Solar wedges 1.25" vs 2"

[spaceboy]

During a discussion in another thread, the thinking cogs got a turning and and rather than risking dragging another members thread off topic I thought it better to start a fresh.

 

I understand 2" Herchel wedge like the Baader cool ceramic offer other significant advantages due to the T2 design but that aside from this my curiosity for this thread is between the possible advantages of a larger 2" HW over 1.25" HW. Has anyone ever done or aware of a side by side review of the 2" lunt HW and Baader cool ceramic wedge ?? or even the lunt 1.25" vs 2" HW ?? My guess is the 2" should offer some advantage over the 1.25" even in 100mm scopes due to it's ability to disperse the heat better ?? along with the usual advantages 2" diagonals offer.

I find the 1.25" Lunt wedge to offer superb views and has always offered me the safety peace of mind observing our nearest star that solar film and its inherent risks never did. But as always there are so many offerings out there that you can't help but wonder what if. In this case many night time observers choose to upgrade to 2" diagonals so does this also relay a progression to move from 1.25" HW to 2" at some point.

There does seem to be arguments for and against 2" diagonals when only using 1.25" eyepieces but the general belief is that they do offer an advantage overall to the views. So my guess is that this too can be reflected in the choice of solar wedges? I appreciate that your not looking at a huge star field when solar observing but the solar disc does tend to cover the entire fov in most cases so vignetting is a possible side effect of a smaller 1.25" diagonal for solar just as it is possible for night sky. Can't say I can see it in my 1.25" HW but then I don't have a 2" to compare it to.

So the belief is a standard 2" diagonal is said to offer an advantage (if only subtle) over a 1.25" diagonal. I guess my next uninformed question would  a 2" HW also show an advantage over a 1.25" HW taking in to consideration the difference in internal design between a standard diagonal and a HW ??

 

[Piero]

Another interesting contender seems to be the Lacerta solar wedge. There is a member (JohnDerby I think..) on SGL who compared it to the Baader. They seemed to be close as far as I remember. 

Regarding safety, I have the 1.25" version which is used other a 60mm refractor. When I took it to Italy (blue sky, no clouds, no wind, 35C) the red circle at the back was really hot. I could have cooked some pasta on it!

Personally I would opt for a 2" version of I had a refractor larger than 4" and observed from a hot place like that. This is also in line with their instructions.

Here in the UK, the back of my Lunt doesn't even get warm.

[nightfisher]

Why would Solar film give you cause for concern? if the filter is well made and fitted securely nothing can go wrong 

I dont use HW but cant help thinking there would be no need to use 2" EP`s for Solar viewing, if the 2" HW can disperse extra heat, maybe that could be an advantage but i dont see it in real terms

[Moonshane]

 

[xtreemchaos]

1 hour ago, Piero said:

the red circle at the back was really hot. I could have cooked some pasta on it!

no worrys mate, thay are designed to get very hot it just means its working as it should, but if you would like to keep it cooler you could add a ir/uv cut filter "ERF" to the wedge screwed into the male part of the wedge. charl.

[spaceboy]

1 hour ago, nightfisher said:

Why would Solar film give you cause for concern? if the filter is well made and fitted securely nothing can go wrong 

I dont use HW but cant help thinking there would be no need to use 2" EP`s for Solar viewing, if the 2" HW can disperse extra heat, maybe that could be an advantage but i dont see it in real terms

Forgive any confusion mate. I have no concern using Baader solar film itself and have used it many times in the past. I quote "the 1.25" Lunt wedge to offer superb views and has always offered me the safety peace of mind observing our nearest star that solar film and its inherent risks never did." While every caution has to be made when observing the sun the Lunt wedge and indeed other HW seem to offer a far greater peace of mind. By inherent I mean it is far easier for solar film to get "pin hole" or similar defects and needs to be thoroughly inspected before each use. In the case of buying film to make DIY filters this also comes with it's own list of risks.

[Peter Drew]

I was using my 220mm refractor with a 1.25" Lunt wedge last Wednesday, albeit with a 140mm Daystar ERF in the tube. Lovely detailed naturally looking golden solar image. No apparent issues. 

[spaceboy]

Was that for imaging or visual Peter ? I bet even at lower magnifications if seeing isn't all that brilliant the views are still superb at those apertures.

 

[spaceboy]

30 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

 

Thanks for the link Shane. Not a review as such but still gives some informative thoughts on the difference between the 1.25" & 2" wedges. As far as I could gather from the thread the only advantages are in imaging ?? I wonder if the HW design itself means there is no advantages / disadvantages between the .75" size increase. As mentioned before there are many night time observers who fly the flag in favour of the larger 2" diagonal despite only using their refractors for lunar / planetary observing with 1.25" 40° ep's.

[Stu]

I bought my CoolCeramic Wedge not necessarily because it was 2" but mainly because of the Zeiss Prism which I expected to be higher quality than other brands including the Lunt.

The 2" design does allow a more aecuare feeling connection, particularly using binoviewers but I'm sure a 1.25" version would be just as good.

I do remember comparing the Lunt 1.25" with the CoolCeramic once on a day of very good seeing. I found that the CC was able to sustain higher magnifications and shows more detail at these powers. In good conditions I have used powers over x200 and at this level you can begin to see the individual granulation cells (as opposed to just seeing the overall speckling effect, or macro granulation as it has been referred to), this is fascinating as you can see them evolving over relatively short time periods.

I confess that I have not been able to use that level of power this year for some reason, whereas last year I was using it regularly. I've no idea why, but I wish the conditions would improve.

