Just came back to rewatch this in 2024 and it's the best guide on what SCT to purchase even if it was intended to be a C925 review. Thank you Ed! going for my C8
If you want low power/wide fields with your C9.25, get a 41mm Panoptic. Works great, it's one of my favorite EPs for larger objects. On a GOTO alt-az mount it's a bit lighter. No counterweight needed. I remember when all the Celestron SCTs were orange.
I own two Celestron 9.25 among my telescopes. The first I bought w/SGT mount. My second was an OTA, which was on sale at the time. These are amazing OTA for the price. Anyone who wants to buy an intermediate scope between 6" and 10" or 12" should consider a Celestron 9.25 SCT. I remember how Saturn appeared under high power and a 3X Barlow lens. It was amazing. I even favor it to the C8.
I’m glad you don’t stick to only one brand. I realize you show more Celestrons vs Meade. I personally have a Meade 10” and a Meade 125 PE. Either brand have created great scopes.
Condolences on the 125 PE. I used to be all EQ, c11 on g11, and meade 8 on gm8 or cg5. It is definitely the better way to go. I now have fork mounted C8 and meade 10, mid 80s c8 and 1991 lx premiere 10. That 10 is a beast to set up and I only used it a few times. I got a ripping deal, like $200 from a friend on the C8, and another friend traded me the 10" straight across for the g11 tripod and counterweights that the tweaker storage theives didn't know to steal when they got everything else. It was the only way I could get back into scopes of that type because insurance found a loophole to not pay a dime, and I am on disability. The only way I could afford the other scopes was from working at a dealer before becoming disabled, since dealers pay less for used equipment, and also get to take advantage of clearances, blowouts and sales in general, the employee discount can be quite substantial.
I have a C9.25 on a CGEMII. I struggle with the weight of it (schlepping into garage after using). The smartest thing I did was to be the StarSense camera and hand control and a 2" visual back and better eyepieces. Beautiful views through this scope, but just ordered a smaller refractor for AP. If I had a wish list, at the top (after my own observatory) would be easier to follow, truly thorough information from Celestron, QHY, and all the software programs. This hobby will certainly keep your mind engaged and if you love solving puzzles, it's perfect!
Great video, thank you. [EDIT: I have a Meade LX65 8" F/10 ACF Catadioptric. It is about as large as I want to go. After using Polaris as North and a 2 star align the AZ mount that comes with it will put deep space objects in the eyepiece every time, it puts planets almost in the eyepiece and it tracks very well for visual keeping an object in the eyepiece for hours. It was the most I could afford and I take it outside in parts, tripod & head, scope then all the small items, eyepieces, battery and controller.]
Hi Ed - great to see you in "live action" after reading your reviews for many years. One point worth mentioning about the C9.25 is that it is the largest SCT that will fit on Celestron's Evolution alt-az single arm mount, albeit with a beefier tripod. The advantages of that mount vs similarly-rated equatorials are weight (because no counter), compactness (built in battery), and ease-of-setup and alignment. With my Evo 8 I move the entire scope/mount as a unit without difficulty, so I've been considering bumping up to the 9.25 I wonder if it would almost -- almost -- qualify is the largest grab-and-go scope feasible? Looking forward to more reviews!
Thanks: The specs suggested the 9.25 was the limit for that mount, but manual specs do not necessarily conform to typical users under typical conditions, so it was nice to get that confirmed. A solid decades effort finally convinced the wife we should upgrade from Firstscope 114EQ to an SCT twice as large, but dropping the full price of an 11" or 14" all at once would be expecting too much, so I'm taking a good hard look at which mounts can handle which OTAs down the line.
We love our C9.25, which replaced our previous Meade 6" Newt. I may get a wedge for it if I get into astrophotography, but for now we are amazed at the quality of the visual images. I will never let this one go.
Got a good mount, 8in New used about $250 and $100 for tube rings and vixen. 10in News used about $500 and $150 for tube rings and vixen. C9.25 at f/10, Zhumell Z8 at f5.91 or 200% more light. XT10 at f4.7 at 300% more light.
Thanks Ed. I have the 9.25 on the Alt Z Fork Mount. Works great and is a very pleasant scope for casual use. Your videos are great. Hope to see more soon.
I have had a c9.25 for roughly 20 years. I use it specifically for astrophotography. I have it on a G11 Gemini 2 with an Ovision RA worm. The scope is great for what I do.
I had my heart set on this telescope, until I saw this review. At 69 years old I don't think I'm up to the physical requirements of hauling it around. I'm considering the 8" now.
Ive seen black tube 9.25 with the focuser counter, iirc the fork we pulled it off had the byers drive. Don Rothman was still in business at the time and he drove down the hill to buy the forks, wedge and tripod. Then my friend got in a minor car accident and decided to sell the tube to pay for the damage. It was pretty good, but i liked the c11 i got later on better, it was a good specimen and the extra aperture helps
Holy smokes. I agree. I’ll buy one of those but I’ll have to buy a huge backpack because I’ll have to sell my car and that’s how I’ll have to tote it around
@@Jimmy_Cavallo C9.25 is good for planetary, but a C14 is a whole hell of a lot better for planetary especially according to Damien Peach, or Dylan O'D.
I do overtime every day in the hospital to be able to afford gear I see fit for my level of my passion for astrophotography. A C14 is a good investment for the serious amateur. If I use it for the next 40 years for example, I've paid 250 a year for the use of a C14 for the whole year. Pretty good deal when you think about it. ($250 × 40 = 10 000) (10k is the price of a new C14 with mount)
Thank You! All your videos are excellent, well scripted, edited and informative, with so much eye candy. The TV-85 fit into my lifestyle, small portable and doubles as a telephoto lens.
As a C9 owner I can tell you that they definitely aren't all created equal. For example, one thing you'll notice on the different generations is the amount of mirror flop. On my pretty old made in USA model it's really negligible, but on a friend's newer Chinese model it was significant. There's also a very obvious difference in coatings, and hence contrast. The old "starbright" coatings on mine are not that great. The newer coatings are far superior. On the other hand the optics on mine are simply incredible, but I've looked through other C9s that are just "ok". If I remember correctly there was also a brief period where they made carbon fiber tubes. And I've heard that surprisingly the optics in those were somehow worse. Supposedly the Edge HD versions are the excellent, though you could argue it's a whole other telescope, and I've never had a chance to look at the two side by side.
As for the proper mount question, i would say the GM8, since it started life as the celestron G9, intended for the 9.25. But i would prefer to use a g11 or eq6. I never had a 9.25 personally, but many people i knew did, on the cg5 mounts, and it was borderline at best but still usable. I used an 8" lx200R on GM8 and CG5 and that was rock solid, and a C11 on a G11 that was also rock solid. I remember back in the day you could get 11s and 9.25s on the non goto version of the cg5 for LESS than the OTA only price, and that was how the dealer i worked for ordered them, and separated them into mounts and OTAs rather than ordering OTAs and mounts a la carte. I didn't know that first and caught an earful for sending a drop ship order to celestron for a CGE a customer ordered. Barely enough profit margin to cover operating costs when done that way. It was also funny when our local televue rep ordered a cge direct from celestron for the industry insider price, and it turned out we could have saved him A LOT of money had he bought one from us at employee pricing from one that was ordered as a package with the ota and then split up. I miss that 5 year period in my life, almost as much as i miss all those scopes i used to own.
I was really wanting one of these at one time; but knowing what I know now - not so much. But I only know that because of the scopes I've had over the years (and changing priorities at a scope). I think most folks starting out are like me when I started out - only very vague idea of what we want to do. You over research, get the "wrong" scope anyway. It's like pinning the tail on the donkey. Just get a scope, use it, see what works and what doesn't (hopefully with out spending too much money) and then make adjustments from there. If you are a bit careful, what ever your first scope is, it will still be useful; but your main scope might be something else. Gawd help us on eye pieces! LOL
Hi Ed it's nice to "meet" you. I've frequented your telescope review site since the early 2000's and enjoy your reviews very much so when your video popped up on UA-cam I subscribed immediately. Thanks for profiling the SCT's and yes I need a dew shield for my vintages Super C8 plus that's been with me since 1986 and I'm still very fond of. I look forward to seeing more videos and clear skies to you.
Don't forget if you want to vary the effective focal length using the reducer, you can reduce the focal ratio of the telescope further by moving the eyepiece or sensor a little further from the reducer. It then changes from an f/6.3 to f/5.5 (for example), and then refocusing. The opposite effect is true of a Barlow.
@@k.h.1587 That's right. There will be a modest visible increase in some aberrations, just as there is when a Barlow is used at different positions other than that it was designed for. Slight trade offs for usefulness. More noticeable with off-axis aberrations in the case of a reducer. If your object of interest is center field, it should be less of an issue.
Thanks for a great review. I have the 9.25 SCT on a CGEM mount. It was my first telescope. (I learned on a C11 with that CGE mount you have.) I have nine other telescopes now, but this one will always be a favorite. You are right about the accessories. I use a Baader Click-lock 2” visual back, dew shield, and the Celestron.6 reducer/corrector. Also, I can’t function without a Telrad. I roll it out on a Scopebuggy when I use it at home.
