Buy Meade Lx 90 ACF or Celestron CPC

Hi,
I know it has been asked in various forms before,but before I buy again with my hard won $money I was hoping someone who is familiar with both scopes can give me sound advice.
Fortunately, advice is free on this forum of great folks!!
I am moving up from a Celestron CPC 800 which I really liked.

Should I now buy the Meade LX 90 ACF ten inch or the Celestron CPC 1100 eleven inch ???

They are very close in price. The Meade is $100 cheaper but is throwing in some extra stuff with a new purchase which I might be able to resale for a $100 or so. The CPC 1100 is large in aperature but look like it is around 14 pounds or more in weight. Thanks for any freely given opinions.
Jay

Jay Martin said:

Hi,
I know it has been asked in various forms before,but before I buy again with my hard won $money I was hoping someone who is familiar with both scopes can give me sound advice.
Fortunately, advice is free on this forum of great folks!!
I am moving up from a Celestron CPC 800 which I really liked.

Should I now buy the Meade LX 90 ACF ten inch or the Celestron CPC 1100 eleven inch ???

They are very close in price. The Meade is $100 cheaper but is throwing in some extra stuff with a new purchase which I might be able to resale for a $100 or so. The CPC 1100 is large in aperature but look like it is around 14 pounds or more in weight. Thanks for any freely given opinions.
Jay

I like the LX90 VERY much. HOWSOMEEVER, Meade is currently having problems with that scope's declination drive. I wouldn't jump right now.

You've probably already considered this, but if you've owned a CPC 800, you've probably mastered the hand control and the instruction set. There would be no learning curve with the CPC 1100, everything would be familiar. This is important with computerized equipment as it allows one to determine quickly whether the device is operating correctly. With the LX90, there would be little mysteries and nagging concerns for awhile that might taint your observing sessions, not to mention the effort it would take to learn the new system.

This comes from an old guy with a strong back and a weakening mind who finds learning new gizmos to be a PITA. Your situation may be different.
Bob

There is a real difference between these two optical systems. Although both are SCTs, the Meade has an aplanic coma-free design, whereas the Celestron is an all-spherical mirror design similar in performance to a Dall-Kirkham along with characteristic off-axis coma.

What does this mean to you the average telescope user? Well, having a coma-free design puts other restraints on the optics. The corrector of the Meade ACF is twice as strong as the Celestron, resulting in more sphero-chromatism on axis. The result is lower performance on-axis but better off-axis images for the Meade. The Celestron all-spherical design theoretically would have better on-axis performance and worse off-axis.

Can you see the difference normally? Visually there is little benefit to the off-axis coma-correction of the Meade. Only when using it for CCD imaging with big chips would you see the benefit to the wider corrected field of the ACF. Stars are sharp over a wide CCD field, whereas the celestron shows quite comatic stars not too far off-axis. One can tame these somewhat with certain telecompressor accessories, but not fully supress them.

There are other considerations besides this if you are primarily a visual user. An 11" scope has more light grasp than a 10". Mechanically there are differences also. Mirror shift, collimation shift, focus shift as you move the scope around the sky can put a real damper on your observing pleasure (these are real problems and all these scopes have them to some degree - minor in some, major in others). The Celestron design certainly is fussy with collimation, but the ACF design with its hyperbolic secondary is many times more sensitive to miscollimation. You should check these scopes out before you buy.

Rolando