Disclosure: If you buy something via our link, we may earn a commission with no additional expense to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more

18 Best Catadioptric Telescopes: Ranked Price-wise

Catadioptric telescopes are compact and fairly low-maintenance telescopes popular among visual observers and imagers alike, as well as being heavily marketed to beginner astronomers. Their fairly simple configurations and performance advantages can be extremely appealing, but it’s important to know the pros, cons, and cost before buying, as well as pick out the best models possible both in price and overall quality. Thankfully, we’re here to help you with the process.

Types of Catadioptric Telescopes

Catadioptric telescopes usually come in two types, both of which are variants of the Cassegrain telescope. The Cassegrain uses a concave primary mirror with a hole in it and a convex secondary mirror. The secondary mirror “folds” the light path back through the primary mirror, and the focal point is at the rear of the telescope like a refractor. Catadioptric Cassegrains use a corrector lens to fix the resulting aberrations of one or both mirrors being spherical in curvature, which is easier to manufacture than a parabolic or hyperbolic mirror but induces massive aberrations that would otherwise ruin the image. While various configurations exist, the only two common ones are Schmidt-Cassegrains and Maksutov-Cassegrains. Both use spherical primary mirrors and approximately spherical secondary mirrors with a corrector at the front of the telescope.

The majority of Maksutov-Cassegrain and Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes have a focuser built into the telescope, where you turn a knob at the back to move the primary mirror and attach threaded accessories to the back of the telescope, which remain in place. Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes use a universal thread system and size for attaching accessories to the back, while Maksutov-Cassegrains can have various types of threads and adapters.

Maksutov-Cassegrains, also referred to simply as Maksutovs (the Maksutov corrector was invented for the Cassegrain configuration), Maks, or MCTs, use a thick meniscus corrector, and the secondary mirror usually shares the spherical curvature of the corrector, simplifying manufacture. Maksutovs are easier to make to high standards of quality than Schmidt-Cassegrains, and the built-in secondary mirror is more easily fabricated at small sizes to reduce the obstruction overall, which allows for sharper and higher-contrast images. The secondary mirror being integrated with the corrector also greatly reduces the need for collimation. However, Maksutovs are impractical to manufacture in large sizes due to cost and performance reasons. Maks above 5” in aperture sometimes have the secondary mirrors separate from the corrector and are known as Rutten-Maksutovs or RuMaks.

Related Product Guide: Best Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescopes

Schmidt-Cassegrains, usually abbreviated as SCTs, use a thin Schmidt corrector plate—which appears flat but actually has a complex curve, sort of like a Fresnel lens—at the front and a secondary mirror attached to a holder on the corrector. Both mirrors are spherical in curvature. SCTs designed for imaging use an aplanatic configuration where one or both mirrors are slightly aspheric and/or corrector lenses are added to flatten the field; the Meade ACF design uses a purely aspherized design, while the Celestron EdgeHD adds corrector lenses.

Related Product Guide: Best Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes

The largest Maksutov-Cassegrains and Schmidt-Cassegrains ever built are both 22”, though the one and only 22” Maksutov used a 25” primary mirror due to some quirks in the Maksutov optical design requiring a larger primary than the corrector lens, while the Celestron 22” Schmidt-Cassegrain was ostensibly a production unit, and a half dozen were made before the line was discontinued. The largest of either design you will usually see is 16” in aperture.

Other configurations you might see include:

  • Schmidt-Newtonian – Spherical primary mirror Newtonian reflector with Schmidt corrector. Designed for very fast f/3 to f/4 imaging or wide-field visual scopes. Less coma than a regular Newtonian but few other advantages, and third-party coma correctors are a more convenient option. Mass-produced by Celestron and Meade in fairly large numbers.
  • Maksutov-Newtonian – Newtonian reflector with a spherical primary mirror and Maksutov corrector. These are usually optimized to have a small central obstruction and good planetary performance as a result, but the small central obstruction affects the usefulness of deep-sky imaging, and again, a regular Newtonian usually is just fine.
  • Klevstov-Cassegrain – Sold as Vixen VMC, Meade 107D, various Russian and Japanese small brands, and also used by many mirror-lens designs. Small corrector lens attached to the secondary mirror, often poor performance and large central obstruction, and thus not recommended. The Field-Maksutov design is basically the same as the Klevstov in general layout and performance.
  • Argunov-Cassegrain – Klevstov-Cassegrain with a slightly different lens/mirror configuration and the same flaws as the Klevstov. Sold as Vixen VC but otherwise uncommon.
  • Corrected Dall-Kirkham – Used by many imaging scopes, Dall-Kirkham with coma correcting and field flattening lenses. Usually not economical for amateur-sized scopes.