@@smgee6516 You can use 2” eyepieces, or you can add a 2” to 1.25” adapter to use your 1.25” eyepieces. Most people have one in their kit. They are inexpensive, quick and easy to use, and are very common.
I’ve been watching a lot of your videos lately. I’m interested in the 925. My cousin is an Astronomer and was the director of the Rutgers University Observatory and was the director of the Paterson NJ planetarium. He has also been on TV with Leonard Nimoy “Spock” from Star Trek.
One more reason the c9.25 has a great fan following is that because of the slightly higher f ratio there is lower spherical aberration compared to an f/2. There is a reason almost all of the professional research grade catadioptrics have primary mirrors in the f/3-f/3.5 ballpark. The resaon for these SCT’s having fast primaries owes to the fact that they were made for amateurs who value portability. This different is kind of gone with the edge hd as it already has a field corrector for SA. BTW it is my childhood dream to meet you someday :)
It really seems like the 8" is the one to get if you want a reasonable to handle portable scope and the 9.25 can be moved, but it's not as casual a thing to do it. So it would be good as a personal observatory scope that you could take to the occasional multi-night star party and not have to be a weight lifter.
It essentially is the same mount, but with celestron specific cosmetics, a few mechanical improvements, mainly the polar alignment knobs, and celestron specific firmware. They are all made by synta and use the same size gears and shafts
Good seeing you here. We hung out back in the day at the BFSP when you were the keynote speaker there. Always wanted a 9.25 but refused to give up my 8" LX200 for it. It IS a great scope , though. Had many a peek through the years through them. Thanks for covering this.
I got a USA version about 15 years ago. No image shift, very, very good optics. I also have a 30 year old C8 - the 9.25 is much bigger. And it seems to have put on considerable weight since I got it...
Thanks Ed another great video. I also had a C-9.25 but unfortunately mine was abused by a previous owner (never buy a scope from someone you don't know on ebay). Absolutely your advice is sound about fitting a telescope to your lifestyle. Looking forward to your next video. Regards......
Excellent Conferences I'm about to get my first optic tube. What I found today (10/04/2022 8:45 pm approximately) deserves some dip investigation. Thanks for the lessons Ed.
I downsized from a 10” Dob to an Edge HD 9.25. Some have claimed that for visual there is no difference between the “standard” 9.25 and the Edge. My eyes tell me different, though. With the .7 reducer I get a true field of 1.5 degrees with a Pentax 40 eyepiece (measured using drift timing). I can just barely get the double cluster in that 1.5 degree field. Pinpoint stars clean to the edge with a tiny bit of vignetting in the last 5% or so. However mag 9 stars are still visible in the vignetted area.. I also have a C8 XLT. While the C8 is great for EAA, when using the scope for “visual through the eyepiece” I’ve always found the views through it somewhat soft - even with the .63 reducer/corrector.
What was the optical tube cool down times of the 9.25 , 11 and 14 ? I used to own a 16" LX200 Meade and it took forever to cool down. I'd like a comparison of those 3 celestrons if you happen to remember.
I have a G11. I mount my old C8 with iron clamshells and I use two Los plates, the second one mounts a William Optics G71 as the guide scope which is far better then the OAG I first tried. The assembly is about 140lgs but it is VERY strong. The G11 breaks down into 3 pieces so my setup is about as big as one can go and still be portable in my opinion. My thought is do I want to replace my C8 with a 9.25 Edge HD? Not sure if it’s worth all the expense. It’s just chasing some holy grail.
Hey Ed, thanks for the great video. I just picked up a Celestron 9.25 a couple days ago -- I had an Orion XT10i Dob for years, but it was time to do more astrophotography. I have a Canon T5i, but now that I'm so automated on my 9.25 with GoTo and Tracking and with 'SkyPortal', I'd like to get a camera which I can also control from inside the nice warm house too. I know Celestron makes a couple planetary cameras which can plug into an Aux port - but if you have (or could do) a video on remote controllable cameras, that would be great.
Hey Ed, I really appreciate your channel and all the information you provide. I just got my first telescope (Celestron Newtonian Reflector 650mm f/5) and am not sure what to purchase for upgraded/additional eye pieces. I mainly look at planets and whatever galaxies or clusters are visible in my area. I have two questions. First, how would you recommend I build a simple, versatile eyepiece line up (i.e. what sizes I should purchase). Second, would you have any specific recommendations for good eyepieces around $100 in those sizes? Thank you so much in advance. All the best. Mike
I am following the advice of many of y'all experienced astronomy geeks and learning the sky with my 10"Dobsonian. Is frustrating at times but finally starting to find some of the fainter dso's. Looking forward to upgrade to SCT with German EQ mount. Thanks for sharing your knowledge
I sure enjoy your videos and explanations. I am still in the beginning stages of deciding what type of telescope would work for me best. The differences between types of scopes, the glass, the focal lengths, the size of the object viewable thru the scope; it’s fascinating and complex. I envision a mid priced scope for me and initially thought a refractor would be best but now I am not sure. The collimation bothers me in the mirror telescopes but perhaps it isn’t that big of a deal once you start using that type of telescope. I’ll keep watching videos and some day make a decision. Thanks again for your informative and entertaining videos.
As always... such great info Ed from you. I am just starting out and I have my heart set on the Celestron 9-1/4. I had no idea what to mount it on until hearing it here from you. At $4,999 vs $1,700 I had no idea that the mount was over twice as much as the scope itself. Wow, is this coming as a surprise. Here I was thinking that I was uo and running gazing at the night skies for $1,700 but I'm galaxies away from doing so. Oh my is this an expensive hobby...!!
The Celestron C 9.25 is one of the best telescopes on the market and is also in my possession and can only recommend it.Nice video.Das Celestron C 9.25 ist eines der besten Teleskope auf dem Markt.Ich habe es selber und kann es nur empfehlen.Schönes video.
My new favorite telescope is the Orion starblast 6i although it could use a better focuser. I like that i can use it with or without doing alignment and the optics are much better than i was expecting. Also it's quiet compared to my 8se even though I do use the 8 on a manual mount too. It's funny you mentioned a 80mm refractor to compliment an sct. I just ordered an Orion goscope 80mm tabletop refractor at f4.3 as some nights I want low power then high power and removing the reducer back and forth is not much fun and using my newt in winter isn't an option as I found out with my now former 10inch skyline dob a great scope but took up too much space for only getting limited use.
Buy a HyperStar for the C6 and it will become your favorite scope 🙂 I know you cant do visual with a HyperStar but paired with the right camera, taking pictures at F2 is amazing! Imagine 300mm at F2! Perfect portable EAA rig! See that F2 mirror is not so bad after all 😀
I was about to post the same question. I'd love to hear from someone who's experienced both. I use the edge HD with hyperstar at f/1.9 quite a bit, but have never used any of the C series of scopes.
I bought an Edge 9.25 about a year ago and put it on a Paramount MYT. Before that I had a C8 that I sold. I am quite happy with the photos I get from the 9.25 Edge compared to the C8. The C8 I bought from a dealer came with a spot of what I think was tar on the primary mirror. I bought the Edge 9.25 through Company Seven because I was concerned with some of the talk of Celestron quality slipping. Company Seven will inspect the telescope and if it doesn’t meet their standard they will send it back to Celestron or any other manufacturer until they get a good one and then send it to you. For the price I was putting out it was very comforting to have an independent company verify the quality. But for me the Edge is worth it for the pictures I get. Of course for visual viewing that may not hold true for some.
There’s something up with 8” SCTs: Regardless of the quality of the main mirror, “cotton ball” stars are more common in the 8” SCTs. I had a C11, which was sensitive to seeing in its own way - you’d get fan-like stars under bad seeing, but no cotton balls. Cotton ball stars were common in my C8, with pleasing stellar images only under excellent seeing. I swapped my “quick peek” C8 for a LOMO Astele 133.5 (which I then sold, and “replaced” with a Skylight 4” f/13 achro). The C11 was replaced with a Mewlon 210, which doesn’t have the “cotton balls” issue of the 8” SCT. Although close in aperture size, the Mewlon is a different design, is open tube, and has a higher focal ratio primary. I just picked up a Vixen VMC260L and am keen to get to know it. I’ve never seen the cotton balls in any Maks (Meade ETX-90, Questar Duplex, Skywatcher Skymax 127, LOMO Astele). I’m not sure if it’s some combination of aperture, primary focal ratio or scope design, but 8” SCTs always seem to have the cotton balls. My 8” f/4 newt also never shows cotton balls, under bad seeing, I get dancing stars that look like they’re under water, and this comes and goes. The cotton balls also don’t seem to be related to tube currents or cool down. So, I wonder if the aperture and/or focal ratio are different enough in the C9.25 to explain its reputation. Every time I’m tempted to pick up a C8 or 8” Meade, I remember the cotton balls and decide against it.
