C14 XLT
C14 XLT
I have never read a bad review of the C14. If you are waiting for that, don’t bother continuing on. My review will only act to further cement the reputation of this fine OTA. But the C14 is more than just another telescope. It is an ownership “Experience” that needs to be considered carefully.
I recently purchased a Celestron CGE mount and a C14 (separate purchases) after many years of false starts. See, I absolutely adored my NexStar 11. It was just so darned easy to use. Setup was a breeze, being a 5 minute job to get it outside and ready for power. Also, the NexStar 11 had decent optics and enough aperture to bring in a fair amount of deep sky even in the moderately light polluted sky of my Central Austin back yard.
I really struggled with the value proposition of going from the 11” to a monster 14” SCT that required a giant mount to carry it. I mean it is only 3” of aperture difference. Calculations suggest that the difference in light gathering would only be maybe half a magnitude. I really had to struggle for the answer to the question: “Is it WORTH it.” Now I am not exactly a rich man, though I am financially quite comfortable. So this was not about money, because I could easily afford a C14 and mount. No, this was totally about whether it was worth the EFFORT to get this giant SCT outside to observe with.
Please allow me to give you my definition of “Effort” though. I am not talking about just the physical effort required to handle the various components, though this is indeed a factor. I consider “effort” to also include the TIME required and AMOUNT of tasks associated with setting up the telescope. With respect to that, The C14 takes about the same amount of time as a 6” refractor on a large GEM mount to set up, and while there is a difference in the weight of the OTA requiring more physical effort for the C14, I was surprised to find that overall, the C14 on a CGE mount only requires a BIT more total effort to get going than a 6” refractor mounted on a mid-weight GEM mount.
But that is me (and I am a bigger than average guy)… For you or your mom or dad or son or daughter, or aunt or uncle, or whoever it might be that is thinking of getting one, the answer might be different.
Make no mistake… The C14 is indeed portable. It is probably the largest aperture telescope that a single person CAN mount on a GEM mount without assistance. Still, the C14 will probably take more effort to set up than most things that you are likely to own. There are a great number of observers that could do this though. and for those that can’t manage mounting the OTA itself, any TWO adults can EASILY get a CGE 1400 up and running, and mostly you might only need two people for getting the big SCT into the saddle. I do it all the time by myself, and I am down to less than two or three swear words per attempt…
Given the need for a large mount, the amount of total effort between one and another is not that great. A large GEM will probably have to be taken down into the three basic components of Head/Counterweight shaft, Tripod, and Counterweights. I COULD carry out the EQ6 head and tripod for my Meade 152ED in one trip, only dropping the weights, but this was at the limit of what I found comfortable, and there were times that I just didn’t want to wrestle with it in that configuration, so I would still break it into three pieces. So for a given medium or large GEM mount, 3 trips to get the mount itself outside is probably about right for the average person. The 4th trip is needed to get the OTA out.
Mounting a C14 OTA is the hardest part, and this is the place where you may want an assistant. First, I lift it onto my right shoulder with the corrector pointing back (Head on east side of mount, looking south). I then straddle the north leg of the mount, and put the southwest corner of the dovetail on the saddle. I can see the southeast dovetail corner this way, and I can maneuver it until the southeast corner of the dovetail goes into the saddle notch. Once the dovetail is started, I can let gravity start to pull the OTA into the saddle while I hold it with my right arm reaching around the underside, holding the rear cell handle. When I get near my balance mark, I can start tightening the two saddle clamps. This sounds simple, but is NOT so easy in practice. I am getting better at it though, and I can now go from having the mount/OTA completely set up inside my house to having it set up on my patio in about 10 minutes. Now I have NEVER attempted to mount the C14 in the dark, and frankly, I think that it would be much harder because it would be very difficult to get the dovetail started.
But it shouldn’t have to be quite so hard. It is my opinion that Celestron should machine the dovetail to narrow the rails at the end, or provide a cast or milled cap that narrows and shallows from the end towards the main dovetail. This would make it MUCH easier to get the dovetail started in the saddle. In fact, this would also eliminate the VERY sharp corners of the dovetails. I have already been gouged deeply enough to draw blood by the corner of the CGE 14 dovetail, because one day when handling the OTA, my hand banged into the sharp point of the dovetail corner while I was in the process of swinging the OTA down from my shoulder. The dovetail corners aren’t like knives but they have quite sharp points, and with 50 lbs of mass behind them a sudden move to catch the OTA if it slips could rip skin. It did this to me… Now the Losmandy dovetails I have owned also had the square corners (though not as pointy), which I would surmise would also present the awkward C14 mounting task, so Losmandy should consider this as well. Either that, or these big mounts could have ramps and relief cuts into the dovetail clamp sides to facilitate getting the C14 dovetail started.
But the reason I think this should be a dovetail issue is because I have never had this issue with any other OTA mounted on a Losmandy type saddle. Still, flaring the saddle a bit might be a good alternative.
My own plan is to file the sharp corners at the back of the dovetail to narrow them a bit, so that getting the dovetail started in the saddle is not as tedious as it is now. Of course this will mar the orange anodizing of the dovetail, but it is already getting marked up anyway, and if I ever sell this, I will take the ding on re-sale happily if it makes it easier to get the giant OTA started in the saddle.
I have tried other methods for mounting the OTA, but shoulder mounting seems to work best for me personally. Some people slide the corrector end of the C14 in from the back of the dovetail, but I had more trouble doing it this way because the weight of the mirror cell is so far away from the corrector that you are having to keep your body back under the mirror end while you reach ahead and blindly try to guide the corrector end of the dovetail into the saddle. Also you have to hold the OTA really closely aligned, or it will bind going in, and holding the mirror cell and jiggling it up and down to keep the OTA inching up didn’t seem to be working for me…
Do you get the idea here???? This isn’t all THAT hard, but then again, it isn’t all the EASY. Mounting a C14 OTA is not a trivial thing to do. It is my opinion that it could made simpler by very slight modifications to the dovetail… Celestron??? Are you listening???
