I am currently using a 2” Astronomik L3 UV/IR filter as ERF before the quark (actually at the very beginning of the focuser) on my 127/1200 acro.
I was told bu a friend I should replace it or double stack it with a Baader 2” 35nm Ha filter for better protection
Before I buy the Baader I’d like an expert advice
I can’t put money in a 160mm frontal DERF
Thank you
Baader 35nm 2”
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
- Location: Germany
- Has thanked: 2977 times
- Been thanked: 2082 times
Re: Baader 35nm 2”
Hi Nic,
the advice sounds reasonable. What exactly do you want to know?
the advice sounds reasonable. What exactly do you want to know?
Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
-
- Im an EXPERT!
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:51 pm
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Baader 35nm 2”
Hi
I would say you should be ok with the UV/IR on a 127, I have used the same for the past two years on my 150.
It's only useful to protect the Quarks front blocking filter and make it last longer.
I bought a Baader 35nm 2" and found quite a loss of light so I don't use it for imaging as it slows the frame rate quite a bit, I only use it when the scope is tracking the sun for several hours.
Also mine is not very flat so softens the image a bit if I have it up the focuser where the 2" is well illuminated. The closer to focus the less effect a filter will have on the image so if you get one get a 1.25 one to screw on the nosepiece of the Quark and save some money.
The Baader front ERF, apparently the same coating as the 35nm, also calms the tube currents but because it is before the objective it has to be perfectly flat both sides and parallel about 1/10th wave to have little effect on the image, that's where the money is.
Cheers Rod
I would say you should be ok with the UV/IR on a 127, I have used the same for the past two years on my 150.
It's only useful to protect the Quarks front blocking filter and make it last longer.
I bought a Baader 35nm 2" and found quite a loss of light so I don't use it for imaging as it slows the frame rate quite a bit, I only use it when the scope is tracking the sun for several hours.
Also mine is not very flat so softens the image a bit if I have it up the focuser where the 2" is well illuminated. The closer to focus the less effect a filter will have on the image so if you get one get a 1.25 one to screw on the nosepiece of the Quark and save some money.
The Baader front ERF, apparently the same coating as the 35nm, also calms the tube currents but because it is before the objective it has to be perfectly flat both sides and parallel about 1/10th wave to have little effect on the image, that's where the money is.
Cheers Rod
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42270
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20424 times
- Been thanked: 10243 times
- Contact:
Re: Baader 35nm 2”
Yes, that will work.
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!