Filter comparisons

[Steely Stan]

Filters - I know they are not eyepieces, but this seemed the closest category.

As I read more about optimising telescopes, I see suggestions that various filters might help with viewing planets or nebulae etc.  As a photographer of years and years I'm used to using them, especially when I used film (sniff, sniff, sob).  But I never fell for the ludicrous extremes of pricing, or at least never found the performance of boutique or so called "marque" filters worth the money, (well once....😬).

So, I'm perplexed to see its possible to spend twice the cost of a good eyepiece on a single filter.  I just ordered my first fixed focal eyepiece, a Baader 17mm Hyperian and I regard 95 sovs as fair (FLO), but I ain't spending that again on a filter, or perish the though £250-odd......am I?  

Do you?  

Is a £250 filter really 10 times better than a £25 one?

With my camera lenses I generally have a filter for each and leave them on, usually a rotating polariser on my DSLRs, as much for protection of the optics actually.  I'm not sure if that makes sense on eyepieces as I anticipate changing filters from time to time for different purposes, but I can imagine having more than one of each type.

If it were not for this ghastly virus I could join a local club and try a few out courtesy of the members but that's off the menu right now, on top of which 'er indoors is already referring to my spending reflex as the "Stargazers lunge"! 

[Pixies]

Stargazers Lunge! 🤣🤣

Worth starting with this thread. I think it's worth being made into a sticky one:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/362519-would-uhc-filter-help/

[John]

With reference to filters used to enhance the views of deep sky objects, namely nebulae, I have found the more expensive filters (UHC and O-III) better performers than the lower cost ones.

Not that the lower cost ones don't work, they do, but the more expensive ones do seem to deliver stronger contrast enhancement in the targets that they excel at.

Are they 2x, 5x or 10x better ?. No but then nothing works like that with astro equipment. It's an exacting hobby though and as the observer gets more experienced they push the boundaries of their kit and themselves more and more and that's where the better performance starts to show.

I'm a visual observer so I can't speak for imaging filters and the above refers to deep sky filters rather than to those intended for solar, lunar or planetary use.

Others might well have different experiences though so it will be interesting to hear them

I thought the Stargazers Lunge was the movement made by an astronomer when an expensive filter has been dropped from cold fingers  ?

Edited November 24, 2020 by John

[Tiny Clanger]

Hey Stan,

You never bought a Lee filter then ? Or only once ... 🤥

I have a similar prehistoric film photography based set of thoughts, but it never crossed my mind to bung a protective filter on a telescope eyepiece, it would be on the wrong end to do any protecting ! I wondered how much of the price difference astro vs. photo is down to economies of scale, with a far bigger market for photo filters .

Heather

[IB20]

I’m only visual but I own an expensive astronomik UHC and a cheaper skywatcher Oiii filter. I’d say the UHC filter was better, just, it threads better, is of higher quality and I’ve had some very nice contrasting views through it. Is it £50 better? I’d say probably not in my bortle 6-7 skies. Perhaps in darker skies it would be. 

 

[Steely Stan]

1 hour ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Hey Stan,

You never bought a Lee filter then ? Or only once ... 🤥

I have a similar prehistoric film photography based set of thoughts, but it never crossed my mind to bung a protective filter on a telescope eyepiece, it would be on the wrong end to do any protecting ! I wondered how much of the price difference astro vs. photo is down to economies of scale, with a far bigger market for photo filters .

Heather

Yep, a massive Lee axial polariser - it was about £200 over a decade ago but for that lens I had no choice because the Cokin system which I used with all sorts of slides, gels and glass wouldn’t mount on the lens, and would’ve vignetted about 25% of it too.  On top of that the lens was such a wide angle that it was necessary to get a filter with a very slim threaded mount to avoid restricting the angle.  There was a great secondary market for filters fitting the Cokin system even though the basic frame cost pence.  I loved everything about it except putting it all away, which is why I started using screw on filters and leaving them on.  