@@edting I think it’s like CA in an achro, and people react to it differently. Once I noticed it, I couldn’t unsee it, which is annoying, as an 8” SCT is a good all-round scope in a convenient package. I definitely prefer the ergonomics of an SCT over a Newt. Also, at the time I was mainly logging binaries for my “quick peeks”, as I was living in the city centre. So, a real focus on the quality of stellar images and often higher mags. That’s part of the reason I went with an f/13 achro. The Mewlon is great, but that much bigger, and you do get bright diffraction spikes, especially noticeable on Jupiter and Saturn. Maybe I should try a 6” SCT or Mak. I’m now tempted to pick up an 8” SCT and to see what happens if I make a mask to stop it down to 7” or 6”. The C8 I had showed very good star tests (unlike my C11). I noticed the same fuzzy stars in other C8s with varying quality of mirrors. Thanks for the videos. I’ve used and enjoyed your site for many years too. I think you’re partly responsible for some GAS on my part, and presumably for others, too! :-)
@@edting I forgot to mention - I remember reading about the “cotton balls” years ago, most likely on Astromart or Cloudy Night forums, so I think at least some other people have noticed this. I’d definitely be interested in hearing if anyone else has noticed this, and how intrusive they find it.
@@k.h.1587 Try reading my comments again. It is not *at all* related to collimation - the effect is consistent across the field. It's only in very brief periods of excellent seeing you get the classic airy disc and rings. With usual seeing in a C6 or C11 you get distortions like the rings breaking, then distortions to the airy disc such as fanning, etc. With a C8 you get fuzzy cotton ball stars. They seem to be very sensitive to seeing, and in a way that is qualitatively different from similar designs with slightly different parameters, such as the C6 or Mewlon 210. I recently spent some time with a VMC200L, and it also seems to be quite sensitive to seeing, though due to the sub-aperture corrector and vanes, you get a weird "holographic" effect when near focus and when the atmosphere is boiling. Overall the stellar images in moderate seeing are better than a C8 though. My C8 and Mewlon 210 are now gone and the VMC200L is up for sale. I'm now using an 8" f/4 Newt in this class and am happy with it. I was tempted to keep the Mewlon 210, but I rarely used it. I also picked up a Mizar Altair-15 for a good price. It has excellent optics and good contrast like a smaller Mewlon.
I find your videos to be very very informative. I like the fact they are straight forward an you give great advice on telescopes for beginners . I just bought my first telescope about 5 months ago at the age of 36 . I’ve become obsessed with astronomy very since . I bought a Celestron 70mm refractor scope , which was just a test to make sure I knew I’d enjoy the hobby. Looking to upgrade now so was planning to buy the 8 in Dob. I’m willing to go up to $1000 an was wondering if you think going with a 10 in reflector instead of the 8 in is worth it? The weight an bulk doesn’t matter either . Any advice would be greatly appreciated
Hello Ed: is the image circle of the 9.25 "big enough" for a 2" visual back? e.g. with 2" accesories (vignetting) I don't remember where but I read that they offered that 1.25" visual backs because of this issue, and that it was the 11" the first scope to adequately offer unobstructed views for 2" accesories...
Hi Ed. I really enjoyed your review. One thing I would like to know is how the 9.25" planetary/moon images compares to the 8". I have a 30+ year old Meade 8" LX3 that I need to upgrade. I've thought about the 9.25" but are the views noticeably better?
I would say considerably better, the 9.25s longer primary design makes it exceptionally sharp on planets, the extra aperture helps, as well as the starbright XLT coatings are significantly better than LX3 era meade coatings. Also meade wasn't quite into their stride as far as optics went back then, so unless yours happens to be an exceptional cherry, any c9.25 would surely be a noticeable improvement, unless your seeing conditions don't allow for larger than an 8" scope.
Ed , I sold a Takahashi M210 for my Carbon Fiber XLT C9.25 because for 3x the cost the Tak was probably .07x better . My C9.25 is a fantastic scope that holds colimation well , but the good old ' Bob's ' knobs sorts that out with ease . Thanks for an educational review as they are few and far between . Clear skies brother .
Hi Brian thanks. I actually did the same thing, only "one step down." I had the Mewlon 180. I must be dumb; I could never keep that thing in collimation. I sold it and replaced it with a plain-vanilla 8" SCT.
@@edting I have heard that the larger Mewlons hold collimation much better than the 180 because the primaries are fixed. But I haven't owned either so can't confirm that through experience.
Been looking into getting a Evo 9.25. i have no qualms with bringing it out and in in pieces. I'd have to do that with pretty much any telescope I have, since I live in a mobile home, which sits a couple feet off the ground and have to take a small flight of stairs in and out. Plus, I love doing a lot of planetary observations, which this telescope suits well. Lately though, I've been seeking out DSO's with my 70mm, which is hard at that aperture. What I might do is buy a focal reducer as well and use that with the 9.25. Depending on how well it works visually, I may have to tinker with it to get it to work, but I'm not too concerned if I can't. There are larger eyepieces that you can buy that'll give low power. I've seen up to 70mm eyepieces listed. How great they might be... that's another story. I'll just have to find out.
Don't get the 9.25 Evo. The NexStar mount is optimized for the C6. By the time you put a 9.25 on it the thing will wobble and shake too much. With a C9.25 you need a CGEM/Atlas/EQ-6. Either do that, or downsize to the Evo 6.
Funny..., I have a Meade 10 emc, a 10" Dob, 150 Intes mct, a Celestron 130, a skywatcher pro 80 mm, and the one that goes with me everywhere (besides good binos) is a cheap 20-60 x 80 mm spotting scope that I got on sale from surplus shed... What can I say?... It's convenient! 👍
May I correct you. The Focal Reducer you mention for the 9.25" EdgeHD is incorrect. The correct .7 photo reducer lens is #94245 and cost a whopping $429
Telescope $1500 plus tax and shipping here in Caly, $150 tax, $100 shipping, about $1750. Mount big, about $3000. Digital CMOS camera about $1700, plus 10% tax in Caly, about $2000 w shipping. $6500 total. How does it work? Pretty well.
9:45 I have a question Ed. Is that 2" visual back upgrade worth it even for the smaller ones like the 8" and 6" models? I have a pretty robust 1 1/4" eyepiece collection and i definitely want to invest in 2" eyepieces once I get up to some bigger scopes, but would it be worth it to invest a little now and get a few 2" eyepieces to use with my 8" SCT?
I *always* upgrade to a 2" visual back on an SCT if it hasn't already been done. Even if you don't use 2" eyepieces, the 2" back is far more secure mechanically. I like the TeleVue and the AP but any of them will do.
The 9.25" is a fine scope but at almost same size and weight overall, I prefer the C-11. I would really like to see you do a review of that 4" Unitron you have! The classic long FL refractors in the 3-4" range are wonderful instruments. I think the 3" Equatorial Unitron is the most beautiful telescope ever made. I know, I know - only 3" (actually 2.95") aperture, but what it shows, it shows very well for a discerning eye when used at practical magnifications that allow the telescope to realize its full resolution capability and maximum contrast and clarity (i.e., the 20-30X per inch range - not the empty 75-100X per inch nonsense often mentioned for aprochromats)...
@DawgcityClev I wonder what my LX premiere weighs, I have never taken it off the forks and can't afford a large enough gem anyway. But if 26lbs, who knows, maybe a cg5 would work in a pinch. But mine was sort of stolen, it was in my van along with several other things when it was impounded and I was prevented from getting it out. More importantly, the loss of the van, and the extra small car I got stuck with and some related issues makes it kinda hard for me to go out observing anyway. And I would lose control of my focuser, since the old version of my jmi handbox doesn't work very well, but plugged into the meade base it is super nice. I suppose a new handbox from jmi could be a solution, but again, money is an issue. I might sell some guitars to try and get one of those low price ES 10" version one truss dobs, but that is significantly less money than a proper gem for an M10 even if it is one pound lighter than my C11 was, I was used to a G11, and trying to use it on a CG5 class mount would probably be disappointing. And I had a friend with a c11 on an atlas and that was noticeably less stable than my G11. He later upgraded to the cgem DX that had a thicker counterweight shaft (a standard eq6 shaft is thinner than a cg5 shaft even, and is a source of vibration), along with a 3" or 2.75" leg tripod, which made a huge difference even though the mount head was in the same class. I have used that trick before, upgrading my first SVP to a 2" cg5 tripod, and now use a 2" tripod on my astroview/cg4 which makes it stable enough for satisfying use of my c4r f10 long refractor, and even C8s, but no way am I deforking my powerstar, it is fine the way it is. And I can't even use the mount with a scope larger than say 5-6 lbs since all but my little 4.5lb counterweight were also in the van at the time, they lived there, I had enough for 2 rigs and it was pointless to carry them inside. Still much cheaper to replace than all the other stuff I lost. But then again, sucking it up and trying to use a non goto EQ5 mount, or maybe another SVP since I already have the 2" tripod and could use the 1.75" tripod on my astroview, could be another option instead of the truss dob, but then again there is the focuser issue (or I could just not use it and leave it as an "eye opener" 2" visual back), and I would have to buy the least a single or dual axis drive kit for it, since I like tracking when using a big sct on a gem. Things would add up, and I still would not have the wide field views I am used to with the 10" starhopper, which won't fit in my car and needs a recoat anyway. As well as rendering my paracorr useless, which makes me still lean towards the 10" truss as the best option for my current situation. It is still something to think about for the future, especially if a cheap CGEM or EQ6 pops up, since I could transport the 10 on a gem almost as easily as the truss, depending on what kind of case I can find for the deforked 10. I used the trunk from an old c8, with a foam divider to use the extra space for accessories, but the trunk from my 10 is way too big for that to be practical. My c11 had an old trunk as well, but it was sized appropriately for just the OTA, and used the lower half of the original packing materials, as the previous owner lost or.damaged the top half. I had no problems lugging the CG11 rig in my old Nissan versa, but the car I am stuck with now is a tad smaller, especially in the back which tapers down narrower. The entire 8" rig I used to use all fit in the back of Nissan, the g11 rig needed a seat down for the ota case or g11 head case. The more I think about it, the old fork mount is probably not much more, if any more stable than a properly balanced CG5 would be, and the weight and bulk tradeoffs would be huge.
