Jump to content


Photo

Celstron 8" EdgeHD vs Meade 8" LX90-ACF?

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:19 AM

They both claim no coma but I believe the Celestron boats clear images to the edge. How does it compare with the LX90-ACF? The Meade is $400 less expensive plus it weighs about 18 pounds less than the EdgeHD at 52 pounds. :question:

#2 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12488
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:42 AM

I am not sure of the exact configurations of these scopes, but let me take a guess???

The 8" ACF is a fork mounted telescope. It breaks down into two pieces and the fork with the optical tube weighs about 33 lbs. The tripod weighs about 20 lbs I think.

The EdgeHD 8" is a much different configuration. The Optical Tube alone comes off of the mount and only weighs about 13 lbs, but the mount itself is more like 40 lbs.

The CGEM mount though offers the ability to mount other telescopes. This may be useful if you one day decide to compliment your scope with something like a 4" refractor for wide field work.

So, very different configurations, and price differential is really in the fact that the EdgeHD 8" is on a more versitile mount.

Optically, if you see yourself getting super-uber-duper wide field eyepeices like the Ethos, you may find the edge of the field sharper in the EdgeHD 8", but for eyepecies like Panoptics and the ES 68 degree eyepecies, the difference will not be great.

At the center of the field, they will perform about the same.

So, while the Meade weighs less, it is on a less flexible mount.

Mainly then, this is a mount issue. If you think you are going to only ever want to use one telescope, the fork mounts are very comfortable, compact, and stable.

#3 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:36 PM

I could be wrong but I'm guessing the OP is talking about the CPC range vs the LX90 and not the CGEM mount?

#4 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12488
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:55 PM

Ah, perhaps.

I did not know that they EdgeHD was now available in the fork mounting.

So, my mistake for not being aware of this option.

#5 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:56 PM

No prob! I think I'm leaning toward the LX90ACF now due to its weight. As for astrophotography I see that it can be done (despite it not being the LX200), at least from what I have seen on youtube.

#6 ohata0

ohata0

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Hawaii, USA

Posted 08 May 2013 - 03:14 AM

those are alt/az mounts right? so i'm guessing you're not planning on doing long exposure AP...just short exposure for stuff like the moon and planets?
unless you're planning on putting it on a wedge or something, it wouldn't work well for long exposures (because of field rotation) and the wedge would just be more weight to carry around anyway.

or am i completely wrong about that?

#7 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:43 AM

Yes, I would certainly use it with a wedge when doing astrophotography. I would be observing more often, so I would leave that piece behind.

#8 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12488
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:45 AM

If you are going to use the wedge, then why not consider the EdgeHD 8" on a GCEM mount?

Adding the wedge ups the weight and costs.

But get what you think is best for you.

#9 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:20 AM

I would go that route if I was driving. I'm looking at this as an on-the-go solution, something portable enough to carry with me on mass transit. The CGEM mount/tripod is 60 pounds alone :/

#10 WesC

WesC

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Loc: La Crescenta, CA

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:16 PM

A fork mount is going to be pretty darn heavy and harder to break down for transport. Taking stuff like this on mass transit??? I don't think either solution is good for that requirement. Anything that is solid and stable enough for an 8" SCT is going to be too heavy and complicated for one person to take on a bus or subway.

#11 belgrade

belgrade

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, TX

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:56 PM

The Celestron 8" Advanced VX (GEM) Series Edge ED is sold for $2K with free shipping. The mount/tripod isn't as heavy as the CGEM (though the payload is less too) but one can do decent amateur/beginner's imaging.

#12 Whichwayisnorth

Whichwayisnorth

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:29 PM

The Celestron 8" Advanced VX (GEM) Series Edge ED is sold for $2K with free shipping. The mount/tripod isn't as heavy as the CGEM (though the payload is less too) but one can do decent amateur/beginner's imaging.


This is what I have too. I may have my first great weekend for imaging this coming weekend. Hopefully I'll have some photos to post next week. I LOVE this setup.

#13 thesubwaypusher

thesubwaypusher

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 909
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:56 AM

They both claim no coma but I believe the Celestron boats clear images to the edge. How does it compare with the LX90-ACF? The Meade is $400 less expensive plus it weighs about 18 pounds less than the EdgeHD at 52 pounds. :question:


Wait a few months for Celestron to have that great deal of their CGEM and the OTA together. Although I can't recall if the 8" deal is as great as the 11 was.

#14 Bob Griffiths

Bob Griffiths

    Getting Grouchy

  • *****
  • Posts: 10594
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Frederick Maryland

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:47 AM

Mass transit.... ??

Been 40 or 40 years since I even got on a bus

BUT I honestly would not even think of "carting" anything larger then binoculars...if I was forced to...

Just me.. and how I am...

Bob G

#15 thesubwaypusher

thesubwaypusher

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 909
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:39 PM

Mass transit.... ??

Been 40 or 40 years since I even got on a bus

BUT I honestly would not even think of "carting" anything larger then binoculars...if I was forced to...

Just me.. and how I am...

Bob G


Hi Bob:

I think you think I take my equipment on buses???

NO way man!

#16 pjensen

pjensen

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Highland Village, Tx

Posted 09 May 2013 - 09:42 PM

I'm looking at this as an on-the-go solution, something portable enough to carry with me on mass transit.


Mass transit !?!??

Maybe get a vehicle first.... Then a scope.

I'm not sure you can carry on large items (like a scope) to your seat. The bus driver puts luggage in a large compartment on the side of the bus. A fragile item like a scope would get destroyed in there.

But if you could carry on a large scope (like a 12" tube dob) - it would make a great youtube video. I can just see someone dragging a huge cannon-like tube down the aisle, hitting people with it - trying to get it in a seat. On every turn, the tube would lurch around dangerously... :)

Ok, I have some pretty sick humor. :o

#17 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:14 PM

lol.. well I intend a more conscientious route -

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/B004EHN4...






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics