Comparison between Meade LX10 and a Celestron C8

[merlinxlm]

Hello everyone, I'm interested in buying the LX10 advertised on this forum. Has anybody on the forum had any experience with this OTA, I'll be mounting it onto my EQ6 Pro mount for Lunar, planetary and some DSO imaging with a 6.3 focal reducer. My question is, how does this OTA compare with, say a Celestron C8. Or any other 8" SCT OTA, any comments or advice appreciated.

Thank you for looking.

[John]

I've owned a C8 but not an LX10. From all I've read I believe there is not much to pick between the optics.

There is an interesting free guide to used SCT's here that's well worth a read:

Home Page

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I agree, the difference is not big. I had a look through both a 10" and 8" LX10 last year, and compared the view with my C8 standing right next to them. My C8 only outperformed them because I had some high-end EPs installed (Nagler, Meade UWA, and TMB Paragon), and they had (decent) Plossls. After swapping EPs, the performance between both 8" scopes was indistinguishable. I did really take note of the difference the EPs made in optical performance, even in an F/10 scope.

[rwg]

Apparently Meades tend to have more mirror flop when focusing than Celestrons. I know my SE8 has very little - Jupiter will stay on the screen (just) on a webcam with x3 barlow when changing focus direction. Have never used a Meade SCT, but spoken to a couple of owners who do have issues with mirror flop.

Oh, and the used SCT guide is a truly excellent document.

Robin

[Merlin66]

I use a 12" Lx200 Classic and until recently used a 10" and 8" Lx OTA.

The 10" sat nicely on the NEQ6pro.

Mirror movement during focusing IMHO is very minor - providing you run the mirror up and down the baffle every so often.

A mirror lock screw will also help things and give a very stable viewing platform.

In all the years I've observed, a 10" SCT will alway beat an 8" SCT- It's got about 40% more light grasp!

I've recently sold the 8" and 10" and replaced them with a C9.25.

A very nice (and lightweight) machine.

The images show the C9.25 on the NEQ6pro with the ST80/QHY5 guider and the Spectra-L200 spectroscope.

Ken

[merlinxlm]

Thank you all for the advice. Merlin66, how would you compare the LX series to your new C9.25. The reason that I'm asking is that I'm having my 40th early next year and my dear wife has offered to buy me a C9.25 as a birthday present, I would still be keeping my SW 80DS pro for wide field, or would a focal reducer work just as well on the C9.25. Would you say that there is a big difference between them? Enough to hold on until next year?

Thank you all.

[Merlin66]

I don't image - only spectroscopy.

The web is full of excellent images from the C9.25 - the optics are NOT the same as any other SCT - a different design which seems to make them very good.

For me it's a compromise in aperture and easier to manhandle. Works very well - I can keep a star image on a 25micron slit as long as you want.

THe standard reducers will work on all the older SCT's (including the C9.25) but the new "flattened field designs", HD edge etc still don't have a new design reducer....

Ken

[merlinxlm]

Would you say that the optics of the C9.25 is a lot better that the Meade's?

Thank you.

[Merlin66]

No.

I'd say the optics are better that the other Celestrons and the Meades.

The testing I did on the 10" Lx and the 8" Lx showed very smooth surfaces and straight Ronchi Bands; The C9.25 shows the same but seems to consistantly give "tighter" images - I put this down to the unique optical design.

BTW the 10" OTA weighed 14.7Kg; the C9.25 only 10.4Kg - a big difference in the cold and dark.

Ken

[markcol]

I've got a LX10 which I now use on my EQ6Pro.

There is a bit of slop in the focusing compared with say a new Celestron CPC800 (the only other SCT I've actually used), but optically it is pretty good. I usually use a reducer as well. The good thing about the LX10 is that it can be a cheaper way of getting a 8in SCT without paying for the GOTO electronics the other models have.

Mark

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

As I gather, the C9.25 has a slower primary, and hence smaller secondary obstruction. This is what improves quality. To get wide-field views I do not use a reducer, but simply a 2" visual back and a 2" EP with 46 mm field stop (TMB Paragon 40mm). This captures as much of the image plane as a focal reducer, but I feel with better quality and less hassle. The focal reducer is mainly useful for imaging. The 80mm ED will have a much wider true field of view than the C9.25, so I would keep it (I am actually on the lookout for an 80 mm ED or triplet APO for exactly this reason).

[Stardust]

I used to have a LX10, now a 10"LX200. This does have mirror slop but a lock and electric focusser have sorted that one.

My mate is soon to sell his LX10 which I think has has some nice extras.

[ahlberto]

Hi.Go for the LX10 of course.Like someone sayd,its 40% more ligth grasp! A good choice too,it is allways the CELESTRON 9.25 CG5 GO-TO for about 1300,but if the LX10 you are willing to buy is the same i think it is,its a great,great deal!!! For 275 pounds,dont look back,grab that scope while you can.Its really a great deal.

Clear skyes

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Hi.Go for the LX10 of course.Like someone sayd,its 40% more ligth grasp! A good choice too,it is allways the CELESTRON 9.25 CG5 GO-TO for about 1300,but if the LX10 you are willing to buy is the same i think it is,its a great,great deal!!! For 275 pounds,dont look back,grab that scope while you can.Its really a great deal.

Clear skyes

The LX10 comes in various sizes. Of course a 10" LX10 beats an 8" Celestron (but then of course there is the C11, and we get into an aperture-fever situation;)).

[Magnum]

LX10 only ever came as an 8", however its GOTO replacement the LX90 did come in different sizes.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

LX10 only ever came as an 8", however its GOTO replacement the LX90 did come in different sizes.

In that case I was confused by the earlier part of the thread.