct

3-level blocks even more light this one would be an 03 filter but has again more gain but you should have scopes larger then 8' reflector or sct or maybe 6" refractors

4- level would be the most star light its called h-beta filter BUT this model is manilly used  for like less then a dozen item and is very specific filter you may ot may not want to buy a filter that has like less then 10 items that its dedicated for.

My list doesn't mean you cant use a narrowband with a smaller scope BUT its just a guide line. If you are in dark skiys like the blue grey zone you probbally can use a more narrow band since the sky is so dark that what it dims doesn't make a big deal.

for most people if you could only buy 1 kind then it probally be the narrowband model

joejaguar

[bomberbaz]

Here is a thread from cloudy nights I often refer to for planning trips out. I have always found it very useful and backs up my statement above re: mainly using OIII filter on most dso's. Especially for larger aperture scopes which yours definitely is.

I still believe UHC have a place alongside anyone's collection of glass though.

Filter Performance

Edited January 8, 2020 by bomberbaz

[Louis D]

Avoid the cheap OIII filters.  I picked up a Zhumell OIII for $16 shipped a while back just to compare to my 1990s Lumicon OIII.  It was no contest.  The Lumicon is actually an interference filter that looks mirrored and has a really narrow passband and high transmission within that band making many nebula really stand out in light polluted skies.  The Zhumell looks sort of like a dark green filter with no obvious mirroring.  It acts like a somewhat stronger light pollution filter, so nebula stand out ever so slightly better.

[joe aguiar]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Avoid the cheap OIII filters.  I picked up a Zhumell OIII for $16 shipped a while back just to compare to my 1990s Lumicon OIII.  It was no contest.  The Lumicon is actually an interference filter that looks mirrored and has a really narrow passband and high transmission within that band making many nebula really stand out in light polluted skies.  The Zhumell looks sort of like a dark green filter with no obvious mirroring.  It acts like a somewhat stronger light pollution filter, so nebula stand out ever so slightly better.

holy cow $16 shipped sounds so cheap. I guess for this price it could be something that's better than nothing for a brand new person.

mine were all about $149 to $169 BEFORE taxes so that's just shy of $200 cdn

joejaguar

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, joe aguiar said:

holy cow $16 shipped sounds so cheap. I guess for this price it could be something that's better than nothing for a brand new person.

mine were all about $149 to $169 BEFORE taxes so that's just shy of $200 cdn

joejaguar

Misremembered.  It was actually $10 shipped.  I think Hayneedle was clearing them out 6 years ago.

 

[John]

I have a couple of less expensive UHC filters as well as the Lumicon O-III - a Meade 4000 Nebular (spelt like that !) in 1.25 inches and the Explore Scientific UHC in 2 inches. Both do make a difference and have quite generous band pass widths so the effect is much more subtle than the O-III. Most of the time though I'm wanting the filter to give a good "kick" to the contrast of the nebulosity and the O-III is by far the best for that.

This illustration of the impact of a high quality O-III filter is not an exaggeration on a darkish night:

 

[Jiggy 67]

Today I’ve just taken delivery of the Astronomik UHC filter and I’m looking forward to giving it a go. I spent hours umming and ahhing between this and the Astronomik O-III, it appears there’s not much between them but everything thing I read said the UHC is a bit more versatile and more of an all rounder. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Jiggy 67

[bluesilver]

Thanks for the replies,  lots of great information given out and greatly appreciated.

So just reading through them all,  and i am basically looking for the best i can get as like many mentioned,  it is a filter you only have to buy once.

It sounds like that the  Lumicon filters are the best in regards to performance,  would this be correct?

Then after that it would be Astronomik,  then  Tele Vue Bandmate ?

Dose that sound pretty close to being correct?

Also sorry to be a pain,  but would you say the best place to get the Lumicon filters from,  I can't find any dealers her in Australia,  so will be looking internationally.

Thanks again.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by bluesilver

[Geoff Barnes]

@bluesilver The Lumicon filters are mainly available from the USA suppliers, but many don't ship to Australia.

You could try https://www.astroshop.eu/ as an alternative, they ship worldwide.

16 hours ago, John said:

I have a couple of less expensive UHC filters as well as the Lumicon O-III - a Meade 4000 Nebular (spelt like that !) in 1.25 inches and the Explore Scientific UHC in 2 inches. Both do make a difference and have quite generous band pass widths so the effect is much more subtle than the O-III. Most of the time though I'm wanting the filter to give a good "kick" to the contrast of the nebulosity and the O-III is by far the best for that.

This illustration of the impact of a high quality O-III filter is not an exaggeration on a darkish night:

 

Alas, good though it is, my Astronomik 0lll filter shows the Veil fainter than your image on the left @John

Too low on our light polluted horizon from here - very frustrating.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Geoff Barnes

[bluesilver]

Thanks again for the reply,  will take a look at their site.

Appreciated.

 

[John]

On 09/01/2020 at 07:07, Geoff Barnes said:

@bluesilver The Lumicon filters are mainly available from the USA suppliers, but many don't ship to Australia.

You could try https://www.astroshop.eu/ as an alternative, they ship worldwide.

Alas, good though it is, my Astronomik 0lll filter shows the Veil fainter than your image on the left @John

Too low on our light polluted horizon from here - very frustrating.

Sorry to hear that Geoff but at least Cygnus gets well up into the sky here in the UK so we see the Veil well. You have done much better with the planets where you are though.

 

[LDW1]

Many of the good write ups by the filter experts recommend, if you are only going to have one filter, the UHC instead of the O-III as it is more versatile, if you will, I have the Celestron UHC which is made by Baader as well as an NPB in both 1.25” and 2” as well as a 1.25” Bandmate. They all perform excellent and give slightly different views of strictly nebulas for which they are made, I would suggest reading some of the studies, looking at the different specs, the different performance curves to help you in a decision, they are revealing, very helpful !

[LDW1]

Two sites that will give you some insite are :  1. Filter Performance Comparisons by David Knisley, he is a North American authority / guru on filters and 2.  Astronomical Filters Spectral Transmission for various nebulas. Hopefully these will / should  help !

[RT65CB-SWL]

I use the Explore Scientific UHC and Olll filters and are very reasonably priced if you are still shopping. They tick/checkmark/check mark ✔️ the box for me when I was shopping for them.