[spaceboy]

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

I do remember comparing the Lunt 1.25" with the CoolCeramic once on a day of very good seeing. I found that the CC was able to sustain higher magnifications and shows more detail at these powers. In good conditions I have used powers over x200 and at this level you can begin to see the individual granulation cells (as opposed to just seeing the overall speckling effect, or macro granulation as it has been referred to), this is fascinating as you can see them evolving over relatively short time periods.

I confess that I have not been able to use that level of power this year for some reason, whereas last year I was using it regularly. I've no idea why, but I wish the conditions would improve.

I do feel this is a big part of the problem. We all understand seeing, transparency, LP etc but it doesn't make it any easier to make kit based decisions for it. I have to admit for this same reason I find it ever so frustrating using the PST mod as I have tasted what good seeing can offer in terms of magnification and detail but I rarely get to use the full 4" potential and find myself reaching for the smaller 60mm lunt more times than not  

WL is somewhat more forgiving in this sense but as you say can mask the true potential of one wedge over another if the skies aren't playing ball.

[xtreemchaos]

I find WL harder to image than HA by a mile, its easy to get okish results in WL but very harder to get cracking shots, I find HA "with a quark" easyer because of the silly amount of detail you get, In my view WL sorts the men"women" out from the boys "girls "for lack of a better phrase". charl.

[spaceboy]

I have to agree there Charl. Other than the WL images I have seen took using monster fraks most day to day results are very similar to what can be achieved visually.

[Stu]

28 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

I have to agree there Charl. Other than the WL images I have seen took using monster fraks most day to day results are very similar to what can be achieved visually.

Yes, I agree too. Except for some of the amazing images like those from Freddie etc, the visual view in WL is normally better and sharper with more detail than images.

[wookie1965]

I love my lunt herschel wedge (1.25) with my Tal 100rs money well spent had some great pictures and can only get better once I know how to use pro mode on my S7 camera. 

[DRT]

I have both the Baader 2" and Lunt 1.25" wedges. I have never done a serious comparison of them using the same scope and EP combination but I automatically reach for the Baader if I am setting up for a day's observing and the Lunt tends to be used when I pull out a smaller set-up for a quick peek between the clouds.

Most of the WL observing I do is at relatively low power as I find it better for picking out surface detail across the disk. In the Baader I would tend to use my Pan 35 and/or Ethos 21 & 17, none of which would fit in the Lunt. Whilst these wide field EPs are not essential for solar viewing they do give a larger central sweet spot and at these powers with my Evo 150 the whole disk falls within that part of the FOV.

If the sun ever appears in my back garden again I'll do a direct comparison with some 1.25" EPs and the same scope

 

[Stu]

20 minutes ago, DRT said:

Most of the WL observing I do is at relatively low power as I find it better for picking out surface detail across the disk. In the Baader I would tend to use my Pan 35 and/or Ethos 21 & 17, none of which would fit in the Lunt.

On good days you really should give high power a go Derek, you really can see quite astonishing detail at times.

[DRT]

14 minutes ago, Stu said:

On good days you really should give high power a go Derek, you really can see quite astonishing detail at times.

On those days it's difficult to do that with the WL gear when my eye is glued to my Quark ?

[Stu]

21 minutes ago, DRT said:

On those days it's difficult to do that with the WL gear when my eye is glued to my Quark ?

Funny, it's good we are all different. I often find high power WL views as mesmerising if not more so that Ha, however lovely they are.

[spaceboy]

Funny you say that Stu I am also a fan of WL over Ha. Don't get me wrong the views can be breath taking in Ha but I find that there is so much to take in that unless there is a very active prom, flare or the seeing is above average, I'm rarely able to engage heavily in any single feature. Sunspots in WL really grab my attention as there are often fewer distractions and much more subtler details to be picked out with extended concentration.

[DRT]

I was talking about the wider subject of surface detail rather than spots. I do zoom in on spots and find them intriguing but for viewing general graining and faculae (is that the correct word?) I find low power much better. 

 

[Solar B]

I'm a big fan of the Baader CC wedge .... and agree with Stu about the seeing this year in general but do prefer high power 

HA views over WL ones.

 

Brian 

[Moonshane]

I am intrigued as to what people consider high power views in solar? Is it maybe the same as at night so perhaps 150x or more or is it different? I find the optimal to be around 100x currently at least but occasionally more for white light. When the seeing is better I suppose this will change, especially in white light. I find that with Ha, the level of contrast and sharpness drops markedly after about 100x.

 

[Stu]

12 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

I am intrigued as to what people consider high power views in solar? Is it maybe the same as at night so perhaps 150x or more or is it different? I find the optimal to be around 100x currently at least but occasionally more for white light. When the seeing is better I suppose this will change, especially in white light. I find that with Ha, the level of contrast and sharpness drops markedly after about 100x.

 

For me, high power has been around x200 although it is not always easy to work out magnifications when binoviewers are involved.

That's using 25mm eyepieces with an AP Barcon and two extension tubes giving x4 as standard but obviously more with binoviewers and also a GPC which is either x1.25 or x1.7, can't recall, will check. At very least x148 anyway.

Anyway, last year I was using that regularly and was seeing individual granulation cells quite clearly, watching them evolve was amazing.

This year I have observed less for various reasons but have definitely found the seeing to be not as good so have rarely been above x100.

[Moonshane]

Cheers buddy. I think the seeing is the issue for sure. I rarely if ever get to 200x although I have only had the baader wedge for 12 months ish and only recently sorted my BV ITF issue so there's hope yet!