@@k.h.1587 I actually used an AVX with one of those LX50's because of this very fact. I weighed it at 26 lbs and got sick of the know-it-alls on CN saying this and mouthing that, so I pushed the AVX and had no issues imaging. Proved them all wrong. I talked to the manufacturer and they said of course you can push them, those factory specs are for QC and tech. Now would I do that all the time? Of course not. And I certainly wouldn't suggest it, but it's still good to let people know the truth of it rather than he-say she-say rhetoric all over the place. And let them decide for themselves with what they paid for.
@@DawgcityClev tell me about it. I am still fighting the "you can't use 2" eyepieces on 8" and smaller scts because the baffle is smaller than 2" and will vignette " myth. I have seen some pretty big scopes on cg5 mounts, celestron even sold them with 10" newtonians and c11s and meade put SN10s on lxd55 and 75 mounts which was even more of a joke. Since I wasn't super happy with the stability of a few c9.25s on cg5s I got to look through a bunch of times, I would probably not be super happy with an even heavier 10" on one. But I wouldn't call my fork mounted scope rock solid either. I am used to a c11 on a g11, which can also technically handle a c14. But if it came down to someone offering a dirt cheap asgt or avx mount, and the choice was not use it at all, or be able to use it in a small car, I might break down and use it. But since I have a paracorr and some nice well corrected ultrawides and a hyper wide, that 10" truss for less than $700 is appealing. Not that those eyepieces don't work well on an sct, but thr biggest ones throw it out of balance too much to use, and I don't want to buy a weight kit.
Hello Ed. I find your videos most interesting. I am a fledgling amateur astrophotographer. What about a Ritchey-Chretien 8" telescope such as the Omegon... Can you tell us something about that kind of rig?
Hi Ed, trying to decide between a c6 or an Evostar 100ed for visual Planetary (DSO will be better on my other 10" truss dob). Thanks! Looking forward to your recommendation 👍
Have you even seen a boash and laum 80 mm Smith cassagrain I bought one for $60 in the original box with all the components .I have 2 of them know I use one for a solar scope yes I have a white lite filter on it quite a lovely scope ,just 10 inches long 800 focal length f10
Sadly all the Bausch & Lombs are widely regarded as the worst SCTs ever made, along with the Dynamax units. If yours works, great, and it's also good you didn't overpay.
Nice overview Ed I am considering the C8 for my Heq5pro rig. How do you compare to the Edge HD?. I realise the Edge is more designed for photography but these look pretty handy with the reducer and fair bit cheaper.
Yeah, if it's me I'd just go for the "plain" version. The Edge's advantages show up mostly on imaging, plus as I'm sure you've noticed, the Edge costs a lot more for the privilege!
This is a really beautiful telescope, but the 9.25 is just too heavy for the Evolution mount. I think the SE sweet spot is the 6”, and the Evolution handles the 8” ok… but the 9.25” needs a much beefier mount. The focal length is really awesome, but certainly not for beginners.
The evo mount easily handles a 9.25,I'm running baadar visual back,baadar 2" diagonal and baadar zoom ep,still under designated weight,and zenith is no problem. The mount can take lots of weight.
That's a great review. I have had a C9.25 since the mid-2000s. It is the fast star version. I have used it on and off for Lunar-Planetary-Deepsky observation and occasionally Astro imaging. Now I am bringing it out of hibernation. Other telescopes got in the way. And I have it set up and ready to image using my Canon 600D (A) Astro modified camera. I am using the F6.3 reducer so the scope is faster than its native F10. I believe the SCT has to be re-collimated so I would appreciate please, any advice regarding collimation with this in place?
I have an Orion 127mm Mak-Cas on a Starseeker. My next purchase will be an SCT. Orion has a Celestron 800 Edge on a GEM II for $2799. But they also have a Celestron 925 on a GEM II mount for the same $2799. Can't decide between the optical quality of the Edge 8" or the aperture of the 9.25" Comments?
After watching your vid I found a used 9.25 on an EQ6-R Pro and/or an Evo (came with both) just for visual. Mounted on a Manfrotto 114 camera dolly for rolling in/out thru my sliders onto the patio. I have the 6.3 reducer from Celestron for my C8 and last night tried it with the 2” diagonal on the 9.25. Couldn’t get a Celestron 40mm 2” to focus tho. Any tricks? Love this scope *thanks* for this review! Ps., how about some piano music vid for Christmas pls?
The EQ6 should be ideal for the 9.25. You have a nice setup. An SCT should be able to focus everything - everything! Keep in mind if you put the focal reducer in, you will be twirling that focus knob A LOT. The focal reducer drastically changes the focal plane. This is one reason people don't like them. If you take it out, now you will have to twirl that knob a lot again in the opposite direction.
I note you like the 27 mm Panoptic - does it work well on the C9.25/6.3 ? I have a 2” Meade 647 flip diagonal with a cam in the end for EAA’ing after hopping about so it is a hopping EP I’m looking for. And, still waiting for some more piano!
Just came back to rewatch this in 2024 and it's the best guide on what SCT to purchase even if it was intended to be a C925 review. Thank you Ed! going for my C8
If you want low power/wide fields with your C9.25, get a 41mm Panoptic. Works great, it's one of my favorite EPs for larger objects. On a GOTO alt-az mount it's a bit lighter. No counterweight needed. I remember when all the Celestron SCTs were orange.
I own two Celestron 9.25 among my telescopes. The first I bought w/SGT mount. My second was an OTA, which was on sale at the time. These are amazing OTA for the price. Anyone who wants to buy an intermediate scope between 6" and 10" or 12" should consider a Celestron 9.25 SCT. I remember how Saturn appeared under high power and a 3X Barlow lens. It was amazing. I even favor it to the C8.
Ah, the only thing better than a C9.25 is two C9.25s!
I’m glad you don’t stick to only one brand. I realize you show more Celestrons vs Meade. I personally have a Meade 10” and a Meade 125 PE.
Either brand have created great scopes.
Also. Wish I had gone with equatorial vs a fork mount. But it is what it is.
Still works well. GoTo is excellent.
Condolences on the 125 PE.
I used to be all EQ, c11 on g11, and meade 8 on gm8 or cg5.
It is definitely the better way to go.
I now have fork mounted C8 and meade 10, mid 80s c8 and 1991 lx premiere 10. That 10 is a beast to set up and I only used it a few times. I got a ripping deal, like $200 from a friend on the C8, and another friend traded me the 10" straight across for the g11 tripod and counterweights that the tweaker storage theives didn't know to steal when they got everything else.
It was the only way I could get back into scopes of that type because insurance found a loophole to not pay a dime, and I am on disability.
The only way I could afford the other scopes was from working at a dealer before becoming disabled, since dealers pay less for used equipment, and also get to take advantage of clearances, blowouts and sales in general, the employee discount can be quite substantial.
It's always a good day to hear you talk about one of you're favorites telescopes. Great job.
Thanks Ed, bought a C8 on the Nexstar Evolution mount after research and watching advice like this, so glad I listened to the pros and the cons.
Ed, your videos are sublime : informative, entertaining and very persuasive without the 'sales pitch' .
Thank you.
Thanks so much for your nice comments!
hey ed! if you are seeing this, I have a question about the 9.25, what are the best few eye pieces for it?@@edting
If I had a C9.25, I'd get a 35mm Panoptic for general viewing, and a 19mm Panoptic or 18.2 DeLite for the planets.
Thanks!!@@edting
Ed, the C9.25 primary is f/2.3.
I have a C9.25 on a CGEMII. I struggle with the weight of it (schlepping into garage after using). The smartest thing I did was to be the StarSense camera and hand control and a 2" visual back and better eyepieces. Beautiful views through this scope, but just ordered a smaller refractor for AP. If I had a wish list, at the top (after my own observatory) would be easier to follow, truly thorough information from Celestron, QHY, and all the software programs. This hobby will certainly keep your mind engaged and if you love solving puzzles, it's perfect!
Good to hear you're enjoying the C9.25!
Great video, thank you. [EDIT: I have a Meade LX65 8" F/10 ACF Catadioptric. It is about as large as I want to go. After using Polaris as North and a 2 star align the AZ mount that comes with it will put deep space objects in the eyepiece every time, it puts planets almost in the eyepiece and it tracks very well for visual keeping an object in the eyepiece for hours. It was the most I could afford and I take it outside in parts, tripod & head, scope then all the small items, eyepieces, battery and controller.]
