Celestron 9.25" or 11" SCT OTA?

[BlueAstra]

I've read in a number of places that the 9.25" is 'the jewel in Celestron's SCT crown'. I potentially have an opportunity to upgrade to either the 9.25" or 11", so should it be the 9.25", or the larger aperture, focal length and resolution 11"? These are the basic versions, not the edge variants, and would be mounted on an EQ6. It would be used mainly for planetary imaging, although I may try my H16 with a focal reducer on otherwise tiny targets.

[Mav359]

I have a 9.25 its fantastic, just think space, it's not small! & if your not permanently set up in an obs think about having to move it. Its a great piece of engineering but you can't pick it up in one go (60kg ish) as it turns into an octopus and won't go through a doorway.

Imagine what the 11" would be like.... don't be put off though i have zero regrets and with a F6.3 reducer its capable of much more then just planetary imaging.

[Mr Spock]

I use a C9.25 on an EQ6 and it's a perfect combination.

[m.tweedy]

I love my C11 and NEq6 pro. I wish we could do a side by side "shoot out" Then again maybe not if the 9.25 matched up:o to the 11. There is a substantial jump in weight and bulk as I found out when I moved from the C8 to the C11

[ollypenrice]

The extra focal length of the 11 (even focally reduced) might make life very hard work for DS on anything but a premium mount. I'd check out Damian Peach's website regarding planetary imaging, though. From memory I think he rates them as near equivalent. It's his 14 inch that goes to Barbados.

Olly

[faulksy]

i have the 9.25 and it is stunning simple. as said rated higher than the 11 strange realy

[faulksy]

i new i read it some were hope this helps

Celestron C-9.25 XLT vs C-11 XLT - Review

[beamish]

I remember umming and arghing over the very same issue for quite a while before I plumbed for the 11"- I thought that since I was going to have to upgrade from HEQ5 pro to the 6 I might as well get the largest aperture I could comfortably get away with ( mount too !!), and for very little more money too . An extra 1.75" is still a lot of extra light incoming

( 40+%)

Edited March 6, 2012 by beamish

[BlueAstra]

Thanks for that link. I hate it when a reviewer says both are more or less equally good! Much better if it says A has a duff widget and B is obviously the best. It seems they are ~ equivalent in resolution, but the C11 has more light gathering power. I think elsewhere someone said the difference between the C8 and C9.25 was not too great, so perhaps the C11 is the one.

[beamish]

Might as well make the move count !

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have a C8 and will certainly skip the C9.25 as the jump is too small. On planets seeing will be the deciding factor in most cases, but on DSOs you should get a lot more from the 11" (visually, imaging-wise you would stick with the Meade 5000 ED80 APO, I would guess).

[mhard26339]

I opted for the 9.25, mainly because it gets transported to and from Spain twice a year  (and one popped up on ebay fro the right price) but I have not regretted it at all. I upgraded from a Nexstar 6 and it was a significant upgrade, particularly in portability; as already mentioned the NEQ6 set-up has octopus legs when trying to move it and is not a lightweight. I find that the only successful way is to completely strip down. 

Having said that this set-up does all that I want it to do and offers superb operation with only minimal concession to bulk and weight. I think that my advice would be if it is going to be mobile in any form you will not be disappointed with the 9.25, if it is to be Obsy mounted the 11 is possibly a better option; as always, your money, your back, your decision.

Regards

Mike

[catman161]

If it's for planetary imaging my personal opinion would be the C11. I do only planetary imaging and I yearn for a C11 with every fibre of my being well most of my being-the rest of wants a C14 lol!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grotemobile]

Iv got the C11, & it is a bit of a lump to keep carting

about.I just do planetry & lunar.I wish I had gone for

this.http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-180-pro.html

I would get more use out of it.

Steve

[riklaunim]

C8 would be even better than a 180 mm Mak - shorter and lighter

[Grotemobile]

C8 would be even better than a 180 mm Mak - shorter and lighter

The f/l of the  Mac 180, is 2700, which  is nearly the

same as the C11. It means you don't need a

barlow for imaging.F15 against f10.Great for

planetry & lunar imaging.

Steve

[earth titan]

The C11 is really big! That coloured my decision when I bought a C9.25.

[nucleardwarf]

I recently purchased the SW AZ E6 GT and C11.  It's an absolutely fantastic combination, I am 63 and find no real difficulty with the setup.

The weight of the C11 is not heavy, you may find your first couple of attempts of getting the scope mounted feel awkward but once you get the hang of it, it is quite easy and you will begin slinging it on and off with no issues.  I stepped up from the CPC800 to my current rig (having tried the 9.25) and the difference in my viewing quality is remarkable.

[deepspacehunter]

I have a C11... and I love it... I am 57 and have no problem with the set up... I want to get a c9.25 as my grab n go ... Both are great Telescopes......

[riklaunim]

The f/l of the  Mac 180, is 2700, which  is nearly the

same as the C11. It means you don't need a

barlow for imaging.F15 against f10.Great for

planetry & lunar imaging.

Steve

Depends on camera and object. Either so aperture is the king.

[Gerry Doyle]

A factor to bear in mind is I believe that the primary mirror in the C9.25 is figured at f/2.5, as opposed to f/2 for all the other Celestron SCTs (8, 11, 14).  Don't know why they did that, but it makes the mirror figure just that little bit more forgiving/easier to make and consequently yielding better images.  That assumes that you don't ever truly reach 'diffraction limited' seeing conditions.  In that case, aperture wins - not just for light gathering power but in this case because the resolving power of the bigger aperture at Dawes limit is better.

[scotty38]

1 hour ago, Gerry Doyle said:

A factor to bear in mind is I believe that the primary mirror in the C9.25 is figured at f/2.5, as opposed to f/2 for all the other Celestron SCTs (8, 11, 14).  Don't know why they did that, but it makes the mirror figure just that little bit more forgiving/easier to make and consequently yielding better images.  That assumes that you don't ever truly reach 'diffraction limited' seeing conditions.  In that case, aperture wins - not just for light gathering power but in this case because the resolving power of the bigger aperture at Dawes limit is better.

I suspect the decision has been made by now though 🤣

[Mr Spock]

Reminds me how long I had the C9.25 though . Wow!

[faulksy]

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Reminds me how long I had the C9.25 though . Wow!

me too michael. i bought mine because of how good you said they were, looked around for ages to get the vixen 42mm as well

[Mr Spock]

I still have the 42mm. Gives a 3° field in the 120mm! Great for just moseying around a dark sky.

I regret having to sell the C9.25 but needs must as they say.