Orion Optics UK VX14 vs CT12

[Satsumo]

Hello guys,

I've just moved to a rural location and have finally got the space and dark (ish) skies to make a telescope worthwhile.

I think I've narrowed my choice down to a VX14 1/10.

But I notice that Orion Optics market their CT range as their best optics.  So I could drop down in size and afford the CT12 instead.

 

Does anyone know why the CT range is "better" and whether I'm better of sticking to the larger mirror? The priority is DSO but I'm also keen on planets.

I'd be getting the scope on an EQ6 mount; one thing that does confuse me is that the CT12 tube weight is 22kg but according to Skywatcher the EQ6 payload capacity is 18.2kg. 

 

Thanks

Sat 

[Starflyer]

For DSO imaging I wouldn't go bigger than a VX10 on an EQ6, for visual a VX12.

I moved from a VX10 to a CT10 and with tube rings, the better mirror cell etc the CT10 was heavier than the aluminium tube. It was too much for my AZ EQ6 and I had to upgrade the mount.

The only reason for me moving to the CT10 was for the reduction in needing to refocus as the temp drops. With the VX10 I was refocusing every 1.5°C drop, with the CT10 I don't see any shift in focus position until 5 or 6°C drop.

[rl]

I currently have both in my possession, both bought secondhand at prices far below the new rate. I'm currently pondering which one to keep. Nice problem to have..

The VX14  gives you the choice of mirror accuracy. I have the 1/10 wave and it makes a superb dob. It's the largest thing I can reasonably lift. Having said that, the tradeoff is that the tubes on the VX series are a little thin and prone to dents if you aren't careful. 

The CT12 comes as 1/10 wave as standard. I have the f/4 option. It is more rigid than the VX and less prone to dents.  It holds collimation better if you're going to be carrying it around., not that the VX is bad in this respect but, as previously stated, the tube is more flexible. The CT12 also seems quite a lot lighter due to the smaller aperture and shorter length..I don't recognise the 22kg number but I might be wrong on this. Note..the lovely carbon fibre finish is easily scratched and very prone to dewing up on the outside, (but not on the inside where it matters). The improved rigidity and smaller coefficient of thermal expansion will be plusses for astrophotography. One annoyance of the CT12 is that you can't stand it on end without sitting it on the collimation bolts risking the adjustment. Not a problem one it's on the mount. I fitted some some spacers to get around this niggle. 

Both mirrors are superb, but to be honest on 98% of nights the atmosphere is the limiting factor unless you're on top of the Pyranees. Both are capable of really good results on planets even with the central obstruction.

The mirror cells on both are well made and easily adjusted, especially if you disassemble them and grease the bolts. The CT12 seems better made but the VX is easier to adjust having thumbscrews rather than Allen bolts. 

The VX14 cell has 2 mounting options about 30mm apart giving you the choice of setting the focal plane in the most convenient place. I'm not sure if this was an intentional feature but it is useful. The 3 metal blocks on the edge of the cell have 2 sets of holes. 

A lot of the CT12 metalwork is machined from aluminium plate. The end rings on the VX14 are pressed out of thin sheet and feel a little flimsy if you take the whole scope to pieces. I generally have no conscience about drilling holes in Newts for accessories but I make an exceptIon for both these scopes, especially the CT12. 

On balance I think the CT12 is the better all-rounder. It's almost the same aperture, more portable, better adapted to photography. But in my case, the VX14 mirror is exceptionally good according to the zygo report, having a 99.1 Strehl and virtually zero astigmatism. 

The newer focusers (Baader Steeltrack?) are a big improvement on the older OO home grown offering on both my scopes. They are the only Crayford types I have any confidence in. 

A lot of the choice may come down to the mount.  The CT12 is just about useable visually on an AZ-EQ6 with extra counterweights and an extension bar. The VX14 really gets you into EQ8 territory. I had an EQ8 once and bitterly regret selling it....

One costs a small fortune new, the other costs a large one, but this is the inevitable result of UK manufacturing costs and lack of economy of scale. Both have the potential to be a scope for life. Both are much better value secondhand but make sure you get the Zygo certificate. 

The OO customer experience can be "interesting" . Personally I've not had too many issues but you will find alternative viewpoints on this site. 

Hope this helps. 

RL

Edited February 21, 2021 by rl

[Starflyer]

5 minutes ago, rl said:

 The newer focusers (Baader Steeltrack?) are a big improvement on the older OO home grown offering on both my scopes. They are the only Crayford types I have any confidence in. 

