Celestron Ultima 9.25

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Telescope Reviews:Celestron Ultima 9.25

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 1

Celestron Ultima 9.25
Optical quality of main tube is great, but declination setting
circle (only one) is hard to read, and quality of the metallized
tape indicator, and its accuracy, are suspect. Drive system performs
well on 9v battery. Finderscope is a joke. Heavy duty wedge with
deluxe latitude adjuster is not robust - without modifications it can
flex and let wedge and telescope fall jarringly.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38435

Celestron Ultima 9.25
Optics are first rate for a SCT; performs very favorably to a 10"; have had no problems whatsoever with the fork/wedge assys.(although if you loosened the bolts too much you could have the problem described by another user) Worm gear drive seems very accurate. Fork/wedge castings are nicely finished. The 6X30 finder is a bit feeble; a retrofit of a 8X50 would be appropriate.




Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38436

Celestron Ultima 9.25
I have found this scope to out perform 10" LX200 in both brightness and contrast. I can't explain why but I have herd it said that the 9.25 optical tube puts more light where it should because of a different optical prescription as compared to typical SCTs. The 9.25 dilivers more contrast than any of the other Celestron SCTs models and may be due to this optifcal prescription difference. Too bad it's not so popular because if these facts were realized, this scope would out-sell the C8s and all Meade scopes up to 10 inches. It may not have the electronics or the select and go capabilities of the Meade LX series but who cares when you have optical performance such as this. Optical performance is more important than bells and whistles. I've herd it said by many others who were not yet familure with this model say: "the 9.25 is the best SCT I have ever looked through" "yes! contrast is so important"

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38437

Celestron Ultima 9.25
Great views through my 9.25". I agree with everything that's been said here. I would take it over a Meade 10" any day!

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38439

Celestron Ultima 9.25
I am owner of the C9.25 since Feb 2000. I bought it second hand (used) as follow up of my 94mm Brandon.
The C9.25 is a real killer; on the Moon I saw details in Gassendi I never saw with a 150mm Lichtenknecker F-15 refractor (Fraunhofer doublet)and with a 150mm Schiefspiegler F-20!! A small rille in Gassendi needs a resolving of 0.40'and I saw it clearly. A star test shows the diffraction rings the same inside and outside focus. The optics must have 1/5 <> 1/6 wavefront. Rating optics: 9
The F-ratio of the primary and secondary mirrors is the best kept secret from Celestron. I've heard from a few people it is respectively F-2.5<>F-4. Another told me it is F-3<>F3.3.
In deep sky I see the colors in the Orion M-42 and the magn 13.2 star aside M-57 easely.
I am looking forward to Jupiter, Saturn and Mars when they reach opposition this year. I will let you know.

Ido Oosterveld
Netherlands

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38440

Celestron Ultima 9.25
Your database has several errors regarding this scope:

SRP is closer to $2499. It is no longer available.
Focal Length: 2350mm.
Finder, while not great is better than "bad". Call it 6X 30mm.
Mount: fork equatorial as opposed to fork atl-azm. Mount features: RA/PEC
Electric power? How about Mount's energy source - 9 VDC battery or
12V AC adapter.
Extra: some versions have a digital focusing meter.

I owned mine since December 1997. I spent two years deciding on it - over refractors, maks, and newts. All the rumors about the optics are interesting, but why doesn't Celestron say something? If this scope is so great why don't they market it as such? Are they like Digital and their Alpha chip (make great products but don't know how to market them)?

I will not rate it optically until I properly learn to do so, but it is pleasing. I've seen good detail on Jupiter but the best views are of Saturn. I've seen through the scope views that match the best amateur images. Mars (in 1999) was a little disappointing, could only see some details. No detail yet on Venus but I have hope. Dialed in Uranus and Nepture, going for their moons next.

I was very disappointed not to get the focusing meter mostly because I was not told at the time of the order that was the case. The diagonal and finder are cheap. I've since replaced the diagonal with a 2" and hope to upgrade the finder soon (80mm short tube maybe, I've checked the clearance and if mounted properly will clear the forks and drive). The drive is very accurate as I haven't even tried the PEC. I did have some extra play in it, but was able to correct it myself.

The tripod legs couldn't be properly tighten until I filed some metal out of the way on the clamps. The tripod is stable unless you have a dew cap and a breeze going. I find the heavy duty wedge to be plenty strong. The latitude adjuster is quite smooth on mine - are the hex bolts too tight on yours?

Nice Halloween colors...