Hi Ed - great to see you in "live action" after reading your reviews for many years.
One point worth mentioning about the C9.25 is that it is the largest SCT that will fit on Celestron's Evolution alt-az single arm mount, albeit with a beefier tripod. The advantages of that mount vs similarly-rated equatorials are weight (because no counter), compactness (built in battery), and ease-of-setup and alignment. With my Evo 8 I move the entire scope/mount as a unit without difficulty, so I've been considering bumping up to the 9.25 I wonder if it would almost -- almost -- qualify is the largest grab-and-go scope feasible?
Looking forward to more reviews!
Thanks: The specs suggested the 9.25 was the limit for that mount, but manual specs do not necessarily conform to typical users under typical conditions, so it was nice to get that confirmed. A solid decades effort finally convinced the wife we should upgrade from Firstscope 114EQ to an SCT twice as large, but dropping the full price of an 11" or 14" all at once would be expecting too much, so I'm taking a good hard look at which mounts can handle which OTAs down the line.
We love our C9.25, which replaced our previous Meade 6" Newt. I may get a wedge for it if I get into astrophotography, but for now we are amazed at the quality of the visual images. I will never let this one go.
Got a good mount, 8in New used about $250 and $100 for tube rings and vixen. 10in News used about $500 and $150 for tube rings and vixen. C9.25 at f/10, Zhumell Z8 at f5.91 or 200% more light. XT10 at f4.7 at 300% more light.
"I ran out of mounts!" - An indignity I hope you've since rectified, sir!
Thanks Ed. I have the 9.25 on the Alt Z Fork Mount. Works great and is a very pleasant scope for casual use. Your videos are great. Hope to see more soon.
Hi. What’s the brand of yogi mount ?
I have had a c9.25 for roughly 20 years. I use it specifically for astrophotography. I have it on a G11 Gemini 2 with an Ovision RA worm. The scope is great for what I do.
I had my heart set on this telescope, until I saw this review. At 69 years old I don't think I'm up to the physical requirements of hauling it around. I'm considering the 8" now.
I’m going to be 61 shortly and I’m not so sure I want to lug that around either. But I’ve done a lot of stupid things before.
Ive seen black tube 9.25 with the focuser counter, iirc the fork we pulled it off had the byers drive. Don Rothman was still in business at the time and he drove down the hill to buy the forks, wedge and tripod. Then my friend got in a minor car accident and decided to sell the tube to pay for the damage. It was pretty good, but i liked the c11 i got later on better, it was a good specimen and the extra aperture helps
Anyone else just here wishing we could afford these..no just me.. okay.
Holy smokes. I agree. I’ll buy one of those but I’ll have to buy a huge backpack because I’ll have to sell my car and that’s how I’ll have to tote it around
Get a second hand one for a thousand quid or so
@@Jimmy_Cavallo C9.25 is good for planetary, but a C14 is a whole hell of a lot better for planetary especially according to Damien Peach, or Dylan O'D.
I do overtime every day in the hospital to be able to afford gear I see fit for my level of my passion for astrophotography. A C14 is a good investment for the serious amateur. If I use it for the next 40 years for example, I've paid 250 a year for the use of a C14 for the whole year. Pretty good deal when you think about it. ($250 × 40 = 10 000) (10k is the price of a new C14 with mount)
@@mrtambourineman6107 thanks and I’m sure that there is even something better than the C14 too.
Just purchased the Celestron CGEM II 925 based on your reviews and recommendation.
How do you like it so far? I think I’m ready to get one too if I can find one.
Thank You! All your videos are excellent, well scripted, edited and informative, with so much eye candy.
The TV-85 fit into my lifestyle, small portable and doubles as a telephoto lens.
As a C9 owner I can tell you that they definitely aren't all created equal. For example, one thing you'll notice on the different generations is the amount of mirror flop. On my pretty old made in USA model it's really negligible, but on a friend's newer Chinese model it was significant. There's also a very obvious difference in coatings, and hence contrast. The old "starbright" coatings on mine are not that great. The newer coatings are far superior. On the other hand the optics on mine are simply incredible, but I've looked through other C9s that are just "ok". If I remember correctly there was also a brief period where they made carbon fiber tubes. And I've heard that surprisingly the optics in those were somehow worse.
Supposedly the Edge HD versions are the excellent, though you could argue it's a whole other telescope, and I've never had a chance to look at the two side by side.
As for the proper mount question, i would say the GM8, since it started life as the celestron G9, intended for the 9.25. But i would prefer to use a g11 or eq6. I never had a 9.25 personally, but many people i knew did, on the cg5 mounts, and it was borderline at best but still usable. I used an 8" lx200R on GM8 and CG5 and that was rock solid, and a C11 on a G11 that was also rock solid.
I remember back in the day you could get 11s and 9.25s on the non goto version of the cg5 for LESS than the OTA only price, and that was how the dealer i worked for ordered them, and separated them into mounts and OTAs rather than ordering OTAs and mounts a la carte. I didn't know that first and caught an earful for sending a drop ship order to celestron for a CGE a customer ordered. Barely enough profit margin to cover operating costs when done that way.
It was also funny when our local televue rep ordered a cge direct from celestron for the industry insider price, and it turned out we could have saved him A LOT of money had he bought one from us at employee pricing from one that was ordered as a package with the ota and then split up.
I miss that 5 year period in my life, almost as much as i miss all those scopes i used to own.
I was really wanting one of these at one time; but knowing what I know now - not so much. But I only know that because of the scopes I've had over the years (and changing priorities at a scope). I think most folks starting out are like me when I started out - only very vague idea of what we want to do. You over research, get the "wrong" scope anyway. It's like pinning the tail on the donkey. Just get a scope, use it, see what works and what doesn't (hopefully with out spending too much money) and then make adjustments from there.
If you are a bit careful, what ever your first scope is, it will still be useful; but your main scope might be something else. Gawd help us on eye pieces! LOL
Hi Ed it's nice to "meet" you. I've frequented your telescope review site since the early 2000's and enjoy your reviews very much so when your video popped up on UA-cam I subscribed immediately. Thanks for profiling the SCT's and yes I need a dew shield for my vintages Super C8 plus that's been with me since 1986 and I'm still very fond of. I look forward to seeing more videos and clear skies to you.
Ed, I'm interested in buying your C9.25 set up.
Don't forget if you want to vary the effective focal length using the reducer, you can reduce the focal ratio of the telescope further by moving the eyepiece or sensor a little further from the reducer. It then changes from an f/6.3 to f/5.5 (for example), and then refocusing. The opposite effect is true of a Barlow.
But the .63 reducer does not perform as well when not used at the designed back focus distance
@@k.h.1587 That's right. There will be a modest visible increase in some aberrations, just as there is when a Barlow is used at different positions other than that it was designed for. Slight trade offs for usefulness. More noticeable with off-axis aberrations in the case of a reducer. If your object of interest is center field, it should be less of an issue.
Thanks for a great review. I have the 9.25 SCT on a CGEM mount. It was my first telescope. (I learned on a C11 with that CGE mount you have.) I have nine other telescopes now, but this one will always be a favorite. You are right about the accessories. I use a Baader Click-lock 2” visual back, dew shield, and the Celestron.6 reducer/corrector. Also, I can’t function without a Telrad. I roll it out on a Scopebuggy when I use it at home.
when adding a 2" visual back does that require to then only use 2" eyepieces?
@@smgee6516 You can use 2” eyepieces, or you can add a 2” to 1.25” adapter to use your 1.25” eyepieces. Most people have one in their kit. They are inexpensive, quick and easy to use, and are very common.
If you add a 2” visual back, you’ll want to add a 2” star diagonal, too. You can then add the 2” to 1.25” adapter if you want to use 1.25” eyepieces.
I’ve been watching a lot of your videos lately. I’m interested in the 925. My cousin is an Astronomer and was the director of the Rutgers University Observatory and was the director of the Paterson NJ planetarium. He has also been on TV with Leonard Nimoy “Spock” from Star Trek.
One more reason the c9.25 has a great fan following is that because of the slightly higher f ratio there is lower spherical aberration compared to an f/2.
There is a reason almost all of the professional research grade catadioptrics have primary mirrors in the f/3-f/3.5 ballpark.
The resaon for these SCT’s having fast primaries owes to the fact that they were made for amateurs who value portability.
This different is kind of gone with the edge hd as it already has a field corrector for SA.
BTW it is my childhood dream to meet you someday :)
It really seems like the 8" is the one to get if you want a reasonable to handle portable scope and the 9.25 can be moved, but it's not as casual a thing to do it. So it would be good as a personal observatory scope that you could take to the occasional multi-night star party and not have to be a weight lifter.
The CGEM isn't the same mount as the Orion ATLAS/Skywatcher EQ6, but a newer version of the CGEM called the CGEM II is still currently available
It essentially is the same mount, but with celestron specific cosmetics, a few mechanical improvements, mainly the polar alignment knobs, and celestron specific firmware.
They are all made by synta and use the same size gears and shafts
Ed I really enjoy watching your videos. The information within them are priceless. Thank you
Good seeing you here. We hung out back in the day at the BFSP when you were the keynote speaker there. Always wanted a 9.25 but refused to give up my 8" LX200 for it. It IS a great scope , though. Had many a peek through the years through them. Thanks for covering this.