Ok, now to the telescope optics. In a word, they are excellent. I would say that it is optically the best large (bigger than 8”) SCT that I have owned. I was really pleased when I star-tested it. This scope doesn’t have to make any excuses to anyone. With optical quality this good, it is no surprise to me that so many professional and educational observatories include C14s in their number of “working” instruments. It seems that every review I have ever read has given similar praise to the optical quality, so it may be that if you purchase a C14, you are probably far more likely to get an excellent one than not. That alone is something that makes the C14 worth considering.
Since I have not ever looked through a C14 with standard coatings, I cannot comment on the value of the XLT coatings from a comparative standpoint. I will say that when looking straight into the aperture in daylight, the corrector is nearly invisible. The secondary seems to be suspended in space. Clearly, there is something to the XLT coating and water-white glass.
Still, even with the XLT coating, on paper, the difference in light collection between this scope and my NexStar 11 is not enormous. It is just about exactly what I would expect the difference between an 11” SCT and a 14” SCT to be. This would equate to about one-half magnitude difference in limiting magnitude on stars, and a fairly good increase in contrast. The C14 does happen to have the smallest secondary obstruction by percentage of any SCT that I am aware of, being 32% by diameter as opposed to 34% for the 11” SCTs, and 36% for the 9.25”, and given the extra 2.25 inches of clear aperture, I did have a very high expectation for improved contrast performance over the C11, and this has indeed been the case.
Now half a magnitude doesn’t sound like much, but in fact, it translates into a LOT more stars being visible in many objects, or fainter objects that JUST escaped reliable detection in the 11” being easily confirmed. Contrast between faint objects and the background sky should also increase noticeably, and that is the case in practice. On many galaxies and nebula that I have viewed so far, I have noticed that the C14 brings them out a bit more than the C11 did. In some cases, the difference is quite noticeable, and in others (brighter nebula for example), the difference isn’t necessarily all that big. But the C14 IS noticeably better than the N11 at just about everything I have asked it to do.
Well, the ultimate measure to me is how good a telescope is for observing, and the C14 is in the “WOW” category. And coming from someone that has owned maybe 30 telescopes, a “WOW” doesn’t come easily to my lips.
Is the “Wow” enough to make it worth the pain of managing a giant telescope? For me, yes. From my light polluted central Austin back yard, I am seeing things that just weren’t quite visible in my N11 (which is exactly what you would expect, yes???). There are a great many NGC clusters that just didn’t quite resolve in my N11. I could see a pale glow from many magnitude 10 and fainter clusters with the 11”, but often I could not resolve any stars. Now I am starting to see these faint member stars.
Note: Just prior to posting this, I was looking at a previously posted C14 review on Astromart, and my section dealing with M42 oddly seems to almost exactly duplicate part of that review, but I chose to leave it in because, well, it DOES highlight the difference as seen in the 11” SCT, and well, because WOW, was I impressed! The fact that the author of the other review was coming from a 12” SCT while I came from an 11” further confirms my belief that the jump was well worth it, so this section of my review can act as a validation… Here goes…
Let’s talk about some places that I thought I knew well, and have revisited with the C14. First, the Great Orion Nebula is absolutely incredible in this telescope. Previously, my best views were with the NexStar 11. E and F in the Trapezium were usually visible on nights with average seeing, and the nebula showed a wealth of detail. Well, with the C14, M42 has gained an extra layer of intensity, and displays even more texture than in my previous views. The Trapezium is ablaze with 6 member stars. A, B, C, and D are brilliant, while E and F are not only easily visible, but actually quite pronounced. Even in nights of average seeing, they always appear well separated from their primaries.
The intense part of the nebula around the Trapezium has an almost cloud-like appearance, being heavily knotted, with distinct pillowing that almost seems three dimensional. Now here is something that I have not seen before. Previously, when viewing with the NexStar 11, from time to time, I thought that I could detect instances of very faint star lurking deep within this mottling of the most intense parts of the nebula surrounding the Trapezium. On exceptionally good nights, using averted vision and high powers, I would probe this area regularly, and every now and then, I would catch one. With the C14, using direct vision, I am seeing several stars that appear to be deeply imbedded in the dense, bright pillowing of the nebula. I am trying to find these stars in pictures to confirm my observations, however photographic techniques tend to wash these tiny gems out. I can’t estimate the magnitude, because they are embedded in the bright pillowing, but clearly they are very, very faint. Using good Plossls allowing magnifications between 260x and 315x, the Orion Nebula is giving up treasures that I did not realize existed. One recent evening, I spent half an hour just on this one tiny region, and I feel like I am only just scratching the surface.
Let’s talk about clear aperture for a moment to get a better understanding of how good the contrast of the C14 is, because in my experience, the C14 is simply the best of breed, and this will help you understand why. A method many people use to get an idea of the kind of contrast a reflector with excellent optics will provide as compared to an unobstructed telescope like a refractor or off-axis Newtonian is to simply subtract the diameter of the secondary obstruction from the diameter of the primary aperture (for an SCT... Primary mirror for a Newt). Using this simple formula, (and assuming excellent optics) an 8” SCT (2.7” secondary) could theoretically have contrast performance similar to a 5.3” refractor. Move to a 9.25” SCT (3.35”), and you should get contrast similar to a 5.9” refractor because of the gain of .6” clear aperture. Stepping up to an 11” SCT, with its 3.75” obstruction (again, all of these comparisons are based on the SCT having excellent optics, and in perfect alignment), you could theoretically see the same contrast as a 7.25 inch refractor. Now of course SCTs are usually not made as perfectly as the ultra-expensive APO scopes available today, so in the REAL world, maybe you would have to discount these numbers, and my experience suggests that if you take an inch off of each “Equivalent” figure, you will come up with a more realistic comparison, however, I HAVE looked through some superb 8” SCTs that I think could challenge the average 5” APO.
Now anyone that has owned all of these three scopes (I have, so I speak from experience) will tell you that when viewed at the eyepiece, the step up in planetary contrast from the 8” to the 9.25” isn’t all that significant, but that the step form the 8” to the 11” is quite apparent. This is because this step from 8" to 11" adds 1.95” of additional clear aperture. Well the STEP from the 11” SCT to a 14” SCT gives you 9.5 inches of unobstructed aperture, which is a full 2.25 inches leap over the 11”, making it the single biggest jump in the entire Celestron SCT lineup! This represents a 3.6” increase of clear aperture over the highly touted (and questionable as to why in my mind), Celestron C9.25!!! And 9.25 owners please don’t take offense, but in my own personal experience, I thought the C9.25 garnered much of its reputation because it was being compared to the C8, and because well, it had 1.25” more aperture. The one I owned seemed to fit pretty much right in the middle of the 8” and 11” in terms of performance. I myself did not find any “Magic” in the C9.25. But I LIKED it… It was darned good telescope… it led me to purchase a NexStar 11…. which led me to purchase a C14!
Anyway, if you think of contrast improvement as being almost directly proportionate to the amount of unobstructed aperture available (quality of optics being equal), the jump in contrast performance between the C11 and C14 is much bigger than one might think unless you did the math and get the relationship between clear aperture and contrast. I did that math before I finally decided to make the purchase, and my conclusion was that the C14 should have clearly superior contrast to the C11. In the field, this is proving to be the case. At the eyepiece, the contrast of the C14 is noticeably improved over the 11”. Couple this with the fact that this SCT has some of the best optics I have owned in a large SCT, and you get a stunning planetary performer.
I have never seen Saturn better. I stayed up late many nights (This is being written in February of 2006) to wait for Saturn to get over the rooftops, and even though it has been low in the sky until only very recently, in somewhat average seeing conditions, I have had plenty of views that have just about floored me.
With the C14, the rings of Saturn were showing pronounced graduations, with an almost grooved appearance. Evidence of spokes has been readily visible. The Cassini division is not just easy to see, but rater it is PRONOUNCED. It looks REALLY WIDE. Black, like a crevasse in a glacier. It is so wide and black that it literally jumps out. Following it across the face of the globe is easy because the contrast between the rings on either side of the gap and the surface of the globe itself looks so pronounced.
The Crepe ring is dazzling. It is so distinct that it is easily visible crossing the globe as well. Against the ultra-deep black of space between the B ring and the curve of the planet itself, it looks like a lightly frosted glass ring encircling the planet. I have seen the Crepe ring previously with my NexStar 11, but the intensity now is exceptional. It looks very substantial in the C14.
In fact, Saturn looks SO good, that if you want to see what I see, go to Ed Grafton’s Web page and look at the Saturn image at the top. Yeah, that is what I see. The eyepiece view looks like the C14 CCD image at the top of his web page except that the colors are more a bit more muted in the eyepiece. Yes, absolutely, I am seeing visually just about exactly what Ed’s image at the top of the page shows. I think that the Crepe ring actually looks even better at the eyepiece than in this image. If you are using a laptop and can’t see the Crepe ring on your screen well, try tilting the screen a bit. At the eyepiece, the background is much blacker than a computer screen will show it, and the Crepe ring in the eyepiece looks brighter and more silver-blue than the CCD image shows it. While the inner edge of the Crepe ring looks a bit soft to me in the image, in the eyepiece, the inner edge is absolutely crisp seeming to have been cut with a cosmic razorblade. As pretty as this picture is, I think that Saturn looks BETTER in the eyepiece of my C14.
Now I have NEVER seen a planet so well, and didn’t think that it was really possible to match, much less exceed the view visually that these stacked CCD images that hundreds of individual shots can show, but here I am, absolutely stunned at how magnificent Saturn looks visually. I can’t wait for Jupiter!!!
The Moon is almost unreal in the C14. The raw resolving power is hard to appreciate until you see it. The NexStar 11 was really good on the moon, but everywhere I look, I am seeing minute detail that makes it hard to want to move the eyepiece from that spot. I think you could study the moon for a lifetime and not exhaust the amount of detail available in the C14. I am using powers from about 200x up to 488x, and sharpness and brightness remains outstanding, even at extreme magnifications. I had some nights where I was able to use about 400x on the moon with my NexStar 11, but that was about it. The C14 thrives at high power. I find myself typically using 315x to good effect, even in only fair seeing. One a couple of nights I have been able to use 488x on the moon, and the view has been FAR better than I would have expected, even in less than excellent seeing.
Regarding seeing and solar system performance… I was afraid that the Gods of Seeing would punish me for buying a C14. I thought that my Meade 152ED was about as big as I could go and still get a really good result on most nights of average seeing. My C8 was a bit more affected by seeing, making the Meade more enjoyable in all seeing conditions. The 6" refractor seemed clearly superrior to the C8 at just about everything. It should.. It cost me 5 times as much. My C9.25 of a few years ago would probably not beat the 152ED on planetary contrast even a good night anyway, but seeing seemed to limit it to never delivering truly exciting views. The NexStar 11 was very challenged by seeing, but still, on most nights, PATIENCE would reward me with some high resolution, high contrast viewing, providing more detailed views than the refractor from time to time. The C14 by comparison, while not immune to seeing, is easily showing more detail on all of the targets I have observed so far, pretty much in any seeing conditions I have encountered. Oh, less than good seeing still makes stars into fuzzy balls, but due to the 14 inch aperture, they are TINY fuzzy balls. I mean TINY, TINY fuzzy balls that at moderate power still look like pinpoints. On Saturn, Mars, and the Moon, so far, on most nights that I have used it, the C14 has easily provided a more detailed view on all of these targets, without having to wait for those rare moments of really good seeing. So, my feeling now is that you CAN beat seeing conditions with aperture and resolution, and this has led me to believe that the magic number to routinely outperform a good quality 6" refractor on planetary contrast with an SCT on nights of average seeing conditions is in the 12” and larger range.
The C14 bulldozes through light pollution, and perhaps the XLT coatings are partially responsible for this. I find myself pushing deep into extremely faint clusters. Using my 12mm T4 Nagler for 325x, even from my central Austin TX backyard, I am finding new stars everywhere I have ever looked before, and I am finding stars in clusters that formerly only presented a nebulas glow. I can’t wait for Virgo and galaxy hunting this year!
Besides the effort required to get it set up, there are two negatives regarding the C14. First, the focal length is 3910mm. Using my 56mm Plossl, I can only manage a 43 arc-minute (.7 degree) MAXIMUM field of view. The C14 goes so deep that when observing many larger clusters, the member stars will crowd the field of view, making it hard to “Frame” the object. The stars of many of the brighter tight clusters like M37 simply fill the field of view with stars... Now when you bring this much aperture to bare on a given target, you have to remember that you are introducing member stars that just aren’t visible at smaller apertures, so already big clusters get BIGGER! But still, this is one area that I knew would be an issue. My C8 looks like a “Wide-field” scope by comparison!!! Still, a 43 arc minute field will hold MOST clusters, all globulars (though Omega Centauri just about completely filled the eyepiece of the C11), and the vast majority of nebula will fit into that 43 arc-minute field. Oh, I have a 5.5 inch, 800mm refractor for the really big stuff… I am a lucky man…
The other negative (Minor) is observing position. With the NexStar 11, the eyepiece never got all that low or high, but with the C14 on the tall GEM mount, sometimes I have to stand, and sometimes I have to sit with my observing chair lowered quite far. Overall, the NexStar 11 was more comfortable to use. Now the good news is I can still do most of my observing sitting in an adjustable observer’s chair, but I did find myself standing to observe Saturn low in the sky a while ago. But there is no ladder required here, and again, the observer’s chair is more than sufficient for most other viewing. Now I place GREAT emphasis on observing position, because in my great number of years of observing, I have learned that being RELAXED is one of the REAL keys to improving your observing results. If my position is at all strained or uncomfortable, I don’t relax enough to eek out the deepest detail available to me. So the C14 isn’t as good in this one respect as the N11, but only when observing targets low in the sky, where honestly, I don’t really spend much time… Comfort is also one of my key factors in my absolute preference for telescopes with equatorial drives. I have tried every kind of mount in the book, but if it can’t move itself with the stars, I have no use for it. I can’t even use a small refractor on an un-powered mount much less do planetary observing at 300x or 400x!!!
Everywhere I look, I am seeing new detail that wasn’t available to the N11, or any other scope I have ever owned. So, this is without doubt a fantastic telescope. I was worried that for all the extra effort to set up, the difference wouldn’t be that large. But the viewing tells me that the performance difference is easily enough to make up for the extra effort required to set up.
All factors being weighed, it is hard for me to recommend this telescope to EVERYONE. Optically, and in terms of performance, it is stunning. If you are in a fixed observatory, I would say “Go for it.” If you are in a situation where you have to move it in and out when you want to observe, this thing is a bit of a hand-full. I have been into astronomy for 25 years, and for me, I saw the time coming where I couldn’t manage a 14 inch SCT, so for me, this was a now-or-never proposition. I am indeed glad that I took the plunge, because with increasing age and degrading eyesight, it was the chance to go where I may never be able to go again. In fact, I almost tearfully regret not making this purchase 10 years ago.
So consider the proposition carefully. The gains, though VERY real, may only be worth it for only the most ardent of amateur observers. Still, if you are a visual observer, wanting a really large aperture telescope on a driven mount that it is well suited to super-high power, high resolution observing and penetrating deep sky performance, but still capable of being transported and deployed by a single individual driving even a small automobile, well, this is a telescope to die for… It really is all that, and more. With the C14, I am “Living Large” and I am SO VERY delighted that I finally took the plunge!
The C14 clearly exceeded my expectations. If you can mount it, the C14 gets my very highest recommendation… It doesn’t get any better than this in the portable SCT world.
I honestly believe that my quest for the best telescope I will ever own is over. Nothing else seems interesting anymore.
My regards, and may the viewing be with you.
PS. I reviewed the CGE Mount separately rather than make one giant review, but to close the loop, I wanted to say that in my opinion, the CGE is a great mount for the C14. I have been completely satisfied with it as a visual observing mount, finding it to be more than capable of handling the weight of the C14 OTA. It is a VERY solid mount with this scope, and at the powers I am using lately, I am thankful for that attribute. I have seen some writings on the web that suggest that the C14 might be a bit much for the CGE, but I do not think that is the case at all. The majority of the weight of the C14 OTA sits VERY close to the back of the dovetail, so that the polar inertia of this configuration is very low compared to mounting something like a long Newtonian or refractor. It is hard to get it to shake, and if you DO manage to get it to shake (which takes a definite bump), dampening is practically immediate. It is absolutely the most solid and fastest dampening scope/mount combination I have ever owned, and I have had a bunch of different mount/OTA combinations. So considering the C14 and CGE mount together combine to make the CGE 1400, by way of inference, I am giving the CGE 1400 package a glowing recommendation.
Click here for more about the OTA only. -Ed.
Click here for more about the OTA/mount combo. -Ed.
Follow-up:
In an effort to facilitate easier mounting, I decided to modify the dovetail of my C14 CGE OTA. As you recall, I said that it was difficult to get the dovetail started in the saddle.
My modification consisted of filing the very sharp corners off of the dovetail at the mirror-cell end of the OTA. I filed maybe 3/16ths of an inch off of the outside of each corner, making a taper maybe half an inch long running towards the front of the scope. The aluminum is very soft, and it only took five minutes to make this modification.
The results were exactly what I had hoped for. The OTA does not have to be so quite perfectly aligned to the saddle to get it started. It can be cocked a bit to one side or the other, and the corners still clear the lips on the clamps. This makes it MUCH easier to get the scope mounted. Celestron and Losmandy should consider making this change to production C14 Dovetails before the anodizing is put on.
