Which nebulas?

[Kon]

I am a beginner in the hobby but totally fascinated by the smudgy nebulas. I own an 8" Dob and I am at bortle 4 skies. I have only owned my telescope since December and as we all know the weather has not played ball. With the predicted clear skies this week and the new moon, I was wondering which nebulas you suggest for me. I have good seeing on all directions. In the limited viewing time we had so far, I have managed to see the Owl Nebula (M97), Crab nebula  (M1), The Cat's Eye Nebula (NGC 6543), Eskimo Nebula (NGC 2392), M42. (I have seen several clusters and galaxies) but I am after nebula suggestions. I have no filters so I am after targets that can show as is. Are there any targets that I 'must see' during Feb? Fingers crossed for clear skies this week.

[jetstream]

11 minutes ago, Kon said:

I am a beginner in the hobby but totally fascinated by the smudgy nebulas. I own an 8" Dob and I am at bortle 4 skies. I have only owned my telescope since December and as we all know the weather has not played ball. With the predicted clear skies this week and the new moon, I was wondering which nebulas you suggest for me. I have good seeing on all directions. In the limited viewing time we had so far, I have managed to see the Owl Nebula (M97), Crab nebula  (M1), The Cat's Eye Nebula (NGC 6543), Eskimo Nebula (NGC 2392), M42. (I have seen several clusters and galaxies) but I am after nebula suggestions. I have no filters so I am after targets that can show as is. Are there any targets that I 'must see' during Feb? Fingers crossed for clear skies this week.

If you beg, borrow or steal (kidding) an OIII the list is long from your skies. Pacman in Cass, Monkeyhead and Rosette in Gemini plus a bunch of fainter ones -Jellyfish etc etc. they are all over the place.

[Kon]

12 minutes ago, jetstream said:

If you beg, borrow or steal (kidding) an OIII the list is long from your skies. Pacman in Cass, Monkeyhead and Rosette in Gemini plus a bunch of fainter ones -Jellyfish etc etc. they are all over the place.

Thanks. Yes I am contemplating a filter at the moment, but so many choices.

[jetstream]

4 minutes ago, Kon said:

Thanks. Yes I am contemplating a filter at the moment, but so many choices.

Make the right choice- I didnt twice- and got ripped off.

[Kon]

3 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Make the right choice- I didnt twice- and got ripped off.

what do you have? Or which one do you recommend? I should probably start new discussion on this topic (a recent one was more on light polluted skies).

[jetstream]

26 minutes ago, Kon said:

what do you have? Or which one do you recommend? I should probably start new discussion on this topic (a recent one was more on light polluted skies).

It doesnt matter to me where we talk about it- up to you

I have 6 good deep sky filters...

1 Older Astronomik OIII- good but a bit wide.

2 Older Lumicon OIII- excellent

3 Older Lumicon UHC -excellent

4 NEW Televue OIII (made by Astronomik) the best OIII Ill probably ever own

5 NEW Televue Nebustar (UHC type) excellent +, but it seems wider than Lumicon but shows more-maybe higher transmission? top notch

6 DGM NPB-very good- but did I just get a good sample?

As you can see if I was going to buy a new filter it would be the NEW Televue, followed by the Astronomik. The Nebustar, made by Astronomik deletes red.

I would click the mouse, buy to take advantage of the skies IMHO.

Edit: John just reminded me with his post-I also have a top tier Astronomik Hb 1.25"-excellent and my least used filter so 7 filters.

Edited February 9, 2021 by jetstream

[Deadlake]

I have a Astronomik UHC, very good. Gave great views of Orion Nebula. Given the weather not had a chance to use it more...

[John]

Mine currently are:

1.25 inch:

Astronomik O-III

Astronomik H-Beta

Meade 4000 "Nebular Narrowband" which is a UHC

2 inch:

Lumicon O-III

Astronomik UHC

I've tried quite a few others out over the years but as @jetstream / Gerry says, quality pays with these things and I'm happy with the ones that I now have. H-Beta does not get a lot of use but is, so far, the only filter that has shown me the Horsehead Nebula so it's earned it's keep.

 

 

[Kon]

14 minutes ago, jetstream said:

t doesnt matter to me where we talk about it- up to you

Happy to have the discussion here 🙂

14 minutes ago, jetstream said:

5 NEW Televue Nebustar (UHC type) excellent +, but it seems wider than Lumicon but shows more-maybe higher transmission? top notch

Is it this one?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-nebustar-uhc-filter.html

[Kon]

If I were to get one 'now' and another later on, which one would you prioritise, OIII or UHC? @jetstream and @John

[Deadlake]

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-nebustar-uhc-filter.html

What’s the difference if any with this?