Thanks Ed your videos are excellent at a public service. I can’t thank you enough.
Thanks for the nice comments. The C9.25 review is one I'd actually like revisit at some point.
I got a USA version about 15 years ago. No image shift, very, very good optics.
I also have a 30 year old C8 - the 9.25 is much bigger. And it seems to have put on considerable weight since I got it...
I bought the 9.25 evolution, great bit of kit
Is it for sale? Ed, kidding, love all your videos, please don't stop doing scope reviews, they're better than anything on TV.
Thanks Ed another great video. I also had a C-9.25 but unfortunately mine was abused by a previous owner (never buy a scope from someone you don't know on ebay). Absolutely your advice is sound about fitting a telescope to your lifestyle. Looking forward to your next video. Regards......
Excellent Conferences
I'm about to get my first optic tube. What I found today (10/04/2022 8:45 pm approximately) deserves some dip investigation. Thanks for the lessons Ed.
I downsized from a 10” Dob to an Edge HD 9.25. Some have claimed that for visual there is no difference between the “standard” 9.25 and the Edge. My eyes tell me different, though. With the .7 reducer I get a true field of 1.5 degrees with a Pentax 40 eyepiece (measured using drift timing). I can just barely get the double cluster in that 1.5 degree field. Pinpoint stars clean to the edge with a tiny bit of vignetting in the last 5% or so. However mag 9 stars are still visible in the vignetted area.. I also have a C8 XLT. While the C8 is great for EAA, when using the scope for “visual through the eyepiece” I’ve always found the views through it somewhat soft - even with the .63 reducer/corrector.
What was the optical tube cool down times of the 9.25 , 11 and 14 ? I used to own a 16" LX200 Meade and it took forever to cool down. I'd like a comparison of those 3 celestrons if you happen to remember.
Thanks for this! Exactly the scope I'm looking to buy!
Great vid. Very informative. Thanks!
Your videos are easy on the ear,well done and greetings from 🇬🇧
Yes the white tube versions were sold under the Vixen brand. I have the original Vixen catalogue somewhere.
thank you! one of the greatest videos I've seen on telescopes. regards from Bogota!
Love the Astroscan in the background--my first scope in 1980!
I still own my first telescope purchased as a youth, a sand cast Celestron 8 inch.
I installed my C9.25EdgeHD on the RST-135 in AZ-ALT mode, and it's very portable and stable
I have a G11. I mount my old C8 with iron clamshells and I use two Los plates, the second one mounts a William Optics G71 as the guide scope which is far better then the OAG I first tried. The assembly is about 140lgs but it is VERY strong. The G11 breaks down into 3 pieces so my setup is about as big as one can go and still be portable in my opinion. My thought is do I want to replace my C8 with a 9.25 Edge HD? Not sure if it’s worth all the expense. It’s just chasing some holy grail.
Hey Ed, thanks for the great video. I just picked up a Celestron 9.25 a couple days ago -- I had an Orion XT10i Dob for years, but it was time to do more astrophotography. I have a Canon T5i, but now that I'm so automated on my 9.25 with GoTo and Tracking and with 'SkyPortal', I'd like to get a camera which I can also control from inside the nice warm house too. I know Celestron makes a couple planetary cameras which can plug into an Aux port - but if you have (or could do) a video on remote controllable cameras, that would be great.
That was very well done and helped me decide to buy the 8".
Hello. Ed. Greatly enjoy your informative articles on... Astronomy and equipment.
Hey Ed,
I really appreciate your channel and all the information you provide. I just got my first telescope (Celestron Newtonian Reflector 650mm f/5) and am not sure what to purchase for upgraded/additional eye pieces. I mainly look at planets and whatever galaxies or clusters are visible in my area. I have two questions. First, how would you recommend I build a simple, versatile eyepiece line up (i.e. what sizes I should purchase). Second, would you have any specific recommendations for good eyepieces around $100 in those sizes?
Thank you so much in advance. All the best.
Mike
I am following the advice of many of y'all experienced astronomy geeks and learning the sky with my 10"Dobsonian.
Is frustrating at times but finally starting to find some of the fainter dso's.
Looking forward to upgrade to SCT with German EQ mount.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge
10" Dob, good choice!
I sure enjoy your videos and explanations. I am still in the beginning stages of deciding what type of telescope would work for me best. The differences between types of scopes, the glass, the focal lengths, the size of the object viewable thru the scope; it’s fascinating and complex. I envision a mid priced scope for me and initially thought a refractor would be best but now I am not sure. The collimation bothers me in the mirror telescopes but perhaps it isn’t that big of a deal once you start using that type of telescope. I’ll keep watching videos and some day make a decision. Thanks again for your informative and entertaining videos.
Good to have you with us, Charles!
As always... such great info Ed from you. I am just starting out and I have my heart set on the Celestron 9-1/4. I had no idea what to mount it on until hearing it here from you. At $4,999 vs $1,700 I had no idea that the mount was over twice as much as the scope itself. Wow, is this coming as a surprise. Here I was thinking that I was uo and running gazing at the night skies for $1,700 but I'm galaxies away from doing so. Oh my is this an expensive hobby...!!
Could yon please give me any feedback on mounting the 9-1/4 to the CGEM ii mount which I see for about $2,100 .??
@@Jimmy_Cavallocgem and eq6 mounts even handle a c11 decently. 9.25 no problem
The Celestron C 9.25 is one of the best telescopes on the market and is also in my possession and can only recommend it.Nice video.Das Celestron C 9.25 ist eines der besten Teleskope auf dem Markt.Ich habe es selber und kann es nur empfehlen.Schönes video.
My new favorite telescope is the Orion starblast 6i although it could use a better focuser. I like that i can use it with or without doing alignment and the optics are much better than i was expecting. Also it's quiet compared to my 8se even though I do use the 8 on a manual mount too. It's funny you mentioned a 80mm refractor to compliment an sct. I just ordered an Orion goscope 80mm tabletop refractor at f4.3 as some nights I want low power then high power and removing the reducer back and forth is not much fun and using my newt in winter isn't an option as I found out with my now former 10inch skyline dob a great scope but took up too much space for only getting limited use.
Buy a HyperStar for the C6 and it will become your favorite scope 🙂 I know you cant do visual with a HyperStar but paired with the right camera, taking pictures at F2 is amazing! Imagine 300mm at F2! Perfect portable EAA rig! See that F2 mirror is not so bad after all 😀
Hi Ed. Love your videos. Are the EdgeHD optics from Celestron worth the extra $$ (in your opinion)?
That is a good question. I need to get them both side by side. As you've no doubt noticed, the Edge option adds significantly to the base price.
I was about to post the same question. I'd love to hear from someone who's experienced both. I use the edge HD with hyperstar at f/1.9 quite a bit, but have never used any of the C series of scopes.
To Edge or not to Edge is a common question. I really need to get them both in here to see if there is any difference, visually and for imaging.
I bought an Edge 9.25 about a year ago and put it on a Paramount MYT. Before that I had a C8 that I sold. I am quite happy with the photos I get from the 9.25 Edge compared to the C8. The C8 I bought from a dealer came with a spot of what I think was tar on the primary mirror. I bought the Edge 9.25 through Company Seven because I was concerned with some of the talk of Celestron quality slipping. Company Seven will inspect the telescope and if it doesn’t meet their standard they will send it back to Celestron or any other manufacturer until they get a good one and then send it to you. For the price I was putting out it was very comforting to have an independent company verify the quality. But for me the Edge is worth it for the pictures I get. Of course for visual viewing that may not hold true for some.
@@edting Please do a video comparing the 2 visually. I'd really like to know the difference. Sure do enjoy your videos. Thank you.
There’s something up with 8” SCTs: Regardless of the quality of the main mirror, “cotton ball” stars are more common in the 8” SCTs.
I had a C11, which was sensitive to seeing in its own way - you’d get fan-like stars under bad seeing, but no cotton balls.
Cotton ball stars were common in my C8, with pleasing stellar images only under excellent seeing. I swapped my “quick peek” C8 for a LOMO Astele 133.5 (which I then sold, and “replaced” with a Skylight 4” f/13 achro).
The C11 was replaced with a Mewlon 210, which doesn’t have the “cotton balls” issue of the 8” SCT. Although close in aperture size, the Mewlon is a different design, is open tube, and has a higher focal ratio primary.
I just picked up a Vixen VMC260L and am keen to get to know it.
I’ve never seen the cotton balls in any Maks (Meade ETX-90, Questar Duplex, Skywatcher Skymax 127, LOMO Astele). I’m not sure if it’s some combination of aperture, primary focal ratio or scope design, but 8” SCTs always seem to have the cotton balls. My 8” f/4 newt also never shows cotton balls, under bad seeing, I get dancing stars that look like they’re under water, and this comes and goes.
The cotton balls also don’t seem to be related to tube currents or cool down.
So, I wonder if the aperture and/or focal ratio are different enough in the C9.25 to explain its reputation.
Every time I’m tempted to pick up a C8 or 8” Meade, I remember the cotton balls and decide against it.