Observing follow-up: Wow...
I have never read a bad review of the C14. If you are waiting for that, don’t bother continuing on. My review will only act to further cement the reputation of this fine OTA. But the C14 is more than just another telescope. It is an ownership “Experience” that needs to be considered carefully.
I recently purchased a Celestron CGE mount and a C14 (separate purchases) after many years of false starts. See, I absolutely adored my NexStar 11. It was just so darned easy to use. Setup was a breeze, being a 5 minute job to get it outside and ready for power. Also, the NexStar 11 had decent optics and enough aperture to bring in a fair amount of deep sky even in the moderately light polluted sky of my Central Austin back yard.
I really struggled with the value proposition of going from the 11” to a monster 14” SCT that required a giant mount to carry it. I mean it is only 3” of aperture difference. Calculations suggest that the difference in light gathering would only be maybe half a magnitude. I really had to struggle for the answer to the question: “Is it WORTH it.” Now I am not exactly a rich man, though I am financially quite comfortable. So this was not about money, because I could easily afford a C14 and mount. No, this was totally about whether it was worth the EFFORT to get this giant SCT outside to observe with.
Please allow me to give you my definition of “Effort” though. I am not talking about just the physical effort required to handle the various components, though this is indeed a factor. I consider “effort” to also include the TIME required and AMOUNT of tasks associated with setting up the telescope. With respect to that, The C14 takes about the same amount of time as a 6” refractor on a large GEM mount to set up, and while there is a difference in the weight of the OTA requiring more physical effort for the C14, I was surprised to find that overall, the C14 on a CGE mount only requires a BIT more total effort to get going than a 6” refractor mounted on a mid-weight GEM mount.
But that is me (and I am a bigger than average guy)… For you or your mom or dad or son or daughter, or aunt or uncle, or whoever it might be that is thinking of getting one, the answer might be different.
Make no mistake… The C14 is indeed portable. It is probably the largest aperture telescope that a single person CAN mount on a GEM mount without assistance. Still, the C14 will probably take more effort to set up than most things that you are likely to own. There are a great number of observers that could do this though. and for those that can’t manage mounting the OTA itself, any TWO adults can EASILY get a CGE 1400 up and running, and mostly you might only need two people for getting the big SCT into the saddle. I do it all the time by myself, and I am down to less than two or three swear words per attempt…
Given the need for a large mount, the amount of total effort between one and another is not that great. A large GEM will probably have to be taken down into the three basic components of Head/Counterweight shaft, Tripod, and Counterweights. I COULD carry out the EQ6 head and tripod for my Meade 152ED in one trip, only dropping the weights, but this was at the limit of what I found comfortable, and there were times that I just didn’t want to wrestle with it in that configuration, so I would still break it into three pieces. So for a given medium or large GEM mount, 3 trips to get the mount itself outside is probably about right for the average person. The 4th trip is needed to get the OTA out.
Mounting a C14 OTA is the hardest part, and this is the place where you may want an assistant. First, I lift it onto my right shoulder with the corrector pointing back (Head on east side of mount, looking south). I then straddle the north leg of the mount, and put the southwest corner of the dovetail on the saddle. I can see the southeast dovetail corner this way, and I can maneuver it until the southeast corner of the dovetail goes into the saddle notch. Once the dovetail is started, I can let gravity start to pull the OTA into the saddle while I hold it with my right arm reaching around the underside, holding the rear cell handle. When I get near my balance mark, I can start tightening the two saddle clamps. This sounds simple, but is NOT so easy in practice. I am getting better at it though, and I can now go from having the mount/OTA completely set up inside my house to having it set up on my patio in about 10 minutes. Now I have NEVER attempted to mount the C14 in the dark, and frankly, I think that it would be much harder because it would be very difficult to get the dovetail started.
But it shouldn’t have to be quite so hard. It is my opinion that Celestron should machine the dovetail to narrow the rails at the end, or provide a cast or milled cap that narrows and shallows from the end towards the main dovetail. This would make it MUCH easier to get the dovetail started in the saddle. In fact, this would also eliminate the VERY sharp corners of the dovetails. I have already been gouged deeply enough to draw blood by the corner of the CGE 14 dovetail, because one day when handling the OTA, my hand banged into the sharp point of the dovetail corner while I was in the process of swinging the OTA down from my shoulder. The dovetail corners aren’t like knives but they have quite sharp points, and with 50 lbs of mass behind them a sudden move to catch the OTA if it slips could rip skin. It did this to me… Now the Losmandy dovetails I have owned also had the square corners (though not as pointy), which I would surmise would also present the awkward C14 mounting task, so Losmandy should consider this as well. Either that, or these big mounts could have ramps and relief cuts into the dovetail clamp sides to facilitate getting the C14 dovetail started.
But the reason I think this should be a dovetail issue is because I have never had this issue with any other OTA mounted on a Losmandy type saddle. Still, flaring the saddle a bit might be a good alternative.
My own plan is to file the sharp corners at the back of the dovetail to narrow them a bit, so that getting the dovetail started in the saddle is not as tedious as it is now. Of course this will mar the orange anodizing of the dovetail, but it is already getting marked up anyway, and if I ever sell this, I will take the ding on re-sale happily if it makes it easier to get the giant OTA started in the saddle.
I have tried other methods for mounting the OTA, but shoulder mounting seems to work best for me personally. Some people slide the corrector end of the C14 in from the back of the dovetail, but I had more trouble doing it this way because the weight of the mirror cell is so far away from the corrector that you are having to keep your body back under the mirror end while you reach ahead and blindly try to guide the corrector end of the dovetail into the saddle. Also you have to hold the OTA really closely aligned, or it will bind going in, and holding the mirror cell and jiggling it up and down to keep the OTA inching up didn’t seem to be working for me…
Do you get the idea here???? This isn’t all THAT hard, but then again, it isn’t all the EASY. Mounting a C14 OTA is not a trivial thing to do. It is my opinion that it could made simpler by very slight modifications to the dovetail… Celestron??? Are you listening???