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

Televue graph is truncated above 600 um?

Edited February 9, 2021 by Deadlake

[jetstream]

3 minutes ago, Kon said:

Is it this one?

Yes, I love this filter.

[jetstream]

2 minutes ago, Kon said:

If I were to get one 'now' and another later on, which one would you prioritise, OIII or UHC? @jetstream and @John

If you want to add the Flaming Star in Auriga to the list then UHC, while under truly dark transparent skies the UHC can show more extensive nebulosity, the OIII provides more contrast- to my eyes, IMHO.

OIII first IMHO.

[jetstream]

4 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

What’s the difference if any with this?

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

Televue graph is truncated above 600 um?

Not sure... Astronomik tightened up their bandpass a few years ago which was good. Televue takes them and then tests them again.Gerd at Astronomik is vg IMHO.

[Kon]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

Pacman in Cass, Monkeyhead and Rosette in Gemini plus a bunch of fainter ones -Jellyfish etc etc. they are all over the place.

Would these be visible at all without a filter (until i get one)?

[John]

I agree with Gerry about O-III first although most of the advice I see on forums suggests the UHC first.

For quite a while an Astronomik O-III was my only deep sky filter and it did a great job. The UHC enhances what you can already see. The O-III can show you stuff that is otherwise practically invisible.

 

[Kon]

So an OIII is in the cards then.

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

or

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

[jetstream]

25 minutes ago, Kon said:

Would these be visible at all without a filter (until i get one)?

are you really really good at amorphous shapes barely visible as shade edges?😀

Try the reflection nebula M78 in Orion, the Christmas Tree cluster in Monoceros and the Rosette nebula. You should be able to get something in the Rosette.

Also try the reflection nebula in the Pleiades- the Merope. Use a low scatter eyepiece with low mag, 25mm-30mm in your scope.

What eyepieces do you have?

[Kon]

4 minutes ago, jetstream said:

are you really really good at amorphous shapes barely visible as shade edges?😀

Try the reflection nebula M78 in Orion, the Christmas Tree cluster in Monoceros and the Rosette nebula. You should be able to get something in the Rosette.

Also try the reflection nebula in the Pleiades- the Merope. Use a low scatter eyepiece with low mag, 25mm-30mm in your scope.

What eyepieces do you have?

As I said I enjoy the smudges, but as a beginner I only had the chance of seeing a few nebulas so far (I tried to find M78 but failed when the moon was out). I have managed to see a bit of nebulosity on Merope but I was not sure if it was due to the reflection from the star.

I currently own the standard 10mm and 25mm that came with my Skywatcher 200p Dob (10mm is rubbish, the 25 okish), and  8mm and 15mm BST (I really enjoy the 15mm one on the nebulas).

(can you comment on the two OIII filters i posted above please?)

[Kon]

Silly question, do I need a 2" or 1.25" filter?

[jetstream]

29 minutes ago, Kon said:

So an OIII is in the cards then.

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

or

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

Because the new TV OIII squeaks by a really good old Lumicon OIII I'm biased towards it. Pensack has contributed in threads about filters (he's a vendor and avid astronomer) and might know Astronomiks bandwidth currently.

If you email Astronomik Im sure they will tell you the bandwidth. These filters are expensive so knowing the specs will help you out.

If possible get a 2" filter so that when the 2" low power widefields arrive the filter will fit!

BTW- the 25mm Super Plossl isnt that bad as you say but your f6 scope might like a little lower power-28mm-30mm fl? a 30mm UFF APM?

[Deadlake]

@jetstream do you use a filter wheel, or a holder for the filters. It’s a faff screwing/unscrewing them to the EPs.

[John]

14 minutes ago, Kon said:

Silly question, do I need a 2" or 1.25" filter?

Depending on the type of 1.25 inch - 2 inch adapter you have, you might not be able to use 2 inch filters currently.

I can't recall if the Skywatcher adapter has a 2 inch filter thread machined into it

There is a slight danger here that we are talking you into spending as much as your scope has cost on a filter and your first 2 inch eyepiece

[John]

4 minutes ago, John said:

Sorry - posted in error.

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by John

[jetstream]

2 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

@jetstream do you use a filter wheel, or a holder for the filters. It’s a faff screwing/unscrewing them to the EPs.

My 2 truss dobs came with filter slides, that also function as focuser baffles. I leave them in the scopes, 2 each. The fracs have them screwed into the 42mm LVW when needed.Sure be nice to have a wheel system for the fracs.

Filter slides/wheels are almost a must IMHO.