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38441

Celestron Ultima 9.25
The Ultima 9.25 is incredible. I bought mine used for $1500 (with DSC's included) and consider it the best purchase I have ever made. Jupiter and Saturn look as good as the
best 6" Apo or 10" SCT astrophotos, contrast on deep sky must be seen. Mount is solid at high power. The drive system runs for about 40 hours on a 9V battery. Add the Advanced Astromaster and a reducer/ corrector and you have a scope that does everthing well. A solid 10.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38442

Celestron Ultima 9.25
I have had my Ultima for a couple of years and am glsd that I made the choice to buy. Optics are great (better than my friend's Meade 12")and I have found that the mount and wedge are pretty stable, contrary to the complaint above. With lots of equipment (2" EPs, etc) on the scope can 'bounce' a bit when focusing. This problem can be resolved with a JMI NGF focuser. Or this may just be a balancing problem.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38443

Celestron Ultima 9.25
Why would the Ultima be a better ota than the G9.25 ota?
I just posted questions on the G9.25 and came here to find good
the good optical reports I expected at "G9.25"0. The "mystery"
optical design, if what I was told is true, is not in design but
the claim that 'all 9.25 optical sets are hand figured and match-
ed'. I could say who told me this but I am wondering if they would
back this up today - it was a good company retailer w. a very good
reputation, but of course they also had many of these scopes to
sell. Of special note was the claimed better contrast, better
wavefront ratings of 9.25 optical sets, etc "vrs any other
commercially available sct". I thought at the time that was a
pretty strong claim! But, from the posts here there is some basis
for this claim? I was told the reason Celestron was not pushing
this scope (and would drop it soon) was they make far less money
on the scope with hand figuring required,and the scope was never
intended as a mass market 'money making' product... I heard the
same story of the 1978 C8's and then many were produced? One never
know what the truth is sometimes, but the steadfast claim is
'the 9.25 ota's all have hand figured & matched optical sets'.
I wonder hat others say....
jw

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38444

Celestron Ultima 9.25
This is my sixth telescope; and the best.Not too big but able to provide excellent images of the planets and moon as well as deep space.It's mounted in an observatory on a pier so the cheap tripod is not a problem.Replaced the diag. with a 2 in.Antares model and will mount my Skywatcher 80mm RFT as a finder. A great deal for the price and it does not have all the go-to stuff to break down and drive me nuts that my U2K had.Saturn was simply breath-taking.Splits doubles cleanly,even under less than perfect conditions. Installed a cheap tracking motor from China that does the job, but only for visual work.Useless for photo. Eventually would like a quality mount.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38445

Celestron Ultima 9.25
I only have the OTA, so I can't comment on the mount. All I have to say is WOW!

I would recommend upgrading the finder to an 8x50. I also added a small red dot 0x finder. On one of those remarkably good nights I was able to use my University Optics 9mm, and a University optics 2.8x Klee barlow on Jupiter. The image was just beginning to degrade, but that was at 731x!!! On the same night Jupiter was incredible through a 4 mm UO Ortho. 587x. Nights like that come along once a year or two. Star tests are perfect.

At least in the case of this OTA, all the hype is true.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38446

Celestron Ultima 9.25
The previous statement said it all, this scope is excellent with sharp, bright and very good contrast images.I bought the OTA only "luckily" and mounted it on the excellent G11 Losmandy mount. Star test both inside and outside of focus was near perfect, highly reccommended!

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38447

Celestron Ultima 9.25
Tests out as good as others I have read about. A bit heavier than the 8", but worth the extra effort!

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Mount:8 Ease of Use:8 Value:10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=111950

Celestron Ultima 9.25
Best SCT optics I've ever encountered. Viewing produces crisp
images with excellent contrast. Best eyepieces are the
TeleVue Panoptic line (35mm and 22mm) and Celestron's Ultima line (especially 30mm, 18mm, and 12.5mm).

Fork mount is great for observing, but barely sufficient
for prime focus astrophotography. Keep it below 15 minute exposures.
Works great for piggy-back astrophotography when using the C9.25 OTA as the guidescope.
Electronics are more restricted than I prefer: one slewing speed, which serves as
an adequate guiding speed

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Mount:8 Ease of Use:10 Value:9
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=125748

Celestron Ultima 9.25
I've had one for 14 months, after 24 years with a C8. Bought used, but I'd used this particular scope before, knew what I was getting, and got an obscene price. Came with AAM DSC, polar finder, off axis guider, focal reducer and other niceties. Solid tripod and mount, drive is excellent. Carrying handles are great - this scope isn't light. Secondary collimation screws installed by factory are - well - ridiculous. You will lose that allen wrench in the dark. Modified mine to use thumb screws. I don't have the focus counter - would be nice for video work.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Mount:9 Ease of Use:10 Value:10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=406815

Page 1 of 1

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!

Checking Your Telescope
Starting out in Amateur Astronomy
 
How to use This Site
Why Register?
[Get rid of the ads!]
Voting Guide