I have most of these, and am a very, very, very happy Baader user.
I have Clicklocks for every scope now, and 2-1.25 Clicklock reducers that blow all the others away.
I believe the 9.25 comes with the oversize rear port with an aluminum adapter to the standard SCT 2" thread, like my C11. I would recommend you get the direct thread-on Clicklock for the oversize threads on the rear cell, as it unchokes the baffle exit (at least on the 11 and 14, I assume the same on the 9.25). If you don't get that 30mm 82 degree eyepiece today, you may get it later!
Add the superb Clicklock 2" holder to 1.25 reducer and you are all set to use either.
I have scopes from 76mm to 11 inch and still use 1.25 eyepieces 95% of the time, so you can save initially by staying 1.25 barrel sizes on the eyepieces.
Having a 2" diagonal does not mean you need 2" eyepieces! I use the clicklock reducer all the time in the 2" diagonal with 1.25 eyepieces. When appropriate, the 2" 30mm 82 degree eyepiece (NOTE that the 2" barrel is what limits available fov, the 30mm 82 deg gives maximum fov but at a higher power; more field only comes with 2.7 or 3" barrels! A 20mm 82 degree is also barrel limited for the 1.25 barrel, I see no reason to get a 24mm 82 degree ep in a 2" barrel, but a 100 would make sense).
I use an older but super Vixen 1.25 mirror diagonal, and would recommend the modern Baader Clicklock equipped version, or any high grade mirror consistently recommended by the CN users. I would note that visual brightness difference detection is reportedly limited in our eye-brain system, so I would lend more weight to flatness and image quality than to get 2-4% more throughput. There have been reports of some dielectrics as having flatness compromised in the coating process, not the top brands though.
I have an older 2" Celestron/Baader/Zeiss prism, superb, but I have others that seem as sharp; I break it out when I don't want to second guess myself on maximum sharpness.
I would get the Baader 2" Clicklock mirror now or later, and a Baader or other super quality 1.25 now (the Baader line is complex, and I am not sure of their 1.25 options, see the Baader english site and agena's analysis at https://agenaastro.c...r-diagonal.html
I use the 1.25 vixen and my 2" (Intes?) mirror diagonals about the same % since the 1.25 fits in my zoom + 3 fixed ep "go" belly bag. The Baader prism weight makes it a 'special occasion' player.
I love the Baader Zoom AND matched barlow. Extremely sharp, acceptable field (even though I am an 82 degree eyepiece guy!) and super convenient. Buy it as a set, it should save a bunch, mine did. It rocks in sharpness with the matched barlow. Don't fret the field! Even when I use my zero friction alt az it is acceptably wide.
I still use single fl eyepieces, but prices for good, 82 deg minimum ones, add up rapidly. Pretty safe to buy Televue used. But read reviews on others carefully. Baader has several well regarded ones, and the set of Q Turret with Baader Genuine Orthos is an overlooked bargain (again, 50ish degrees, sharp, but limited eye relief).
I use my short Nagler - UO Widescan mix in a discontinued Celestron prism or Borg mirror 4 eyepiece turret, so convenient I use the Zoom mostly when travelling to observe. Turrets are great zoom alternatives but $$$ to 'fill'.
Functionally, the turret and Zoom are nearly equivalent, but the 'expensive' Zoom is likely 1/3 the cost of my loaded turret.
The Zoom field is VERY acceptable, and the dual barrel makes it compatible to both diagonal choices, a huge plus. I do use the barlow when doing planets or other high power uses.
The Zoom, like the turret, allows immediate matching of magnification to seeing conditions, NOT to be underestimated in ease of scope use, at least for me. Less accidental jostling of the scope off target as well.
Others have questioned starting with a 9.25, which I have not used. Looking up posts on weight, the tripod is aboug 8 pounds more BUT most comments say it a far better choice than the 8 tripod. An 11, on the other hand is a back breaker, but I love mine. A 9.25 is tempting though!
The ota is 8 pounds or so heavier.
Since the heavier tripod is nearly universally preferred, the weight penalty is not as severe as it might appear, but try to physical wrestle both before finalizing. If you can't, go 9.25. Image scale and brightness are worth it.
I am not a fan of 'beginner' scopes unless the tradeoff is real (dobs are great starters), or you are leveling your kichen table with a stack of extra $100 bills, in which case wanting to upgrade but not being able to afford it won't happen.
Beginners need top equipment, as long as it is user friendly, either an 8 or 9.25 Evolution will serve that need. If the weight is not a problem, I'd stay with the 9.25. This advice comes from wasting money on lesser equipment in 4 hobbies.
The Evolution is easy to use, easy to set up and you should immediately add a inexpensive tablet and the SkySafari Plus or the Celestron app. Just make sure the weight won't stop you from going outside, if so go for the 8.
Edited by markb, 18 June 2019 - 03:08 PM.