UHC Filter: ES or Astronomik

[Cuto100200]

Just looking into general purpose filters, discovered that generally UHC and ND filters are good all-rounders, with IIIO being a little more specific to certain objects.

The ES UHC is half the price of the Astronomik, how much higher quality will the Astronomik be at double the price, and would this be worth the price increase? 

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

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

 

Thanks

[John]

The Astronomik is more effective. I have both. The ES works though, it's just that the Astronomik has a more effective band pass with sharper cut offs and therefore the contrast of nebulae is slightly more enhanced and the stars more tightly defined.

I can't put a figure on the difference or what that is worth though

The ES UHC will give you a fair idea of the potential of these filters. They only have an impact on nebulae though, as you probably know.

 

 

[Cuto100200]

18 minutes ago, John said:

The Astronomik is more effective. I have both. The ES works though, it's just that the Astronomik has a more effective band pass with sharper cut offs and therefore the contrast of nebulae is slightly more enhanced and the stars more tightly defined.

I can't put a figure on the difference or what that is worth though

The ES UHC will give you a fair idea of the potential of these filters. They only have an impact on nebulae though, as you probably know.

 

 

Thanks John this helps a bunch, I'll most likely go with the Astronomik then as a more long term investment, then I won't feel the need to upgrade anytime soon

Thank you!

[John]

Another excellent UHC filter is the Omega DGM NBP but I don't think FLO stocks those.

 

[miguel87]

I'm saving my cash for the astronomik UHC. Cant decide whether to get 1.25" or 2".

I only have one 2" eyepiece, but it is my wide field deep sky viewer.

Decisions decisions 😂

[bingevader]

I have the 2" ES UHC and have seen the veil nebula through it in an 8" dob.

[JTEC]

1 hour ago, John said:

Another excellent UHC filter is the Omega DGM NBP but I don't think FLO stocks those.

 

 Okularum sell the Omega NPB filters.  https://okularum.eu/.   I have them in both sizes.  FWIW, they’re my preferred UHC    type filter and many experienced observers that I’ve shared with also seem to like them a lot.  Don Pensack posted on here with useful information about them.

 

[Ships and Stars]

1 hour ago, JTEC said:

 Okularum sell the Omega NPB filters.  https://okularum.eu/.   I have them in both sizes.  FWIW, they’re my preferred UHC    type filter and many experienced observers that I’ve shared with also seem to like them a lot.  Don Pensack posted on here with useful information about them.

 

I see the US website offers DGM NBP 'seconds' in a 2" and 1.25" set for $165 US. According to DGM they have slight pinholes or 'sleeks' in the coatings which have zero impact on optical performance. Or 'perfect' ones for $205.00 US. 

No idea what HMRC would slap on top of that! Maybe 20%? I'd think a set of seconds would run about £165 all in. 

http://www.npbfilters.com/seconds.html

 

[JTEC]

I bought my 2” direct from the US. Good service but no advantage with the duties they slap on. Better to use Okularum.

With regard to duties, an (unrelated) case in point was the Burgess 10mm Supermono I bought. Very interesting eyepiece and excellent on axis. Good value at the point of sale but, crikey, by the time Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and HMRC had done their bit ... 🤨. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by JTEC

[Victor Boesen]

I have a UHC and OIII Castell filter and I really like them. I haven't compared to any other brands but the difference on nebulas is very noticeable with both filters. I was in the same dilemma as you when I wanted to get a couple filters and I'd heard really good things about the astronomik. What I eventually discovered was that the pass-through of the Castell filters were very similar and many people reported similarities between the Astronomik and Castell filters.

I have a couple sketches that show the difference between with and without the OIII filter from a Bortle 7-8 sky:

Core is a lot more pronounced and the nebula contrast is a lot higher. I can definitely recommend the Castell filters:)

[Louis D]

14 hours ago, JTEC said:

I bought my 2” direct from the US. Good service but no advantage with the duties they slap on. Better to use Okularum.

With regard to duties, an (unrelated) case in point was the Burgess 10mm Supermono I bought. Very interesting eyepiece and excellent on axis. Good value at the point of sale but, crikey, by the time Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and HMRC had done their bit ... 🤨. 

So start petitioning your government to match the US's $800 personal exemption amount.  If you're going to leave the EU, you may as well cozy up to the US with some bilateral trade agreements.  How is it fair to US retailers that it is often cheaper for US buyers to buy astro goods from UK dealers but not the other way around?  That, and forgo VAT taxation on imports if the foreign sellers have no business nexus in the UK to match US state sales tax rules.

[bingevader]

10 minutes ago, Louis D said:

So start petitioning your government to match the US's $800 personal exemption amount.  If you're going to leave the EU, you may as well cozy up to the US with some bilateral trade agreements.  How is it fair to US retailers that it is often cheaper for US buyers to buy astro goods from UK dealers but not the other way around?  That, and forgo VAT taxation on imports if the foreign sellers have no business nexus in the UK to match US state sales tax rules.

Not going there! Would definitely be in breach of SGL rules!

1 hour ago, Victor Boesen said:

I have a UHC and OIII Castell filter and I really like them. I haven't compared to any other brands but the difference on nebulas is very noticeable with both filters. I was in the same dilemma as you when I wanted to get a couple filters and I'd heard really good things about the astronomik. What I eventually discovered was that the pass-through of the Castell filters were very similar and many people reported similarities between the Astronomik and Castell filters.

I have a couple sketches that show the difference between with and without the OIII filter from a Bortle 7-8 sky:

Core is a lot more pronounced and the nebula contrast is a lot higher. I can definitely recommend the Castell filters:)

Great sketches.