The low-quality “Bird-Jones” telescope, a Newtonian with a small sub-aperture corrector in the focuser drawtube, is also technically a catadioptric. Other sub-aperture corrector designs such as these exist, though few are common or well-designed, as do a few other front corrector configurations like the Lurie-Houghton.

Advantages & Disadvantages of Catadioptric Telescopes

Since not all catadioptrics are necessarily of the Cassegrain, Maksutov, or Schmidt configuration, the following advantages/disadvantages apply only to SCT and Maksutov telescopes, since those are the only ones readily available in most cases anyway.

Key advantages

  • Compactness – SCTs and Maksutovs use a very stubby tube due to the folded configuration of the Cassegrain optical layout, usually no more than 2-2.5 times the diameter of the primary mirror in physical length.
  • Long focal ratio and focal length – SCTs are usually f/8 to f/11, while Maksutovs are usually f/10 to f/16 and thus have very long focal lengths as a result. This makes it easy to achieve high magnifications for lunar, planetary, and double star viewing without a fancy Barlow lens or ultra-short focal length eyepiece. Similarly, planetary imaging only requires a modest Barlow lens to achieve the required image scale whereas an f/4 to f/6 Newtonian might need a 5x Barlow or even stacking multiple Barlows.
  • No diffraction spikes – Because SCTs and Maksutovs have the secondary mirror attached to the corrector plate, no spider is needed to hold it in place, which means no diffraction spikes like a conventional Newtonian or Cassegrain-type reflector has.
  • No chromatic aberration – While some subaperture corrector lenses can produce chromatic aberration, SCTs and Maksutovs’ corrector lenses don’t produce any chromatic aberration, as with a pure reflecting telescope.
  • Infrequent collimation – The stubby tubes and rigid hardware of SCTs and Maksutovs mean collimation is usually very steady. SCTs (if collimated correctly with everything tightened) rarely need collimation more than every few uses while Maksutovs may never need collimation at all owing to the secondary mirror often being part of the same piece of glass as the corrector.
  • Lower general maintenance – The sealed tube keeps debris, airborne chemical contaminants, and other foreign objects out of Schmidt-Cassegrain and Maksutov-Cassegrain telescopes, meaning the mirror coatings are far less likely to corrode or even get dirty.