Interesting, thanks for letting us know. I've never experienced this, has anyone else?
@@edting I think it’s like CA in an achro, and people react to it differently. Once I noticed it, I couldn’t unsee it, which is annoying, as an 8” SCT is a good all-round scope in a convenient package. I definitely prefer the ergonomics of an SCT over a Newt. Also, at the time I was mainly logging binaries for my “quick peeks”, as I was living in the city centre. So, a real focus on the quality of stellar images and often higher mags. That’s part of the reason I went with an f/13 achro.
The Mewlon is great, but that much bigger, and you do get bright diffraction spikes, especially noticeable on Jupiter and Saturn.
Maybe I should try a 6” SCT or Mak.
I’m now tempted to pick up an 8” SCT and to see what happens if I make a mask to stop it down to 7” or 6”.
The C8 I had showed very good star tests (unlike my C11). I noticed the same fuzzy stars in other C8s with varying quality of mirrors.
Thanks for the videos. I’ve used and enjoyed your site for many years too. I think you’re partly responsible for some GAS on my part, and presumably for others, too! :-)
@@edting I forgot to mention - I remember reading about the “cotton balls” years ago, most likely on Astromart or Cloudy Night forums, so I think at least some other people have noticed this.
I’d definitely be interested in hearing if anyone else has noticed this, and how intrusive they find it.
I think your scopes aren't collimated. I have not seen this issue in properly collimated scts
@@k.h.1587 Try reading my comments again. It is not *at all* related to collimation - the effect is consistent across the field. It's only in very brief periods of excellent seeing you get the classic airy disc and rings. With usual seeing in a C6 or C11 you get distortions like the rings breaking, then distortions to the airy disc such as fanning, etc. With a C8 you get fuzzy cotton ball stars. They seem to be very sensitive to seeing, and in a way that is qualitatively different from similar designs with slightly different parameters, such as the C6 or Mewlon 210.
I recently spent some time with a VMC200L, and it also seems to be quite sensitive to seeing, though due to the sub-aperture corrector and vanes, you get a weird "holographic" effect when near focus and when the atmosphere is boiling. Overall the stellar images in moderate seeing are better than a C8 though.
My C8 and Mewlon 210 are now gone and the VMC200L is up for sale. I'm now using an 8" f/4 Newt in this class and am happy with it. I was tempted to keep the Mewlon 210, but I rarely used it. I also picked up a Mizar Altair-15 for a good price. It has excellent optics and good contrast like a smaller Mewlon.
Hi Ed. Would you consider doing a mount review and/or tutorial? Especially, the AVX!
Come on, I really, really wanted to see you try picking up the C9.25!
He picks up a C11 in a different video... darn thing is a beautiful bag of concrete.
@@MikeLikesChannel I've seen youtube videos where someone insists their C14 is an easy one man setup.
@@GaryCameron Yeah, that's a no from me :P
Nice vidéo thank you for all your advices I'm getting a c9.25 I should receive it next month 😃
Food for thought.
Got mine on an HEQ5, works great.
The picture was good. Very impressive.
Great review, thank you !
I find your videos to be very very informative. I like the fact they are straight forward an you give great advice on telescopes for beginners . I just bought my first telescope about 5 months ago at the age of 36 . I’ve become obsessed with astronomy very since . I bought a Celestron 70mm refractor scope , which was just a test to make sure I knew I’d enjoy the hobby. Looking to upgrade now so was planning to buy the 8 in Dob. I’m willing to go up to $1000 an was wondering if you think going with a 10 in reflector instead of the 8 in is worth it? The weight an bulk doesn’t matter either . Any advice would be greatly appreciated
very good video thank you i have a celestron 9.25 also
Hello Ed: is the image circle of the 9.25 "big enough" for a 2" visual back? e.g. with 2" accesories (vignetting) I don't remember where but I read that they offered that 1.25" visual backs because of this issue, and that it was the 11" the first scope to adequately offer unobstructed views for 2" accesories...
Even a C8 has no problem illuminating 2" eyepieces. A C9 definitely doesn't.
Hi Ed. I really enjoyed your review. One thing I would like to know is how the 9.25" planetary/moon images compares to the 8". I have a 30+ year old Meade 8" LX3 that I need to upgrade. I've thought about the 9.25" but are the views noticeably better?
I would say considerably better, the 9.25s longer primary design makes it exceptionally sharp on planets, the extra aperture helps, as well as the starbright XLT coatings are significantly better than LX3 era meade coatings. Also meade wasn't quite into their stride as far as optics went back then, so unless yours happens to be an exceptional cherry, any c9.25 would surely be a noticeable improvement, unless your seeing conditions don't allow for larger than an 8" scope.
Hi Ed, curious what you think of the 9.25 Edge HD in comparison. Thanks!
me too
Ed , I sold a Takahashi M210 for my Carbon Fiber XLT C9.25 because for 3x the cost the Tak was probably .07x better .
My C9.25 is a fantastic scope that holds colimation well , but the good old ' Bob's ' knobs sorts that out with ease .
Thanks for an educational review as they are few and far between .
Clear skies brother .
Hi Brian thanks. I actually did the same thing, only "one step down." I had the Mewlon 180. I must be dumb; I could never keep that thing in collimation. I sold it and replaced it with a plain-vanilla 8" SCT.
@@edting I have heard that the larger Mewlons hold collimation much better than the 180 because the primaries are fixed. But I haven't owned either so can't confirm that through experience.
Been looking into getting a Evo 9.25. i have no qualms with bringing it out and in in pieces. I'd have to do that with pretty much any telescope I have, since I live in a mobile home, which sits a couple feet off the ground and have to take a small flight of stairs in and out. Plus, I love doing a lot of planetary observations, which this telescope suits well. Lately though, I've been seeking out DSO's with my 70mm, which is hard at that aperture. What I might do is buy a focal reducer as well and use that with the 9.25. Depending on how well it works visually, I may have to tinker with it to get it to work, but I'm not too concerned if I can't. There are larger eyepieces that you can buy that'll give low power. I've seen up to 70mm eyepieces listed. How great they might be... that's another story. I'll just have to find out.
Don't get the 9.25 Evo. The NexStar mount is optimized for the C6. By the time you put a 9.25 on it the thing will wobble and shake too much. With a C9.25 you need a CGEM/Atlas/EQ-6. Either do that, or downsize to the Evo 6.
Hey Ed, I notice your tan line on your arms (hands are lighter than arm). Do you work with gloves?
Cycling. I have the worst tan lines in the summer!
@@edting oh that’s so awesome!
Funny..., I have a Meade 10 emc, a 10" Dob, 150 Intes mct, a Celestron 130, a skywatcher pro 80 mm, and the one that goes with me everywhere (besides good binos) is a cheap 20-60 x 80 mm spotting scope that I got on sale from surplus shed... What can I say?... It's convenient! 👍
May I correct you. The Focal Reducer you mention for the 9.25" EdgeHD is incorrect. The correct .7 photo reducer lens is #94245 and cost a whopping $429
Just ordered one yesterday. Should come in September.
You must have ordered from the wrong dealer! I ordered mine from Optic Planet, free shipping and Vets discount, and it came in a week !
@@dustytravels9458 when did you order it? 2+ years ago? Nobody has anything in stock right now. I’ve checked, trust me.
@@dustytravels9458 I should have clarified. I’m getting a CGEM. Not a nexstar. NOBODY has CGEMS.
Telescope $1500 plus tax and shipping here in Caly, $150 tax, $100 shipping, about $1750. Mount big, about $3000. Digital CMOS camera about $1700, plus 10% tax in Caly, about $2000 w shipping. $6500 total. How does it work? Pretty well.
9:45 I have a question Ed. Is that 2" visual back upgrade worth it even for the smaller ones like the 8" and 6" models? I have a pretty robust 1 1/4" eyepiece collection and i definitely want to invest in 2" eyepieces once I get up to some bigger scopes, but would it be worth it to invest a little now and get a few 2" eyepieces to use with my 8" SCT?
I *always* upgrade to a 2" visual back on an SCT if it hasn't already been done. Even if you don't use 2" eyepieces, the 2" back is far more secure mechanically. I like the TeleVue and the AP but any of them will do.
The 9.25" is a fine scope but at almost same size and weight overall, I prefer the C-11. I would really like to see you do a review of that 4" Unitron you have! The classic long FL refractors in the 3-4" range are wonderful instruments. I think the 3" Equatorial Unitron is the most beautiful telescope ever made. I know, I know - only 3" (actually 2.95") aperture, but what it shows, it shows very well for a discerning eye when used at practical magnifications that allow the telescope to realize its full resolution capability and maximum contrast and clarity (i.e., the 20-30X per inch range - not the empty 75-100X per inch nonsense often mentioned for aprochromats)...
I weighed my 10” LX50 at 26 lbs. The models at 10” are at varying weights.
Lx200 has a beefier rear cell with mirror lock.
My c11 was 27lbs, most meade 10s are a little over 30.
@@k.h.1587 Must only be the LX200's because I've had three LX50's and all weighed less than 27 lbs.
