Experience using C9.25 in uk?

[Flame Nebula]

I'm interested in planets, planetary AP, double stars. Not bothered by faint fuzzies at least not yet! I think the C9.25 may be best for these things. I don't want a large Dob. So, I would love to hear your experiences, good and bad, if you own one, that would help in my decision making. Thanks a lot 

 

Mark

[Waddensky]

Excellent scope in my opinion. I use the NexStar Evo 9.25 for outreach activities. Nice, sharp views and although significantly larger and heavier than the 8", still perfectly manageable. Dew shield is probably necessary depending on your location.

No experience with AP though. 

[PeterCPC]

I had one for AP and it was excellent. I had to let it go because I couldn't manage the weight anymore. Dew shield/heater is required.

[Owmuchonomy]

Excellent choice for Planets, AP and Planetary Nebulae.  It's ok for fuzzies too especially if a SN is present (see below SN 2014J type 1a).  Dew shield a must and I upgraded the focuser to a Featherlight R&P.  I have also used with a diffraction grating for simple spec work.  It's the second scope I purchased back in 2007 and I still have it.

 

[dweller25]

The C9.25 can be a very good scope, it will need at least an EQ6 to support it.

Thermal stability issues can be avoided by wrapping the OTA with Reflectix.

[Mr Spock]

I had one, with an EQ6, for around ten years. When seeing conditions were excellent, it was very good. The rest of the time it was mush. It didn't respond to less than perfect seeing at all well.
I kept it in a cool place, and despite leaving it outside for hours for extra cooling, I used to look through it and be so disappointed with the view I would not do any observing, just bring the scope straight in.
I did have some good views of the moon, and split a 0.7" double with it. Other than that it was a waste of space. I see more detail on Jupiter with my 4" Tak.

[dweller25]

@Flame Nebula

I know you only asked about the C9.25 but for similar money you can get one of these which will be much more useable on more nights. Cools quicker and does not need collimating too…

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/askar-telescopes/askar-140-apo-triplet-refractor.html

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

@Flame Nebula

I know you only asked about the C9.25 but for similar money you can get one of these which will be much more useable on more nights. Cools quicker and does not need collimating too…

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/askar-telescopes/askar-140-apo-triplet-refractor.html

Thanks Dweller, a tempting proposition, but I strongly suspect the C9.25 would outclass it on planetary AP. For visual though, I bet it would be a closer match. Have you compared these two scopes on the same targets? 

[JeremyS]

C9.25 I find to be an excellent all rounder. Recommended.

[dweller25]

1 hour ago, Flame Nebula said:

Thanks Dweller, a tempting proposition, but I strongly suspect the C9.25 would outclass it on planetary AP. For visual though, I bet it would be a closer match. Have you compared these two scopes on the same targets? 

Sadly my C9.25 was a lemon, easily beaten by a 4” refractor

[Mumia]

If there are no large daily temperature fluctuations, an 11" aperture will work. It is important to prepare in advance for observation and have a heater + dew shield.

[Flame Nebula]

6 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

I had one, with an EQ6, for around ten years. When seeing conditions were excellent, it was very good. The rest of the time it was mush. It didn't respond to less than perfect seeing at all well.
I kept it in a cool place, and despite leaving it outside for hours for extra cooling, I used to look through it and be so disappointed with the view I would not do any observing, just bring the scope straight in.
I did have some good views of the moon, and split a 0.7" double with it. Other than that it was a waste of space. I see more detail on Jupiter with my 4" Tak.

Hi Mr Spock, can I ask approximately what location you are in? 

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

Sadly my C9.25 was a lemon, easily beaten by a 4” refractor

What's worrying is I see a wide range of opinions on this scope, suggesting a level of luck and/or seeing-criticality. I already have an skywatcher evostar 80ed and 127 mm mak, so I'd need to see a significant difference from these to a 4" frac. 

[Mr Spock]

4 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi Mr Spock, can I ask approximately what location you are in? 

[Flame Nebula]

1 minute ago, Mr Spock said:

Thanks. I'm based in Nottingham, so not sure whether seeing here is better or worse. 

[Mr Spock]

I think if I were looking to spend £1895 on an OTA I'd spring the extra £100 for a 180 Mewlon. Or, save £866 and get a Skymax 180. Even the StellaLyra 8" CC at £999 would be preferable.

11 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Thanks. I'm based in Nottingham, so not sure whether seeing here is better or worse. 

I don't have the same kind of seeing issues with my other large scopes, current (StellaLyra 12") and historical (Skywatcher 10", and Skywatcher 10" Flextube). 

[Elp]

Why not an Edge HD 8?

[johnturley]

The C9.25's used to have a reputation for providing superior planetary views, due in part to the longer (f2.5) focal ratio of the primary mirror compared to the C8 and the C11, however based on some of the above comments, it does appear that the optical quality is quite variable, and the one I used to own may have been one of the better ones.

If buying a C9.25, I would  recommend buying the OTA and mount separately rather than the CPC version, one reason I sold my CPC 9.25 was because following recent back problems, I found it difficult to carry out, and fiddly to put the OTA/Fork Mount assembly on the tripod. 

Although I never managed to do a side by side comparison, I felt that the planetary performance was better than my  Tak 100DZ, but not as good as my Skywatcher Esprit 150.

John 

Edited February 23 by johnturley

[dweller25]

8 hours ago, Flame Nebula said:

What's worrying is I see a wide range of opinions on this scope, suggesting a level of luck and/or seeing-criticality. I already have an skywatcher evostar 80ed and 127 mm mak, so I'd need to see a significant difference from these to a 4" frac. 

I had an OK C6, an excellent C8 and a bad C9.25, in my opinion optical quality does vary with SCT’s.

I now have a Mewlon 180 which is superb, it’s very sharp and it’s high contrast continues to amaze me compared to the SCT’s.

Edited February 23 by dweller25

[Elp]

The thing I don't like about my C6 is the mushy view, it just can't compare to a refractor or reflector which are much sharper defined.

[Flame Nebula]

3 hours ago, dweller25 said:

I had an OK C6, an excellent C8 and a bad C9.25, in my opinion optical quality does vary with SCT’s.

I now have a Mewlon 180 which is superb, it’s very sharp and it’s high contrast continues to amaze me compared to the SCT’s.

Have you done any planetary AP with it? 

[dweller25]

56 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Have you done any planetary AP with it? 

Sorry, No, I am visual only 

[Deadlake]

On 22/02/2024 at 16:13, Mr Spock said:

I kept it in a cool place, and despite leaving it outside for hours for extra cooling, I used to look through it and be so disappointed with the view I would not do any observing, just bring the scope straight in.

Did you ever try thermally insulating the C9.25?

I have a C11 and use it as a light bucket for low powered views. 

For high powered views I've never had a none mushy night on planets.

Edited February 25 by Deadlake