 

How old are your scopes?

I know the focuser you mention and my first two VX10s had these, cracking focusers.  More recently, a year or two ago, they started using a clone of the Skywatcher duel speed low profile focuser and this is nowhere as good as the one they were using.

[rl]

Both mine are several years old. Both have the OO Crayford. They are manageable but could be better. One works fine providing you don't rack in too far (wherupon it falls apart). ..The other is either stiff and lumpy or too loose to be useful ..there is no really happy mean. I've tried a couple of the new ones and both have been beautiful..smooth and tight at the same time.

[Satsumo]

10 hours ago, rl said:

I currently have both in my possession, both bought secondhand at prices far below the new rate. I'm currently pondering which one to keep. Nice problem to have..

The VX14  gives you the choice of mirror accuracy. I have the 1/10 wave and it makes a superb dob. It's the largest thing I can reasonably lift. Having said that, the tradeoff is that the tubes on the VX series are a little thin and prone to dents if you aren't careful. 

The CT12 comes as 1/10 wave as standard. I have the f/4 option. It is more rigid than the VX and less prone to dents.  It holds collimation better if you're going to be carrying it around., not that the VX is bad in this respect but, as previously stated, the tube is more flexible. The CT12 also seems quite a lot lighter due to the smaller aperture and shorter length..I don't recognise the 22kg number but I might be wrong on this. Note..the lovely carbon fibre finish is easily scratched and very prone to dewing up on the outside, (but not on the inside where it matters). The improved rigidity and smaller coefficient of thermal expansion will be plusses for astrophotography. One annoyance of the CT12 is that you can't stand it on end without sitting it on the collimation bolts risking the adjustment. Not a problem one it's on the mount. I fitted some some spacers to get around this niggle. 

Both mirrors are superb, but to be honest on 98% of nights the atmosphere is the limiting factor unless you're on top of the Pyranees. Both are capable of really good results on planets even with the central obstruction.

The mirror cells on both are well made and easily adjusted, especially if you disassemble them and grease the bolts. The CT12 seems better made but the VX is easier to adjust having thumbscrews rather than Allen bolts. 

The VX14 cell has 2 mounting options about 30mm apart giving you the choice of setting the focal plane in the most convenient place. I'm not sure if this was an intentional feature but it is useful. The 3 metal blocks on the edge of the cell have 2 sets of holes. 

A lot of the CT12 metalwork is machined from aluminium plate. The end rings on the VX14 are pressed out of thin sheet and feel a little flimsy if you take the whole scope to pieces. I generally have no conscience about drilling holes in Newts for accessories but I make an exceptIon for both these scopes, especially the CT12. 

On balance I think the CT12 is the better all-rounder. It's almost the same aperture, more portable, better adapted to photography. But in my case, the VX14 mirror is exceptionally good according to the zygo report, having a 99.1 Strehl and virtually zero astigmatism. 

The newer focusers (Baader Steeltrack?) are a big improvement on the older OO home grown offering on both my scopes. They are the only Crayford types I have any confidence in. 

A lot of the choice may come down to the mount.  The CT12 is just about useable visually on an AZ-EQ6 with extra counterweights and an extension bar. The VX14 really gets you into EQ8 territory. I had an EQ8 once and bitterly regret selling it....

One costs a small fortune new, the other costs a large one, but this is the inevitable result of UK manufacturing costs and lack of economy of scale. Both have the potential to be a scope for life. Both are much better value secondhand but make sure you get the Zygo certificate. 

The OO customer experience can be "interesting" . Personally I've not had too many issues but you will find alternative viewpoints on this site. 

Hope this helps. 

RL

Thank you RL - that's really useful and it was very considerate of you to go into great details.

Yes I think the 22 kg number doesn't make sense on the CT12.  I've asked OO directly via email.

I think since the 12 inch is more manageable I'm leaning towards the CT12 - but I seem to keep changing my mind on an hourly basis.

 

They are expensive but I'm happier to support a UK company especially for the better optics.  I'm unlikely to chop and change my telescopes so I am really hoping it's a scope for life....or at least until I get a 20"  

 

Thanks again

Sat

[Satsumo]

BTW I spoke to OOUK - the CT12 does indeed weight 22kg - that's because the tube (even though carbon fibre) is 3mm thick.

 

I think I'm heading towards ordering a CT12 on an EQ6R mount - only downside is I have to wait until April for delivery (with any scope).