Key Disadvantages

  • Cost – All catadioptric telescopes inherently cost more than a Newtonian. A Schmidt-Cassegrain usually costs at least twice as much as a Newtonian reflector boasting comparable capabilities, if not more, be it a new or used model, while a Maksutov-Cassegrain is more than triple as much. Large Maksutovs above 7” in aperture are essentially custom products and rarely available for a reasonable price.
  • Long focal ratio and focal length – The long focal lengths of SCTs and Maksutovs place an incredibly high demand on tracking/guiding requirements for deep-sky astrophotography, while the slow focal ratio prohibits imaging without an extremely long exposure time. Dedicated focal reducers are practically mandatory for imaging nebulae, galaxies, and star clusters with an SCT, while a Maksutov-Cassegrain is usually completely useless for the task.
  • Limited field of view – The long focal length of SCTs and Maksutovs also, of course, means you get a higher power and narrower field of view with any given eyepiece. Additionally, 8” and smaller catadioptric scopes typically don’t illuminate the field of view of the widest possible 2” eyepieces and some cameras, even if they technically allow the attachment of 2” accessories, further limiting the field of view possible with such telescopes. Larger catadioptrics will still not allow you to use a 2” eyepiece and a focal reducer without vignetting, which means that the field of view is always cramped owing to the several-meter-long focal length.
  • Large central obstructions: The large secondary mirror in the catadioptric obstructing the primary mirror has a negligible effect on light-gathering power but can reduce contrast at the eyepiece by essentially smearing the image slightly. Maksutov-Cassegrains rarely have a central obstruction below 25% or so, while even the most optimized SCTs have obstructions of around 33% or greater, and some have obstructions exceeding 40% when the baffle around the secondary is accounted for. Central obstructions over 30% are noticeably detrimental to the image contrast, particularly with smaller telescopes. A central obstruction above 40% essentially ruins high-resolution planetary viewing with telescopes like the Celestron C5 (which is ironically capable of little else owing to its small aperture and limited field of view). By contrast, a typical Newtonian reflector, such as a Dobsonian intended for visual use, has an obstruction of around 20-30%.
  • Cooldown time – Compared to a Newtonian reflector, an SCT or Maksutov-Cassegrain requires more time to cool down due to the large secondary mirror also needing to cool down and the corrector plate trapping warm air inside the tube. Maksutovs don’t have the mass of the secondary mirror to contend with but the thick corrector can completely trap warm air, requiring some sort of active ventilation system with 7” and larger apertures and basically ruining performance with most larger scopes even with countermeasures.
  • Mounting requirements – Older catadioptrics come on fork mounts or manual equatorial mounts that require precise polar alignment in order to be used correctly; newer computerized mounts may have questionable longevity due to cheaply made components. In both cases, the long focal length of these telescopes dictates precision pointing and tracking, and astrophotography requires even more stringent tolerances. A 6” or greater catadioptric pretty much requires motorized tracking to be an enjoyable experience to use, and even a 100mm scope needs some form of fine mechanical adjustment for aiming.
  • Collimation difficulty – While collimating an SCT or Maksutov isn’t as frequently required, you need to actually point the telescope at a bright star while making adjustments in order to do so (see our collimation guide). Many users also make the mistake of adding thumb screws or other modifications that do little but make these telescopes shift in collimation more frequently.
  • Focusing – The internal moving-mirror focus system used on almost all Schmidt-Cassegrain and Maksutov-Cassegrain telescopes has unlimited travel but can have the primary mirror rock back and forth on the rod it slides on as you focus. This can cause “image shift” where the view appears to bounce at high magnifications, and “mirror flop” which ruins long exposures. Many aplanatic SCTs have mirror locks to solve the mirror flop problem, but image shift affects most catadioptric scopes, at least in a minor fashion.

Our Top 10 Catadioptric Telescope Picks

1. Cheapest Catadioptric Telescope: SarBlue Mak60 w/Tabletop Dobsonian Mount

A tiny telescope with few capabilities, the SarBlue Mak60 is great for a quick peek at the Moon or Jupiter, but is of little practical use on most targets that actually require any light gathering or resolving power.
Mak60 full image
  • Tiny optical tube and mount fit almost anywhere
  • Near-perfect optics
  • Low price

The SarBlue Mak60 is an excellent choice if you’re looking for a compact telescope, and the tabletop-mounted version is extremely simple, rock-steady, and affordable. The Mak60’s beverage can sized optical tube is small enough to pack in a backpack or handbag, and the package includes a medium-power eyepiece, star diagonal, and finder. However, this telescope’s small aperture size restricts it from reaching targets other than the Moon and bright planets; with its limited field of view and light-gathering capability, you won’t be able to observe fainter objects at all, and the brighter star clusters simply don’t fit in this scope’s field of view.

2. Best in $175-$250: SarBlue Mak70 w/Tabletop Dobsonian Mount

The SarBlue Mak70 offers an actually decent mount/tripod unlike the tripod-mounted Mak60 variants, along with an all-metal build and slightly more light-gathering and resolving capability.
  • Extremely compact form factor when disassembled
  • Decent alt-azimuth mount/tripod
  • Slightly better build quality than Mak60

A slight upgrade from the Mak60, the SarBlue Mak70 uses an all-metal tube and a serviceable alt-azimuth mount atop a fairly sturdy tripod. It will also fully illuminate even the widest angle 1.25” eyepieces, which means it achieves a similar maximum field of view as the Mak60. You get a decent finder, eyepiece, and star diagonal to get started with, and the 70mm of aperture offers 36% more light-gathering ability than the Mak60, along with a smidge more resolution. However, make no mistake – this is a tiny telescope, and it is only going to work well, if at all, on the brightest targets.

