UHC filters.

Striker (Tony) · #1 22-03-2005, 03:04 PM

I have heard alot about filters but mainly regarding UHC...

I am considering getting a UHC to try....then sell.....maybe...lol

What do you think.......

2" Celestron UHC New Product

rmcpb (Rob) · #2 22-03-2005, 03:13 PM

I've seen some comments in Cloudy Nights that they are not really worth the money. The thread I saw actually said that a good tube extension was probably better but as I have never used one and don't really suffer too much from light pollution, what do I know

xstream (John) · #3 22-03-2005, 07:27 PM

Tony,
We have the Celestron 2" LPR. I wouldn't waste my money on it it's only useful on emission and reflection nebulae.
If you want to spend that sort of money on a F/T I would recommend you get an O-III F/T which you'll find you'll get far more use out of on those more difficult to see diffuse emission and planetary nebulae, we find it about the only one we bother to use.

Striker (Tony) · #4 22-03-2005, 07:35 PM

Ok Taaa....

Any particular brand you recommend......money is no object as I will just sell it 2 months down the track anyway...lol

I thought the UHC is a better range then the OIII...

How about these...

Astronomik

Tele-vue

iceman (Mike) · #5 22-03-2005, 07:43 PM

Astronomik is a well known and well reputed brand.

Opinions are always divided between UHC or OIII, if you want to, get both and write a comparison report

xstream (John) · #6 22-03-2005, 07:46 PM

I can certainly recommend the Astronomik that's what we have and I think you'll find that is what Rodstar purchased. Just get the 1.25" far less hassle when you want to remove it.

Starkler (Geoff) · #7 22-03-2005, 07:49 PM

THe cheapest way to get a reasonable UHC type 2inch filter is to import an Orion ultrablock from O'Neill optical in Canada.

The Astronomiks is reputed to be the best there is, but painful in the wallet in 2 inch format

I do strongly recommend some research and looking through those belonging to others before laying out the $ for something you might rarely use.

Striker (Tony) · #8 22-03-2005, 07:51 PM

Thanks all...will shop around.....thank god for PayPal.......lol

pfffffffff...research......my research is buy now test and play for 2 weeks then sell.....

A bit like someone who is selling an Orion 80ED only after 1 month..........lol

xstream (John) · #9 22-03-2005, 07:56 PM

I should of added Tony, you probably won't use it all that often and remember the darker the site the better the O-III works The LPR/UHC is useless in a dark site it's made to screen out sodium and mercury vapour light emission only.

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #10 22-03-2005, 11:40 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by xstream

The LPR/UHC is useless in a dark site it's made to screen out sodium and mercury vapour light emission only.

Sorry but LPR filters and UHC filters are not even closely related regardless of who makes them. A LPR filter is a broadband filter and not much better than useless for anything other than astrophotography where they do provide a benefit under light polluted skies. A UHC is a narrowband filter which I recommend for the person buying their 1st DSO filter, they work under semi light polluted to dark skies and offer an improvement on a large number of visual targets but remember filters really only improve the views on Planetary and Emission Nebula.

The Astronomiks UHC is very good as is the Lumicon UHC. If you wish to import the Orion Ultrablock from Canada that is also very good. The Meade and Celestron Filters are not quite as good as these. The Astronomiks OIII is a cracker but its not cheap and works on a lower number of targets than the Astronomiks UHC, but those it does work on it does amazing things.

To be honest I would forget about Celestron Filters because you pay too much for what you get. My prefrence is for the Astronomiks or Lumicon UHC or OIII and the Orion Ultrablock. DGM in the USA have a new filter which I have heard is sensational and very cheap (the DGM NPB Narrowband filter) but I have not used it.

CS - John B

iceman (Mike) · #11 23-03-2005, 06:26 AM

John, don't forget to end the quote's with [ /QUOTE] (remove the space).

For many months now i've tossed up the idea of getting a UHC or OIII, and I looked at the Orion Ultrablock at well which is a little bit cheaper.

$180-$190 for the astronomik UHC/OIII isn't cheap, and it's probably not something you're going to use every night - as John B says

Quote:

but remember filters really only improve the views on Planetary and Emission Nebula

Having looked through xstream and Rodstars OIII filter on M42, NGC2070 and Eta Carina and some planetary nebs at the SPSP, it does give you a different view.. more detail in some areas but less in others.

I still want to get one, but they're just not on the top of my next-to-buy list anymore.

Dave47tuc (David) · #12 23-03-2005, 08:10 PM

I have a O111 ,UHC and LPR and use them little

On my 10"

Tell you anything

Better to get a dark sky

But with my new 120mm Refractor I'm useing them again

Maybe you can tell me why?

Vermin (Tom) · #13 23-03-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave47tuc

Maybe you can tell me why?

The lower usable magnification of the smaller scope requires further background darkening from the filter for increased contrast. Where as the the 10" can support greater magnifications that will darken the bg to aid contrast

I have a Thousand Oaks 2" LP-2 filter that I use frequently with my 100mm refractor from my atrociously light polluted city/suburban front yard. The gain in contrast is easily noticeable.

Rodstar (Rod) · #14 23-03-2005, 09:16 PM

I have been thrilled with my Astronomik OIII filter. Got it for $190 from Bintel (1.25"). It has helped to tranform "smudge" planetary nebs to clearly defined shapes. If that is your interest, I'd recommend it.

I noticed at the SPSP that Astronomyonline had the Celestron OIII filter for about $230. All the reports I have heard are to the effect that Astronomik is best.

Good luck with the shopping trolley. Mine's full!

Rodstar

Starkler (Geoff) · #15 23-03-2005, 10:09 PM

One thing I often read about narrowband filters is that they work best in dark skies and not so well where there is light polution.

The reason I think for this is that the filters are like a mirror reflecting back all light wavelengths except the ones they are designed to pass.

Under light poluted skies, the light that enters the eyelens of the eyepiece gets reflected straight back at you. I find if I observe in galaxy hunt mode with my top pulled over my head and around the focuser to block out stray light, it works ok