I can remember looking at the Castell filters when I bought my ES filter.

I can't remember why I opted for the ES over the Castell though, sorry.

[John]

Agreed - best not to discuss taxation / import policies on here

[John]

Many UHC and O-III filters have a very similar band pass width so deliver very similar performance.

The higher performing ones (which also cost more) have a slightly narrower band pass width with sharper cut offs outside of the permitted band widths. These attributes lead to them delivering more contrast enhancement with receptive nebulae.

Some of the lower cost O-III's are actually closer to a UHC in terms of band pass and performance and equally some UHC's are almost broadband in what they permit.

Astronomik have recently started to manufacture the new range of Tele Vue Bandmate 2 filters which are developing a reputation as about the best currently available. At a cost of course !

 

 

[JTEC]

5 hours ago, John said:

Astronomik have recently started to manufacture the new range of Tele Vue Bandmate 2 filters which are developing a reputation as about the best currently available. At a cost of course !

 

I have the Televue OIII and find it to be superb. I’ve used others, including an earlier Lumicon, a Baader and the much cheaper ES. The Televue blew my socks off for visual quality, contrast and depth. I wasn’t aware that it was developing that reputation but I can well believe it. 

[JTEC]

5 hours ago, John said:

Agreed - best not to discuss taxation / import policies on here

👍🏻

Edited May 5, 2020 by JTEC

[Cuto100200]

19 hours ago, JTEC said:

I have the Televue OIII and find it to be superb. I’ve used others, including an earlier Lumicon, a Baader and the much cheaper ES. The Televue blew my socks off for visual quality, contrast and depth. I wasn’t aware that it was developing that reputation but I can well believe it. 

Is this the televue you have? 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

[JTEC]

4 hours ago, Cuto100200 said:

Is this the televue you have? 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

I believe so. Here are a couple of pics. 

[bomberbaz]

On 04/05/2020 at 14:31, John said:

The Astronomik is more effective. I have both. The ES works though, it's just that the Astronomik has a more effective band pass with sharper cut offs and therefore the contrast of nebulae is slightly more enhanced and the stars more tightly defined.

I can't put a figure on the difference or what that is worth though

The ES UHC will give you a fair idea of the potential of these filters. They only have an impact on nebulae though, as you probably know.

 

 

Have you ever used the Baader UHC-S filter John. I just wondered how they compared to Astronomik also?

[John]

3 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

Have you ever used the Baader UHC-S filter John. I just wondered how they compared to Astronomik also?

The Baader UHS-C was the 1st "deep sky" filter that I ever owned Steve.

It showed me the Veil Nebula for the 1st time with a 100mm refractor. I bought it because it was billed as being optimised for smaller aperture scopes and that it was.

As the aperture of my scopes increased though I found that the UHC-S was not as effective as a "full blown" UHC and later an O-III

Looking at your scopes I think you would get more benefit from a "full strength" UHC. The ES is closer to that as is the Orion Ultrablock although the latter can be a bit variable. Astronomik or the DGM NBP filter are a touch more effective again.

All these filters work and are of decent quality but some have better optimised band pass profiles than others, and those seem to be the most effective.

There is a trade off between band pass width and star dimming. Sometimes it is nice to see quite a lot of background stars to set the nebula in context. Other times you want the maximum nebulosity enhancement and to hell with the stars !

 

 

 

[bomberbaz]

6 minutes ago, John said:

The Baader UHS-C was the 1st "deep sky" filter that I ever owned Steve.

It showed me the Veil Nebula for the 1st time with a 100mm refractor. I bought it because it was billed as being optimised for smaller aperture scopes and that it was.

As the aperture of my scopes increased though I found that the UHC-S was not as effective as a "full blown" UHC and later an O-III

Looking at your scopes I think you would get more benefit from a "full strength" UHC. The ES is closer to that as is the Orion Ultrablock although the latter can be a bit variable. Astronomik or the DGM NBP filter are a touch more effective again.

All these filters work and are of decent quality but some have better optimised band pass profiles than others, and those seem to be the most effective.

There is a trade off between band pass width and star dimming. Sometimes it is nice to see quite a lot of background stars to set the nebula in context. Other times you want the maximum nebulosity enhancement and to hell with the stars !

 

Thnaks John, you have confirmed what I feared, the Baader is more of a UHC light. 

I cannot remember buying it even to be honest, must have been at least 6 years since.  I reckon I had a Celestron C8 at the time and was using Baader Hyperions.

I think looking at both prices and the time I may have got it that I may have bought it on price alone without enough research into quality.  I may also have had a bit of a penchant for buying Baader equipment. 

Steve

[John]

The UHC-C is good quality - it does exactly what Baader designed it to do.

 

[bomberbaz]

1 hour ago, John said:

The UHC-C is good quality - it does exactly what Baader designed it to do.

 

I wasn't disputing it's  quality John, just it's suitability to my requirements at present. I am in the process of over hauling some of my equipment, currently on the list are my filters.

[John]

10 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

I wasn't disputing it's  quality John, just it's suitability to my requirements at present. I am in the process of over hauling some of my equipment, currently on the list are my filters.

Sorry Steve - I misinterpreted your reference to "research into quality".

I can quite understand why you might feel that you want to move on from the UHC-S

[bomberbaz]

7 minutes ago, John said:

Sorry Steve - I misinterpreted your reference to "research into quality".

No worries John, in fairness maybe I should have put suitability.