Solar Wedges

[bosun21]

What would I gain from buying a 2"  wedge as opposed to a 1.25"? I'm thinking of giving solar another go as I gave up all too easily the last time I dipped my toes in. I would be using it with my 80 and 120mm ED refractors. I have been looking at the Lacerta (Brewster), Lunt in 1.25" and the same with the addition of the Baader in 2". The difference in price is substantial so what exactly would i be gaining?

[globular]

About three quarters of an inch.

 

I'll get my coat......

[Littleguy80]

I’ve just upgraded to a 2” Baader wedge from 1.25” wedge. My reasons for doing this were:

Baader is generally regarded as the best and has the continuum filter built in. Although so far, with average seeing, I haven’t noticed a big difference in performance. 

The inbuilt finder in wedge is useful. 

I wanted to keep my Leica zoom in 2” mode as I use a Baader VIP Barlow in 2” mode and this saves me switching that between 1.25” and 2” mode. 

Future proofing in case I buy a larger refractor in the future. 

Beyond that I can add that Baader comes with a very nice premium feeling case too but that obviously pushes the price up. I think 120mm is at the limit of what you can safely use with a 1.25” scope so that may be worth investigating. 

[bosun21]

10 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

I’ve just upgraded to a 2” Baader wedge from 1.25” wedge. My reasons for doing this were:

Baader is generally regarded as the best and has the continuum filter built in. Although so far, with average seeing, I haven’t noticed a big difference in performance. 

The inbuilt finder in wedge is useful. 

I wanted to keep my Leica zoom in 2” mode as I use a Baader VIP Barlow in 2” mode and this saves me switching that between 1.25” and 2” mode. 

Future proofing in case I buy a larger refractor in the future. 

Beyond that I can add that Baader comes with a very nice premium feeling case too but that obviously pushes the price up. I think 120mm is at the limit of what you can safely use with a 1.25” scope so that may be worth investigating. 

Thanks. Yes I am now just going to go for a 2" wedge. I do like Baader in almost everything they make but as i already own all the filters in 2" I see no point in buying them again with a Baader wedge. I'm looking at either the Lunt or Lacerta and maybe even the Starfield Wedge. Some people swear by the Brewster design of the Lacerta. Decisions, decisions 🤔.

Edited Thursday at 16:16 by bosun21

[Littleguy80]

I gave serious consideration to the Starfield wedge. I didn’t have the continuum filter already so decided to go Baader. It’s priced very well, especially if you don’t need to buy the filters on top. FLO had a couple come up recently as reduced customer returns. 

[Carbon Brush]

A 2" wedge has a longer light path. Check your focus will cope!

My 2" Lacerta Brewster angle wedge puts about 115mm into the light path.
On certain scopes it means being very careful about choice of eyepiece adapters, post wedge filters, etc. It could fail to reach focus on a camera sensor.
I don't recall the figure for the 1.25".
 

[Mr Spock]

2" is much better than 1.25" for 120mm scopes. 1.25" isn't recommended for that size, though in the UK it's just passable.

My Baader Coolwedge II is brilliant. Highly recommended. With the Continuum my 120mm is bitingly sharp and detailed.

[bosun21]

5 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

A 2" wedge has a longer light path. Check your focus will cope!

My 2" Lacerta Brewster angle wedge puts about 115mm into the light path.
On certain scopes it means being very careful about choice of eyepiece adapters, post wedge filters, etc. It could fail to reach focus on a camera sensor.
I don't recall the figure for the 1.25".
 

How have you found the Lacerta wedge David?

[Paz]

I've got the 1.25" lacerta wedge and the 2" baader mk2 wedge.

Quality of view wise I have seen no difference, I very had the Lacerta wedge for many years but the Baader only a few months. It would require more time and more time in good conditions to establish if either is better in this respect.

I have used both in scopes from 72mm to 125mm with no problems getting too hot.

Just looking at their designs I think the baader looks like it should deal with heat better partly being bigger but mostly the design for capturing and disappating heat. I think the lacerta design leaves more scope for heat getting back up into the ota. However see first point about indistinguishable image quality so far.

The best features of the lacerta are...

...t2 connectivity on both sides.

...very solid build.

...the extra dimming of the brewster angle is genuinely useful, e.g. for limb darkening and faculae.

...1.25" takes up less light path than 2".

...you can use the sun on the back plate as a finder, but how easy that is depends on the diagonals orientation.

On the downside the eyepiece angle is annoying on high altitude targets and the open bottom lets bugs get into your scope should they be inclined.

The best features of the baader are...

...90 degree angle for easier eyepiece positions at high altitudes.

...Epic build quality.

...convenient polarising filter rotation should you use it.

...amazing presentation box. You will want to put that box on your mantlepiece.

...more convenient solar finder position than the lacerta.

I expect/hope it gives better quality views but as mentioned above I have not established if this is the case.

The down sides are... a huge amount of faffing should you want to change the filters within the unit, it takes quite a lot of light path, if they sold a version that was just the diagonal without all or most of the ancillaries I would have gone for that, I think there's plenty of customers like me who have other bits and pieces and so don't need the whole herschel wedge survival kit, which is what you get with the baader.

Edited Thursday at 18:20 by Paz

[bosun21]

6 minutes ago, Paz said:

I've got the 1.25" lacerta wedge and the 2" baader mk2 wedge.