@DawgcityClev I wonder what my LX premiere weighs, I have never taken it off the forks and can't afford a large enough gem anyway. But if 26lbs, who knows, maybe a cg5 would work in a pinch. But mine was sort of stolen, it was in my van along with several other things when it was impounded and I was prevented from getting it out.
More importantly, the loss of the van, and the extra small car I got stuck with and some related issues makes it kinda hard for me to go out observing anyway. And I would lose control of my focuser, since the old version of my jmi handbox doesn't work very well, but plugged into the meade base it is super nice. I suppose a new handbox from jmi could be a solution, but again, money is an issue.
I might sell some guitars to try and get one of those low price ES 10" version one truss dobs, but that is significantly less money than a proper gem for an M10 even if it is one pound lighter than my C11 was, I was used to a G11, and trying to use it on a CG5 class mount would probably be disappointing. And I had a friend with a c11 on an atlas and that was noticeably less stable than my G11. He later upgraded to the cgem DX that had a thicker counterweight shaft (a standard eq6 shaft is thinner than a cg5 shaft even, and is a source of vibration), along with a 3" or 2.75" leg tripod, which made a huge difference even though the mount head was in the same class.
I have used that trick before, upgrading my first SVP to a 2" cg5 tripod, and now use a 2" tripod on my astroview/cg4 which makes it stable enough for satisfying use of my c4r f10 long refractor, and even C8s, but no way am I deforking my powerstar, it is fine the way it is. And I can't even use the mount with a scope larger than say 5-6 lbs since all but my little 4.5lb counterweight were also in the van at the time, they lived there, I had enough for 2 rigs and it was pointless to carry them inside. Still much cheaper to replace than all the other stuff I lost.
But then again, sucking it up and trying to use a non goto EQ5 mount, or maybe another SVP since I already have the 2" tripod and could use the 1.75" tripod on my astroview, could be another option instead of the truss dob, but then again there is the focuser issue (or I could just not use it and leave it as an "eye opener" 2" visual back), and I would have to buy the least a single or dual axis drive kit for it, since I like tracking when using a big sct on a gem.
Things would add up, and I still would not have the wide field views I am used to with the 10" starhopper, which won't fit in my car and needs a recoat anyway.
As well as rendering my paracorr useless, which makes me still lean towards the 10" truss as the best option for my current situation. It is still something to think about for the future, especially if a cheap CGEM or EQ6 pops up, since I could transport the 10 on a gem almost as easily as the truss, depending on what kind of case I can find for the deforked 10. I used the trunk from an old c8, with a foam divider to use the extra space for accessories, but the trunk from my 10 is way too big for that to be practical. My c11 had an old trunk as well, but it was sized appropriately for just the OTA, and used the lower half of the original packing materials, as the previous owner lost or.damaged the top half. I had no problems lugging the CG11 rig in my old Nissan versa, but the car I am stuck with now is a tad smaller, especially in the back which tapers down narrower. The entire 8" rig I used to use all fit in the back of Nissan, the g11 rig needed a seat down for the ota case or g11 head case.
The more I think about it, the old fork mount is probably not much more, if any more stable than a properly balanced CG5 would be, and the weight and bulk tradeoffs would be huge.
@@k.h.1587 I actually used an AVX with one of those LX50's because of this very fact. I weighed it at 26 lbs and got sick of the know-it-alls on CN saying this and mouthing that, so I pushed the AVX and had no issues imaging. Proved them all wrong. I talked to the manufacturer and they said of course you can push them, those factory specs are for QC and tech. Now would I do that all the time? Of course not. And I certainly wouldn't suggest it, but it's still good to let people know the truth of it rather than he-say she-say rhetoric all over the place. And let them decide for themselves with what they paid for.
@@DawgcityClev tell me about it. I am still fighting the "you can't use 2" eyepieces on 8" and smaller scts because the baffle is smaller than 2" and will vignette " myth.
I have seen some pretty big scopes on cg5 mounts, celestron even sold them with 10" newtonians and c11s and meade put SN10s on lxd55 and 75 mounts which was even more of a joke.
Since I wasn't super happy with the stability of a few c9.25s on cg5s I got to look through a bunch of times, I would probably not be super happy with an even heavier 10" on one. But I wouldn't call my fork mounted scope rock solid either. I am used to a c11 on a g11, which can also technically handle a c14.
But if it came down to someone offering a dirt cheap asgt or avx mount, and the choice was not use it at all, or be able to use it in a small car, I might break down and use it. But since I have a paracorr and some nice well corrected ultrawides and a hyper wide, that 10" truss for less than $700 is appealing. Not that those eyepieces don't work well on an sct, but thr biggest ones throw it out of balance too much to use, and I don't want to buy a weight kit.
Hi Ed would the Cgem-II mount be enough for the 9.25? Great review.
Yes the CGEM/CGEMII/Atlas/EQ6/etc are ideal for a 9.25.
Hello Ed. I find your videos most interesting. I am a fledgling amateur astrophotographer. What about a Ritchey-Chretien 8" telescope such as the Omegon... Can you tell us something about that kind of rig?
Wish we can see a video review of the c8 Celestron
Hi Ed, trying to decide between a c6 or an Evostar 100ed for visual Planetary (DSO will be better on my other 10" truss dob). Thanks! Looking forward to your recommendation 👍
Have you even seen a boash and laum 80 mm Smith cassagrain I bought one for $60 in the original box with all the components .I have 2 of them know I use one for a solar scope yes I have a white lite filter on it quite a lovely scope ,just 10 inches long 800 focal length f10
Sadly all the Bausch & Lombs are widely regarded as the worst SCTs ever made, along with the Dynamax units. If yours works, great, and it's also good you didn't overpay.
Thanks it works great
Bob
Thank you !!!
Thank you Ed! Love your vids!!
note to self: Must find job!
Nice overview Ed I am considering the C8 for my Heq5pro rig. How do you compare to the Edge HD?. I realise the Edge is more designed for photography but these look pretty handy with the reducer and fair bit cheaper.
Yeah, if it's me I'd just go for the "plain" version. The Edge's advantages show up mostly on imaging, plus as I'm sure you've noticed, the Edge costs a lot more for the privilege!
@@edting Thanks Ed I will be using it mainly for astrophotography but it seems a lot more like you say for the privelage 👍
Thank you Ed. I found this very helpful. 🙂
This is a really beautiful telescope, but the 9.25 is just too heavy for the Evolution mount. I think the SE sweet spot is the 6”, and the Evolution handles the 8” ok… but the 9.25” needs a much beefier mount. The focal length is really awesome, but certainly not for beginners.
The evo mount easily handles a 9.25,I'm running baadar visual back,baadar 2" diagonal and baadar zoom ep,still under designated weight,and zenith is no problem. The mount can take lots of weight.
@@chris-ip4pk Not for EAA. Too much jitter.
That's a great review. I have had a C9.25 since the mid-2000s. It is the fast star version. I have used it on and off for Lunar-Planetary-Deepsky observation and occasionally Astro imaging.
Now I am bringing it out of hibernation. Other telescopes got in the way. And I have it set up and ready to image using my Canon 600D (A) Astro modified camera. I am using the F6.3 reducer so the scope is faster than its native F10. I believe the SCT has to be re-collimated so I would appreciate please, any advice regarding collimation with this in place?
I have an Orion 127mm Mak-Cas on a Starseeker. My next purchase will be an SCT. Orion has a Celestron 800 Edge on a GEM II for $2799. But they also have a Celestron 925 on a GEM II mount for the same $2799. Can't decide between the optical quality of the Edge 8" or the aperture of the 9.25" Comments?
Either one should be fine. Unless you're doing serious imaging, you can usually skip the Edge variant and save some money.
I am a photographer and I become interested into deep dark sky. Maybe I can get mine Feb 1, 2021. I am excited. Thank you for the information.
After watching your vid I found a used 9.25 on an EQ6-R Pro and/or an Evo (came with both) just for visual. Mounted on a Manfrotto 114 camera dolly for rolling in/out thru my sliders onto the patio.
I have the 6.3 reducer from Celestron for my C8 and last night tried it with the 2” diagonal on the 9.25. Couldn’t get a Celestron 40mm 2” to focus tho. Any tricks? Love this scope *thanks* for this review! Ps., how about some piano music vid for Christmas pls?
The EQ6 should be ideal for the 9.25. You have a nice setup. An SCT should be able to focus everything - everything! Keep in mind if you put the focal reducer in, you will be twirling that focus knob A LOT. The focal reducer drastically changes the focal plane. This is one reason people don't like them. If you take it out, now you will have to twirl that knob a lot again in the opposite direction.
I note you like the 27 mm Panoptic - does it work well on the C9.25/6.3 ? I have a 2” Meade 647 flip diagonal with a cam in the end for EAA’ing after hopping about so it is a hopping EP I’m looking for. And, still waiting for some more piano!
@@randallpatrickc27 panoptic is great with 6.3, but go any wider, say the 35pan and you will start to see vignetting
Can you recommend somewhere I can find a 2” visual back for the 9.25?
I just bought one for my C8 from AgenaAstro.com. It's made by Tele Vue, and cost 55 USD. The SKU number is PAAR-TV-ACC-0003. It is currently in stock.
What about the 1100 edge hd?