Visual filters

[bosun21]

4 minutes ago, Stu said:

I got lucky with mine which is why I will never sell them. I’ve yet to use the Hbeta but will hopefully give it a go on the Horsey this winter in the 16”.

Thanks for the heads up on OIII filters Stu👍I’ll keep my fingers crossed that the stats on mine are okay. So I take it I’m looking for the highest percentage transmission. If it’s not I’ll just buy the Astronomiks

[Tim]

4 minutes ago, Stu said:

I got lucky with mine which is why I will never sell them. I’ve yet to use the Hbeta but will hopefully give it a go on the Horsey this winter in the 16”.

Hi Stu. Try and get the opportunity to use the H beta on the North American nebula. I got one an used it on the horsey and Californian as you might expect, but failed to be blown away by it and was all but ready to sell it on (actually, to give it back to the guy I borrowed it from for a 2 year evaluation :p)  On the NAN it was a revelation, loads more structure than with UHC or Oiii, much better contrast too. I could take it or leave it on the horsey tbh, and I reckon it is just as good with the Lumicon UHC, or even unfiltered if the skies are right.

Really hoping for clear skies at Winterfest next week, exploring the Rosette with the UHC is an annual highlight.  

[John]

46 minutes ago, Tim said:

Hi Stu. Try and get the opportunity to use the H beta on the North American nebula. I got one an used it on the horsey and Californian as you might expect, but failed to be blown away by it and was all but ready to sell it on (actually, to give it back to the guy I borrowed it from for a 2 year evaluation :p)  On the NAN it was a revelation, loads more structure than with UHC or Oiii, much better contrast too. I could take it or leave it on the horsey tbh, and I reckon it is just as good with the Lumicon UHC, or even unfiltered if the skies are right.

Really hoping for clear skies at Winterfest next week, exploring the Rosette with the UHC is an annual highlight.  

I've used my H-Beta (Astronomik) on M42 with some interesting results

I really is worth experimenting with different filters on different targets and deviating from the established advice - sometimes you get a nice surprise !

FWIW these are the figures for my Lumicon O-III:

 

 

 

 

[Tim]

Actually, my Deep Sky atlas gives a filter recommendation for every nebula in the comprehensive maps, I just rarely think to look there before resorting to the usuals. In fact, i'm wondering if it was the atlas that put me on to the H beta for the NAN, it might have been.  It is also useful on the cocoon nebula, although not so much if you want to follow the dark cigar nebula away from it.

[MetroiD]

I too got super lucky with mine so don't think I'll ever part ways with them - I use a Lumicon OIII (the 'good' retro type) and a Lumicon UHC, both 1.25". I also own a 1.25" Meade ND96 filter for moon viewing. The first time I saw M42 through the Lumicon OIII, my jaw completely dropped. An absolute top-notch investment for all visual observers. I also used to own a Celestron E/P set that came with a bunch of colour filters - can't say I was particularly impressed with any of them. Only suited for planetary / lunar work, and they'd only deliver marginal improvements, at best.

Based on the replies in this thread, I'm now definitely on the lookout for a Baader Contrast Booster for planetary work -- and I have been mulling over the idea of an H-Alpha for quite some time now but not sure if it would make much of a difference for a strict visual observer such as myself.

A quick note on UHC and OIII - yes, the lower magnification, the larger the exit pupil, the better the filtered viewing. Generally, I've found that I prefer to use the OIII on the lowest possible 1.25" magnification (in my case, 17.5mm which gives me 86x), while the UHC filter can also work with higher magnifications - I've gone as high as 8.8mm / 170x but ideally I'd stick the OIII to my 17.5mm Morph, and the UHC to the 12.5mm one. Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, to my eye the UHC seems to present finer details in the brightest parts of nebulae, whereas the OIII really allows for dim and delicate details to shine through.

[Franklin]

10 hours ago, John said:

I really is worth experimenting with different filters on different targets and deviating from the established advice - sometimes you get a nice surprise !

Wise advice.

[bosun21]

Just received my consignment of filters i ordered after my post. They are 

1/ Astronomik UHC 1.25”

2/ Lumicon OIII 1.25” (used)

3/ Baader Neodymium 1.25”

4/Baader Contrast Booster 1.25”

I also bought a SVbony UHC which I’ve been told is the same filter as the Optolong but as yet is unused. Should I be looking at an H beta or alpha to add to my assortment, or are they so seldom used that it renders them non essential? Cheers 

 

[Franklin]

23 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

1/ Astronomik UHC 1.25”

2/ Lumicon OIII 1.25” (used)

3/ Baader Neodymium 1.25”

4/Baader Contrast Booster 1.25”

That's a good selection of filters, just about covers everything. H-beta is more for imaging IMO, I suppose it may help on the Horsehead with a big dob under dark skies?