Quality of view wise I have seen no difference, I very had the Lacerta wedge for many years but the Baader only a few months. It would require more time and more time in good conditions to establish if either is better in this respect.

I have used both in scopes from 72mm to 125mm with no problems getting too hot.

Just looking at their designs I think the baader looks like it should deal with heat better partly being bigger but mostly the design for capturing and disappating heat. I think the lacerta design leaves more scope for heat getting back up into the ota. However see first point about indistinguishable image quality so far.

The best features of the lacerta are...

...t2 connectivity on both sides.

...very solid build.

...the extra dimming of the brewster angle is genuinely useful, e.g. for limb darkening and faculae.

...1.25" takes up less light path than 2".

...you can use the sun on the back plate as a finder, but how easy that is depends on the diagonals orientation.

On the downside the eyepiece angle is annoying on high altitude targets and the open bottom lets bugs get into your scope should they be inclined.

The best features of the baader are...

...90 degree angle for easier eyepiece positions at high altitudes.

...Epic build quality.

...convenient polarising filter rotation should you use it.

...amazing presentation box. You will want to put that box on your mantlepiece.

...more convenient solar finder position than the lacerta.

I expect/hope it gives better quality views but as mentioned above I have not established if this is the case.

The down sides are... a huge amount of faffing should you want to change the filters within the unit, it takes quite a lot of light path, if they sold a version that was just the diagonal without all or most of the ancillaries I would have gone for that, I think there's plenty of customers like me who have other bits and pieces and so don't need the whole herschel wedge survival kit, which is what you get with the baader.

Thanks for your detailed reply @Paz.  I was also looking at the 1.25" and 2" Lunt as  they have the standard 90° eyepiece orientation. And as you said I already have all the filters so no point in buying them all over again. So did you use the 1.25" Lacerta with your SM 125 without any problems?

[John]

I've used my Lunt 1.25 HW quite frequently with my ED120. The heatsink gets warm on a clear day but not noticeably more so than when I use the HW with my 85mm or 100mm scopes.

 

[Paz]

18 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

Thanks for your detailed reply @Paz.  I was also looking at the 1.25" and 2" Lunt as  they have the standard 90° eyepiece orientation. And as you said I already have all the filters so no point in buying them all over again. So did you use the 1.25" Lacerta with your SM 125 without any problems?

Yes the lacerta has been used a lot with the SM125 and with no problems.

The stand out issue with the lacerta is the eyepiece angle is unhelpful at high observing altitudes. If you observe with a chair and/or avoid observing when the sun is high then this is not a problem, but if you are standing and the sun is high or if your scope is long it can be difficult. Other than that I think theblacerta is great.

I would mention regarding scope size that heat concentration is a function of aperture and f ratio, and the baader wedge manual remarks on this.

The issue is that a steeper light cone passing through the wedge will arrive at the heat sink collapsed into a smaller area and so heat up that area more.

The baader manual advises a limit of f6 or slower, it doesn't actually mention an aperture limit that I can see, but it does say the wedge has been successfully tested with 6" and 8" scopes.

I've used a 120mm f5 scope extensively with the lacerta wedge with no problem, and I am fine using that scope with the baader wedge also eith no problem, despite breaking baader's f ratio rule, but this is a very personal view from carefully building up experience over time.

[Carbon Brush]

Going back to the 'odd' angle of the Lacerta and viewing comfort.
You can easily try this for yourself with a scope.

Assuming you are at 52deg (Oxford-ish) the midday midsummer sun is at (90-52+23.5) deg. Or 61.5deg.
At all other times of year it is lower. This is a rough calculation.

This means a 90deg (Lunt etc) wedge results in the eyepiece up by 28.5deg at this (worst case for comfort) time.

The Lacerta drops the eyepiece by about 12deg compared to a 90deg wedge.
This means your worst case is an eyepiece upward tilt of 16.5deg.

At all other times of day/year the eyepeice is obviously at a higher tilt.

See if your tripod/pillar can be set at a convenient height for the scope at (90-16.5) = 73.5deg viewing.
Just use the az marking on the tripod, or an angle gauge. You don't need to look at anything - it is comfort you are assessing.
If the viewing height is wrong, get a chair, or extend the tripod.

I have used the wedge with short tube refractors so observing height is not an issue.
Additionally the Skywatcher tripod used with Solarquest has a tripod extention available to help with OTA/leg conflicts.
But if you are 6ft tall, using an F15 scope with 100mm objective on a wide leg tripod ........

If you plan on imaging, it doesn't matter at all about camera height or angle.

HTH, David.

 

[Carbon Brush]

23 hours ago, bosun21 said:

How have you found the Lacerta wedge David?

I have been very happy with the performance.
However, I have yet to find anyone who has said 'glad I sold Brand A wedge to buy Brand B'.
Or perhaps we don't own up to bad decsions🤣

For me the Lacerta offered a good price vs others at the time.
Over time, the different manufacturers have offered 'Mk2 improved' versions, or changed the bundle contents (filters) so price comparison parameters have changed.
The ease of dimming (adding a single polarising filter) appealed to me.
In practice the 2" wedge combined with 4" F6 scope is a little bright for my comfort.
Adding a continuum filter brings it down to a pleasant level as well as improving detail.
The continuum filter, by narrowing bandwidth, helps CA if you are using a 'cheap' scope.

HTH, David.