For adapting any cell mounted Baader 2 inch Filter onto a camera lens with 52mm front filter thread you will need:
#2408166 Baader DSLR 2" Filter-Holder M48 / SP54: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-dslr-2%22-filter-holder-m48sp54.html
#2958052 Baader Lens-Adapter-Ring SP54 / M52: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-hyperion-dt-ring-sp54m52-for-dtadapter-iiandiii-and-hyperion-eyepieces.html
Based on the SP54 thread, we offer many more adapters for various camera threads, our so-called Hyperion DT-rings. https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/catalogsearch/result/?q=sp54
Both thread sizes come with our proprietary pitch - which is not the same for the female and male threads.
This is our own proprietary "emergency solution" for uniting a world were manufacturers all over the world copy from each other - to the point that there are almost a dozen different pitches in use for male and female threads. Traditionally US-companies used to do a UNF-based pitch and the rest of the world went for metric threads - but these do vary from 0.5 to 0.75.
For this reason it does not make sense to publish our non standard pitch because our pitch is made to cope with all existing metric and US-pitch standards - and as said - our solution has evolved from sheer necessity. It is a mixture of a queer pitch and under-/over-dimensioning . We will not want to declare this as a standard and get bashed up for it. It works for us and is a result of 20 years adaptation to fit our filters onto all crazy threads we have seen. And inspite of this - every now and then there comes another "dragonboat-eyepiece" were even our filters may not fit...
How thick is the filter excluding the male thread e.g. 8mm or 10mm?
When calculating thickness how much thickness can be subtracted e.g. filter is 2mm or 3mm thick and light path is reduced by a percentage of this.
As an example, I have an 30mm M48 extension tube. If I include this filter, how much path length does the filter take e.g. I also require a 20mm M48 to make an equivalent path length.
I have a ZWO camera and a ZWO T2 - M48 adapter with zero path length. I plan to screw this adapter into the UV/IR filter (how deep is the female thread) and attach this to my camera's T2 male thread.
Most of our filters use low-profile filter cells with 6mm height (excluding the threads), the higher 8mm filter cells can mostly be found on older second-hand filters.
The filter glass adds approximately 1/3 of its thickness to the optical path. So, a 2mm filter will move the focus ca. 0.66mm outwards.
But in the specifications it says the transmission range is 420-680nm. So which one is it?
1. Baader DSLR 2" Filter-Holder M48/SP54: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-dslr-2%22-filter-holder-m48sp54.html
2. Baader Lens-Adapter-Ring SP54/M58: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-hyperion-dt-ring-sp54m58-for-dtadapter-iiandiii-and-hyperion-eyepieces.html
Thank you in advance
I want to remove the 2mm thick built-in RASA glass filter plate and replace this with an IR-cut 2" filter with coating stack designed for F2. The latter will be positioned in the UFC. I'm concerned not to interfere with the nominal BFL of 72.8mm by changing optical elements. I think the correct Baader filter to use in this case is 2459207A whose thickness is not specified on the product page. Can you confirm is this the right filter please?
If this is okay, please check the software you use for colour combination, and perhaps try another software.
If ZWO's nosepiece has got a filter thread, you can insert the filter there; otherwise you can use our
Baader 2" / T-2 Nose Piece (T-2 part #16) # 2408150 to use the camera with 2" filters
Baader 1¼" / T-2 Nose Piece (T-2 part #14) # 2458105 to use the camera with 1.25" filters.
We highly advise against visual calcium observations of the sun - the 397nm of Calcium are already ultraviolet radiation, and UV-radiation can cause phototoxic reactions which can harm your eyes. In addition, even young people can't see these wavelengths very good, and sensitivity decreases with the age. Because of this, the eye doesn't feel if the intensity is much too high. If you now try to increase the amount of radiation (e.g. with another mirror) to achieve a brighter image, you will increase the risk for eye damage. According to the newest norms for eye safety and to ophtalmologist conclusions, the sun must not be observed visualy at 397nm.
We highly advise to only observe the sun in calcium photographically, then you also do not need a star diagonal. We can't understand why some manufacturers promote these calcium-filters for visual observations.
We also advise against placing a filter so close to the focus - any energy rejection filter belongs in front of the front lens, even if this sets high demands to the quality of such a large filter. Placing the filter close to the focus will save money, because you can use a much smaller filter, be we absolutely can't recommend it - because of our own conscience as well as because of EU-regulations. The filter would receive all the energy collected by the front lens. We can only recommend putting the energy rejection in front of the front lens, which is the ethically and technically correct method.
- Related Articles
|Technical Data not yet specified||Please choose product variant from dropdown above to see technical data of your chosen product|