Ok, now to the telescope optics. In a word, they are excellent. I would say that it is optically the best large (bigger than 8”) SCT that I have owned. I was really pleased when I star-tested it. This scope doesn’t have to make any excuses to anyone. With optical quality this good, it is no surprise to me that so many professional and educational observatories include C14s in their number of “working” instruments. It seems that every review I have ever read has given similar praise to the optical quality, so it may be that if you purchase a C14, you are probably far more likely to get an excellent one than not. That alone is something that makes the C14 worth considering.
Since I have not ever looked through a C14 with standard coatings, I cannot comment on the value of the XLT coatings from a comparative standpoint. I will say that when looking straight into the aperture in daylight, the corrector is nearly invisible. The secondary seems to be suspended in space. Clearly, there is something to the XLT coating and water-white glass.
Still, even with the XLT coating, on paper, the difference in light collection between this scope and my NexStar 11 is not enormous. It is just about exactly what I would expect the difference between an 11” SCT and a 14” SCT to be. This would equate to about one-half magnitude difference in limiting magnitude on stars, and a fairly good increase in contrast. The C14 does happen to have the smallest secondary obstruction by percentage of any SCT that I am aware of, being 32% by diameter as opposed to 34% for the 11” SCTs, and 36% for the 9.25”, and given the extra 2.25 inches of clear aperture, I did have a very high expectation for improved contrast performance over the C11, and this has indeed been the case.
Now half a magnitude doesn’t sound like much, but in fact, it translates into a LOT more stars being visible in many objects, or fainter objects that JUST escaped reliable detection in the 11” being easily confirmed. Contrast between faint objects and the background sky should also increase noticeably, and that is the case in practice. On many galaxies and nebula that I have viewed so far, I have noticed that the C14 brings them out a bit more than the C11 did. In some cases, the difference is quite noticeable, and in others (brighter nebula for example), the difference isn’t necessarily all that big. But the C14 IS noticeably better than the N11 at just about everything I have asked it to do.
Well, the ultimate measure to me is how good a telescope is for observing, and the C14 is in the “WOW” category. And coming from someone that has owned maybe 30 telescopes, a “WOW” doesn’t come easily to my lips.
Is the “Wow” enough to make it worth the pain of managing a giant telescope? For me, yes. From my light polluted central Austin back yard, I am seeing things that just weren’t quite visible in my N11 (which is exactly what you would expect, yes???). There are a great many NGC clusters that just didn’t quite resolve in my N11. I could see a pale glow from many magnitude 10 and fainter clusters with the 11”, but often I could not resolve any stars. Now I am starting to see these faint member stars.
Note: Just prior to posting this, I was looking at a previously posted C14 review on Astromart, and my section dealing with M42 oddly seems to almost exactly duplicate part of that review, but I chose to leave it in because, well, it DOES highlight the difference as seen in the 11” SCT, and well, because WOW, was I impressed! The fact that the author of the other review was coming from a 12” SCT while I came from an 11” further confirms my belief that the jump was well worth it, so this section of my review can act as a validation… Here goes…
Let’s talk about some places that I thought I knew well, and have revisited with the C14. First, the Great Orion Nebula is absolutely incredible in this telescope. Previously, my best views were with the NexStar 11. E and F in the Trapezium were usually visible on nights with average seeing, and the nebula showed a wealth of detail. Well, with the C14, M42 has gained an extra layer of intensity, and displays even more texture than in my previous views. The Trapezium is ablaze with 6 member stars. A, B, C, and D are brilliant, while E and F are not only easily visible, but actually quite pronounced. Even in nights of average seeing, they always appear well separated from their primaries.
The intense part of the nebula around the Trapezium has an almost cloud-like appearance, being heavily knotted, with distinct pillowing that almost seems three dimensional. Now here is something that I have not seen before. Previously, when viewing with the NexStar 11, from time to time, I thought that I could detect instances of very faint star lurking deep within this mottling of the most intense parts of the nebula surrounding the Trapezium. On exceptionally good nights, using averted vision and high powers, I would probe this area regularly, and every now and then, I would catch one. With the C14, using direct vision, I am seeing several stars that appear to be deeply imbedded in the dense, bright pillowing of the nebula. I am trying to find these stars in pictures to confirm my observations, however photographic techniques tend to wash these tiny gems out. I can’t estimate the magnitude, because they are embedded in the bright pillowing, but clearly they are very, very faint. Using good Plossls allowing magnifications between 260x and 315x, the Orion Nebula is giving up treasures that I did not realize existed. One recent evening, I spent half an hour just on this one tiny region, and I feel like I am only just scratching the surface.
Let’s talk about clear aperture for a moment to get a better understanding of how good the contrast of the C14 is, because in my experience, the C14 is simply the best of breed, and this will help you understand why. A method many people use to get an idea of the kind of contrast a reflector with excellent optics will provide as compared to an unobstructed telescope like a refractor or off-axis Newtonian is to simply subtract the diameter of the secondary obstruction from the diameter of the primary aperture (for an SCT... Primary mirror for a Newt). Using this simple formula, (and assuming excellent optics) an 8” SCT (2.7” secondary) could theoretically have contrast performance similar to a 5.3” refractor. Move to a 9.25” SCT (3.35”), and you should get contrast similar to a 5.9” refractor because of the gain of .6” clear aperture. Stepping up to an 11” SCT, with its 3.75” obstruction (again, all of these comparisons are based on the SCT having excellent optics, and in perfect alignment), you could theoretically see the same contrast as a 7.25 inch refractor. Now of course SCTs are usually not made as perfectly as the ultra-expensive APO scopes available today, so in the REAL world, maybe you would have to discount these numbers, and my experience suggests that if you take an inch off of each “Equivalent” figure, you will come up with a more realistic comparison, however, I HAVE looked through some superb 8” SCTs that I think could challenge the average 5” APO.