Plenty to keep you busy. Clear skies.

[Stu]

2 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Just received my consignment of filters i ordered after my post. They are 

1/ Astronomik UHC 1.25”

2/ Lumicon OIII 1.25” (used)

3/ Baader Neodymium 1.25”

4/Baader Contrast Booster 1.25”

I also bought a SVbony UHC which I’ve been told is the same filter as the Optolong but as yet is unused. Should I be looking at an H beta or alpha to add to my assortment, or are they so seldom used that it renders them non essential? Cheers 

 

I think you will have your hands full with those for quite a while, so no need for an H Beta, and H Alpha is more for imaging I think. I do have an H Beta and have never used it, waiting for a chance to get my 16” on the Horsey!

[Ags]

H alpha is not very good for visual as human night vision is insensitive to longer red wavelengths like H alpha.

[bosun21]

1 hour ago, Ags said:

H alpha is not very good for visual as human night vision is insensitive to longer red wavelengths like H alpha.

Thanks for confirming this as i had an idea that it was primarily an imaging filter 

[jetstream]

16 hours ago, bosun21 said:

. Should I be looking at an H beta

An Hb is useful for seeing an array of underwhelming objects such as the Horse Head and the ultra elusive Cone nebula. The California responds to it nicely. It is my least used filter.

[Zermelo]

17 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Should I be looking at an H beta

As others have said, it will be much less useful to you than those you already have.

But if you're interested, there's some discussion here on objects that can benefit from it.

 

[bosun21]

3 hours ago, Stephen Waldee said:

Can you possibly confirm if this is a USED filter? 

Yes it’s a used filter that I picked up from eBay as I had heard good things about them. This being my first venture into the world of filters i have had nothing to compare it to. I may now just go for a modern Astronomik OIII filter or equivalent.

[bosun21]

29 minutes ago, Stephen Waldee said:

The oldest first-gen filters often "delaminated" and oxidized. 

The one I have is not delaminated nor oxidized and is pretty decent considering how old you said it was.Next clear night I’ll put it to the test properly. 

[bosun21]

8 hours ago, Stephen Waldee said:

if badly deteriorated the surface won't be smooth and all of one color.  

Here’s a few photos of the Lumicon OIII filter. What do you honestly think? 

 

[jjohnson3803]

I have an ancient Lumicon nebula filter and also an Astronomik.  I only had time to use the Astronomik this morning, but it really brought out the Dumbbell (M27) in my 102ED refractor at 48X compared to unfiltered.  (I'm in heavy light pollution, so filters are pretty much a necessity here.)

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by jjohnson3803

[bosun21]

11 minutes ago, jjohnson3803 said:

I have an ancient Lumicon nebula filter and also an Astronomik.  I only had time to use the Astronomik this morning, but it really brought out the Dumbbell (M27) in my 102ED refractor at 48X compared to unfiltered.  (I'm in heavy light pollution, so filters are pretty much a necessity here.)

 

I’d be interested if you could try the old Lumicon OIII to see what results you get. Does your Lumicon look similar to the photo of mine earlier in the thread? I will probably just pull the trigger on a new Astronomik OIII.

[Guest]

I have a small selection of filters.  The 4 main colored filters that I got cheap off of Amazon, a 2 inch UHC and a 1.25 variable polarized filter.  That one is great for using on the moon, you can observe it at it's brightest and it adds some contrast as well.  I will eventually get one for my 2 inch eyepeices as well.

[bomberbaz]

FWIW I will throw in my opinion of filters although tbf they aline very close to many others already stated.

Buy good filters, cheapos are generally not anything like as good as top names. 

UHC and Olll should be your first two because the HB is as already stated of limited use.

There are differing views on exit pupil size for filters but in light polluted skies you have a larger exit pupil and dark skies smaller. (Caveat; subject to object fitting in view for some dso).

Uhc 1 to 4mm exit pupil 

0lll 3 to 5mm exit pupil

Hb 4 to 6mm but I find 5mm optimum.

The above are a guide only. For example when viewing bright planetary nebula, eg; ring you can go far higher with the Olll. 

Some of my best views of the ring have been at below 2mm exit pupil with the Olll.