[Steely Stan]

2 hours ago, Pixies said:

Stargazers Lunge! 🤣🤣

Worth starting with this thread. I think it's worth being made into a sticky one:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/362519-would-uhc-filter-help/

Thanks for that.

[Zermelo]

It might have been included somewhere in that long thread referenced above, but this list attempts to compare the respective merits of UHC and OIII filters against various nebula targets. Subjective judgement of course.

I got the Astronomik UHC following advice on SGL. I agree they're expensive (well, compared with my other purchases). It doesn't get used frequently, but when it does it makes a significant difference, in some cases the difference between being visible or invisible. (Bortle 4ish here).  

[Steely Stan]

27 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

It might have been included somewhere in that long thread referenced above, but this list attempts to compare the respective merits of UHC and OIII filters against various nebula targets. Subjective judgement of course.

I got the Astronomik UHC following advice on SGL. I agree they're expensive (well, compared with my other purchases). It doesn't get used frequently, but when it does it makes a significant difference, in some cases the difference between being visible or invisible. (Bortle 4ish here).  

Thanks

 

[Louis D]

15 hours ago, Steely Stan said:

Is a £250 filter really 10 times better than a £25 one?

For astrophotographers, the $400 Astrodon OIII is worth it over the $230 Baader OIII if just to get rid of halos around bright stars:

Can you imagine trying to clean up all the halos around bright stars in a typical image in post processing?

[Don Pensack]

On 24/11/2020 at 14:41, Steely Stan said:

Filters - I know they are not eyepieces, but this seemed the closest category.

As I read more about optimising telescopes, I see suggestions that various filters might help with viewing planets or nebulae etc.  As a photographer of years and years I'm used to using them, especially when I used film (sniff, sniff, sob).  But I never fell for the ludicrous extremes of pricing, or at least never found the performance of boutique or so called "marque" filters worth the money, (well once....😬).

So, I'm perplexed to see its possible to spend twice the cost of a good eyepiece on a single filter.  I just ordered my first fixed focal eyepiece, a Baader 17mm Hyperian and I regard 95 sovs as fair (FLO), but I ain't spending that again on a filter, or perish the though £250-odd......am I?  

Do you?  

Is a £250 filter really 10 times better than a £25 one?

With my camera lenses I generally have a filter for each and leave them on, usually a rotating polariser on my DSLRs, as much for protection of the optics actually.  I'm not sure if that makes sense on eyepieces as I anticipate changing filters from time to time for different purposes, but I can imagine having more than one of each type.

If it were not for this ghastly virus I could join a local club and try a few out courtesy of the members but that's off the menu right now, on top of which 'er indoors is already referring to my spending reflex as the "Stargazers lunge"! 

You don't really need to spend a lot on filters, though you could.

1) Your "planet" filter should fit your high power eyepieces, likely to be 1.25".  The Baader Contrast Booster works great here.  Yes, there are others, but the CB is a sort of "Swiss Army Knife" of planetary filters and does everything well.

2) Your "Nebula" filter should fit your lowest power eyepiece, likely to be 2".  A good narrowband filter is the place to start and there are several good ones: Astronomik UHC visual, DGM NPB, Lumicon UHC Gen.3, TeleVue Bandmate II Nebustar.

These filters enhance contrast on emission nebulae like H-II gas clouds, supernova remnants, WR excitation nebulae, planetary nebulae, but do not help on dark nebulae or reflection nebulae.

Are there other filters a little more specific that can help on specific nebulae?  Yes.  Are they essential?  Depends on the size of your pocketbook, I guess.

For everything else, the best filter is gasoline (petrol)--you put it in your car and drive the scope to darker skies. 

[Steely Stan]

On 26/11/2020 at 16:07, Don Pensack said:

 

For everything else, the best filter is gasoline (petrol)--you put it in your car and drive the scope to darker skies. 

I hear that!! 👍