Now anyone that has owned all of these three scopes (I have, so I speak from experience) will tell you that when viewed at the eyepiece, the step up in planetary contrast from the 8” to the 9.25” isn’t all that significant, but that the step form the 8” to the 11” is quite apparent. This is because this step from 8" to 11" adds 1.95” of additional clear aperture. Well the STEP from the 11” SCT to a 14” SCT gives you 9.5 inches of unobstructed aperture, which is a full 2.25 inches leap over the 11”, making it the single biggest jump in the entire Celestron SCT lineup! This represents a 3.6” increase of clear aperture over the highly touted (and questionable as to why in my mind), Celestron C9.25!!! And 9.25 owners please don’t take offense, but in my own personal experience, I thought the C9.25 garnered much of its reputation because it was being compared to the C8, and because well, it had 1.25” more aperture. The one I owned seemed to fit pretty much right in the middle of the 8” and 11” in terms of performance. I myself did not find any “Magic” in the C9.25. But I LIKED it… It was darned good telescope… it led me to purchase a NexStar 11…. which led me to purchase a C14!
Anyway, if you think of contrast improvement as being almost directly proportionate to the amount of unobstructed aperture available (quality of optics being equal), the jump in contrast performance between the C11 and C14 is much bigger than one might think unless you did the math and get the relationship between clear aperture and contrast. I did that math before I finally decided to make the purchase, and my conclusion was that the C14 should have clearly superior contrast to the C11. In the field, this is proving to be the case. At the eyepiece, the contrast of the C14 is noticeably improved over the 11”. Couple this with the fact that this SCT has some of the best optics I have owned in a large SCT, and you get a stunning planetary performer.
I have never seen Saturn better. I stayed up late many nights (This is being written in February of 2006) to wait for Saturn to get over the rooftops, and even though it has been low in the sky until only very recently, in somewhat average seeing conditions, I have had plenty of views that have just about floored me.
With the C14, the rings of Saturn were showing pronounced graduations, with an almost grooved appearance. Evidence of spokes has been readily visible. The Cassini division is not just easy to see, but rater it is PRONOUNCED. It looks REALLY WIDE. Black, like a crevasse in a glacier. It is so wide and black that it literally jumps out. Following it across the face of the globe is easy because the contrast between the rings on either side of the gap and the surface of the globe itself looks so pronounced.
The Crepe ring is dazzling. It is so distinct that it is easily visible crossing the globe as well. Against the ultra-deep black of space between the B ring and the curve of the planet itself, it looks like a lightly frosted glass ring encircling the planet. I have seen the Crepe ring previously with my NexStar 11, but the intensity now is exceptional. It looks very substantial in the C14.
In fact, Saturn looks SO good, that if you want to see what I see, go to Ed Grafton’s Web page and look at the Saturn image at the top. Yeah, that is what I see. The eyepiece view looks like the C14 CCD image at the top of his web page except that the colors are more a bit more muted in the eyepiece. Yes, absolutely, I am seeing visually just about exactly what Ed’s image at the top of the page shows. I think that the Crepe ring actually looks even better at the eyepiece than in this image. If you are using a laptop and can’t see the Crepe ring on your screen well, try tilting the screen a bit. At the eyepiece, the background is much blacker than a computer screen will show it, and the Crepe ring in the eyepiece looks brighter and more silver-blue than the CCD image shows it. While the inner edge of the Crepe ring looks a bit soft to me in the image, in the eyepiece, the inner edge is absolutely crisp seeming to have been cut with a cosmic razorblade. As pretty as this picture is, I think that Saturn looks BETTER in the eyepiece of my C14.
Now I have NEVER seen a planet so well, and didn’t think that it was really possible to match, much less exceed the view visually that these stacked CCD images that hundreds of individual shots can show, but here I am, absolutely stunned at how magnificent Saturn looks visually. I can’t wait for Jupiter!!!
The Moon is almost unreal in the C14. The raw resolving power is hard to appreciate until you see it. The NexStar 11 was really good on the moon, but everywhere I look, I am seeing minute detail that makes it hard to want to move the eyepiece from that spot. I think you could study the moon for a lifetime and not exhaust the amount of detail available in the C14. I am using powers from about 200x up to 488x, and sharpness and brightness remains outstanding, even at extreme magnifications. I had some nights where I was able to use about 400x on the moon with my NexStar 11, but that was about it. The C14 thrives at high power. I find myself typically using 315x to good effect, even in only fair seeing. One a couple of nights I have been able to use 488x on the moon, and the view has been FAR better than I would have expected, even in less than excellent seeing.
Regarding seeing and solar system performance… I was afraid that the Gods of Seeing would punish me for buying a C14. I thought that my Meade 152ED was about as big as I could go and still get a really good result on most nights of average seeing. My C8 was a bit more affected by seeing, making the Meade more enjoyable in all seeing conditions. The 6" refractor seemed clearly superrior to the C8 at just about everything. It should.. It cost me 5 times as much. My C9.25 of a few years ago would probably not beat the 152ED on planetary contrast even a good night anyway, but seeing seemed to limit it to never delivering truly exciting views. The NexStar 11 was very challenged by seeing, but still, on most nights, PATIENCE would reward me with some high resolution, high contrast viewing, providing more detailed views than the refractor from time to time. The C14 by comparison, while not immune to seeing, is easily showing more detail on all of the targets I have observed so far, pretty much in any seeing conditions I have encountered. Oh, less than good seeing still makes stars into fuzzy balls, but due to the 14 inch aperture, they are TINY fuzzy balls. I mean TINY, TINY fuzzy balls that at moderate power still look like pinpoints. On Saturn, Mars, and the Moon, so far, on most nights that I have used it, the C14 has easily provided a more detailed view on all of these targets, without having to wait for those rare moments of really good seeing. So, my feeling now is that you CAN beat seeing conditions with aperture and resolution, and this has led me to believe that the magic number to routinely outperform a good quality 6" refractor on planetary contrast with an SCT on nights of average seeing conditions is in the 12” and larger range.
