Jump to content

Walking on the Moon

Which baader click lock for 11" SCT?

Recommended Posts


I've got a 11" celestron and have decided to get a 2" baader click lock. It seems I have two options: the standard 2" baader click lock which would screw onto my existing visual back:


 OR the click lock which would replace my existing visual back:


So as I see it the first option which screws onto the existing visual back has the benefit that if I want to use my focal reducer I just unscrew the click lock and screw on the focal reducer. The second option which replaces the visual back would mean id have to unscrew the click lock, put on the old visual back and then screw on the focal reducer. So one more step.

Any one have any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having thought about it I'm feeling fairly confident that the best option is actually the standard 2" click lock as it avoids having to change the visual back to use the focal reducer. I actually cant see any advantages of the 3.25" click lock, only disadvantages.

Anyone out there using these on an 11" SCT?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but the one for the 8"/9.25" will fit onto an 11" SCT. 11" SCTs have a stock back on them which is 2" across... eg this is what you screw the standard focal reducer onto.


The one specifically for the 11" requires removing this stock back. That means you no longer have threads to screw a focal reducer onto. That means using a focal reducer requires removal of the 3.25", replacing the stock back, screwing on focal reducer and then screwing on something else other than the 3.25" click lock - which is incompatible with a focal reducer.


The smaller click lock which does fit onto an 11" SCT is however compatible with the focal reducer. You screw on the focal reducer first, then the click lock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the 3.25 on my C11. It opens up the full aperture to the eyepiece. Fitting the smaller one has these disadvantages 

1. You are not getting the full aperture

2. You are fitting adapters to adapters instead of straight to the back of the tube

3. You are pushing eyepieces (weight) further back where it will have more effect on the back end total weight


i have never used focal reducers so I did not reply as I have no idea what you are trying to do.

Baader state the 3.25 is the one you need.


Edited by alanjgreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses!

I don't think this affects aperture at all. Both versions of the baader clicklock have at one end an opening of 2" in diameter where the 2" diagonal will go. At the other end one clicklock is 2" and the other is 3.25". So regardless they both limit aperture to 2".

I've borrowed a non 3.25" click lock to check the system works and it does:IMG_20170120_113516.jpg


With reducer and diagonal:


The disk at the top of the first image is the standard adapter that ships with the scope. Essentially the 3.25" clicklock seems to be a 2" clicklock combined with the baader version of that adapter in a single unit. The drawback being that the 3.25" clicklock has no threads.

So if I to want to use a focal reducer with a click lock these are my options:

1. Telescope>adapter>focal reducer>2" clicklock>diagonal/camera

2. Telescope>3.25" clicklock: No threads!!!

So have to remove 3.25" clicklock replace original adapter, screw on focal reducer screw on a 2" click lock (!!!!), the insert diagonal/camera


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Neil, 

Using this adapter, I would insert it into the 3.25" click lock, then screw on focal reducer, then......  I'd then need another 2" click lock to insert the diagonal/camera into. So two click locks, instead of one.

I just don't see what the 3.25" clicklock brings to the party except for limitations.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point - I attach my camera (not a dslr) directly from the reducer (I've got the f3.3 version - can't use for visual) with another type of adapter (T2 to c mount) - so I don't need the second click lock. - don't do visual that much and wouldn't attempt it with the reducer in place. (I've got a 127mm APO for visual use :icon_biggrin: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.