The C14 bulldozes through light pollution, and perhaps the XLT coatings are partially responsible for this. I find myself pushing deep into extremely faint clusters. Using my 12mm T4 Nagler for 325x, even from my central Austin TX backyard, I am finding new stars everywhere I have ever looked before, and I am finding stars in clusters that formerly only presented a nebulas glow. I can’t wait for Virgo and galaxy hunting this year!
Besides the effort required to get it set up, there are two negatives regarding the C14. First, the focal length is 3910mm. Using my 56mm Plossl, I can only manage a 43 arc-minute (.7 degree) MAXIMUM field of view. The C14 goes so deep that when observing many larger clusters, the member stars will crowd the field of view, making it hard to “Frame” the object. The stars of many of the brighter tight clusters like M37 simply fill the field of view with stars... Now when you bring this much aperture to bare on a given target, you have to remember that you are introducing member stars that just aren’t visible at smaller apertures, so already big clusters get BIGGER! But still, this is one area that I knew would be an issue. My C8 looks like a “Wide-field” scope by comparison!!! Still, a 43 arc minute field will hold MOST clusters, all globulars (though Omega Centauri just about completely filled the eyepiece of the C11), and the vast majority of nebula will fit into that 43 arc-minute field. Oh, I have a 5.5 inch, 800mm refractor for the really big stuff… I am a lucky man…
The other negative (Minor) is observing position. With the NexStar 11, the eyepiece never got all that low or high, but with the C14 on the tall GEM mount, sometimes I have to stand, and sometimes I have to sit with my observing chair lowered quite far. Overall, the NexStar 11 was more comfortable to use. Now the good news is I can still do most of my observing sitting in an adjustable observer’s chair, but I did find myself standing to observe Saturn low in the sky a while ago. But there is no ladder required here, and again, the observer’s chair is more than sufficient for most other viewing. Now I place GREAT emphasis on observing position, because in my great number of years of observing, I have learned that being RELAXED is one of the REAL keys to improving your observing results. If my position is at all strained or uncomfortable, I don’t relax enough to eek out the deepest detail available to me. So the C14 isn’t as good in this one respect as the N11, but only when observing targets low in the sky, where honestly, I don’t really spend much time… Comfort is also one of my key factors in my absolute preference for telescopes with equatorial drives. I have tried every kind of mount in the book, but if it can’t move itself with the stars, I have no use for it. I can’t even use a small refractor on an un-powered mount much less do planetary observing at 300x or 400x!!!
Everywhere I look, I am seeing new detail that wasn’t available to the N11, or any other scope I have ever owned. So, this is without doubt a fantastic telescope. I was worried that for all the extra effort to set up, the difference wouldn’t be that large. But the viewing tells me that the performance difference is easily enough to make up for the extra effort required to set up.
All factors being weighed, it is hard for me to recommend this telescope to EVERYONE. Optically, and in terms of performance, it is stunning. If you are in a fixed observatory, I would say “Go for it.” If you are in a situation where you have to move it in and out when you want to observe, this thing is a bit of a hand-full. I have been into astronomy for 25 years, and for me, I saw the time coming where I couldn’t manage a 14 inch SCT, so for me, this was a now-or-never proposition. I am indeed glad that I took the plunge, because with increasing age and degrading eyesight, it was the chance to go where I may never be able to go again. In fact, I almost tearfully regret not making this purchase 10 years ago.
So consider the proposition carefully. The gains, though VERY real, may only be worth it for only the most ardent of amateur observers. Still, if you are a visual observer, wanting a really large aperture telescope on a driven mount that it is well suited to super-high power, high resolution observing and penetrating deep sky performance, but still capable of being transported and deployed by a single individual driving even a small automobile, well, this is a telescope to die for… It really is all that, and more. With the C14, I am “Living Large” and I am SO VERY delighted that I finally took the plunge!
The C14 clearly exceeded my expectations. If you can mount it, the C14 gets my very highest recommendation… It doesn’t get any better than this in the portable SCT world.
I honestly believe that my quest for the best telescope I will ever own is over. Nothing else seems interesting anymore.
My regards, and may the viewing be with you.
PS. I reviewed the CGE Mount separately rather than make one giant review, but to close the loop, I wanted to say that in my opinion, the CGE is a great mount for the C14. I have been completely satisfied with it as a visual observing mount, finding it to be more than capable of handling the weight of the C14 OTA. It is a VERY solid mount with this scope, and at the powers I am using lately, I am thankful for that attribute. I have seen some writings on the web that suggest that the C14 might be a bit much for the CGE, but I do not think that is the case at all. The majority of the weight of the C14 OTA sits VERY close to the back of the dovetail, so that the polar inertia of this configuration is very low compared to mounting something like a long Newtonian or refractor. It is hard to get it to shake, and if you DO manage to get it to shake (which takes a definite bump), dampening is practically immediate. It is absolutely the most solid and fastest dampening scope/mount combination I have ever owned, and I have had a bunch of different mount/OTA combinations. So considering the C14 and CGE mount together combine to make the CGE 1400, by way of inference, I am giving the CGE 1400 package a glowing recommendation.
Click here for more about the OTA only. -Ed.
Click here for more about the OTA/mount combo. -Ed.
Follow-up:
In an effort to facilitate easier mounting, I decided to modify the dovetail of my C14 CGE OTA. As you recall, I said that it was difficult to get the dovetail started in the saddle.
My modification consisted of filing the very sharp corners off of the dovetail at the mirror-cell end of the OTA. I filed maybe 3/16ths of an inch off of the outside of each corner, making a taper maybe half an inch long running towards the front of the scope. The aluminum is very soft, and it only took five minutes to make this modification.
The results were exactly what I had hoped for. The OTA does not have to be so quite perfectly aligned to the saddle to get it started. It can be cocked a bit to one side or the other, and the corners still clear the lips on the clamps. This makes it MUCH easier to get the scope mounted. Celestron and Losmandy should consider making this change to production C14 Dovetails before the anodizing is put on.
Observing follow-up: Wow...