3. Best in $250-$300: Orion StarMax 90

The Orion StarMax 90 is a cheap, simple, and portable instrument, though you may wish to spend more on a mount with tracking.
Orion StarMax 90mm telescope
  • Simple, compact, and affordable
  • Decent included accessory set
  • Tabletop or tripod-mounted use

Another tabletop-mounted Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope, the Orion StarMax 90 offers significantly better light-gathering and resolution capability than its tiny 60mm and 70mm cousins – along with a far less frustrating red dot finder and a pair of decent Kellner eyepieces. While tabletop-mounted by default, the StarMax 90 easily detaches from its provided mount head, or you can put the whole thing on a sturdy photo tripod. The manual tabletop Dobsonian mount is easy and intuitive to aim, and the price of the StarMax 90 is extremely reasonable for what you get.

4. Best in $300-$500: Sky-Watcher Virtuoso 90

The Sky-Watcher Virtuoso 90 features razor-sharp 90mm Maksutov optics and has a basic but functional motor drive, offering a nice balance of portability and high-tech convenience.
Sky-Watcher Virtuoso 90 mm Maksutov-Cassegrain on Multi-Function Mount
  • Motorized tracking without time-consuming and inconvenient GoTo setup
  • Decent performance despite small aperture
  • Nice included accessory kit with bonus solar filter

A 90mm Maksutov-Cassegrain with the same optics, performance, and tabletop alt-azimuth design as the Orion StarMax 90, the Sky-Watcher Virtuoso 90 comes with the added bonuses of a motorized tracking mount and a safe white-light solar filter. As with the StarMax 90, you can use it either on a table or attached to a heavy-duty photo tripod via the threaded mounting hole at the bottom of the Virtuoso’s base. The motorized tracking helps with planetary observing or basic astrophotography with the Virtuoso, but the setup is easier than a full GoTo system, which is not necessary for such a small telescope. You simply level the scope and point it north, turn the mount on, and it automatically tracks. Aiming can be adjusted with the keypad or by unlocking the clutches and pushing the scope manually around the sky. The Virtuoso 90 includes a pair of eyepieces, a star diagonal, and a 5×24 finder scope for aiming.

5. Best in $500-$700: Celestron Astro Fi 102 Mak GoTo

The Celestron Astro-Fi 102 is a significant upgrade over a 90mm or smaller Maksutov and features fully motorized GoTo and tracking, controlled via your smartphone or tablet.
Ranks #11 of 19 telescopes in $500 range
  • 102mm aperture allows for significantly better resolution on planets than smaller scopes
  • WiFi-controlled GoTo mount with automated pointing/tracking
  • Fairly sturdy provided tripod

One of the cheapest acceptable GoTo telescopes available, the Astro Fi 102 is a 102mm (4”) Maksutov-Cassegrain with slightly better performance than smaller 90mm Maks, mounted atop the Celestron Astro-Fi GoTo mount and tripod, and equipped with two eyepieces out of the box. The Astro Fi mount is controlled via your smartphone or tablet with the SkyPortal app or SkySafari Pro, and will automatically point at and track any object of your choosing after an initial setup and alignment. The Astro Fi mount is significantly steadier than the older NexStar SLT mount which Celestron offers with 90mm and 127mm Maksutovs, while also consuming less power and possessing an easier-to-navigate interface. You can’t aim this scope manually at all, but the 102mm Maksutov-Cassegrain optical tube can be removed from the Astro Fi mount and easily attached to another mount/tripod if you wish. 

6. Best in $700-$1000: Sky-Watcher 127 mm Skymax AZ-GTi

The Sky-Watcher Skymax 127 offers excellent performance and is an ideal match for the compact, versatile, and high-tech AZ-GTi mount, which offers seamless GoTo and manual aiming capabilities.
Ranks #13 of 16 telescopes in $900 range
  • 120mm aperture provides significantly better performance than smaller apertures, allowing for excellent views of brighter targets
  • Versatile AZ-GTi mount is computerized but can be aimed manually and accepts a variety of other telescopes
  • Fairly compact when broken down

While technically only possessing 120mm of aperture due to an optical design quirk, the Sky-Watcher Skymax 127 still boasts a substantial performance boost over a 102mm or 90mm unit but is still extremely compact and portable. The advanced AZ-GTi GoTo mount can be aimed manually with or without being powered on, and is controlled via your smartphone or tablet with the SynScan app. The SynScan app is compatible with other astronomy software like SkySafari Pro for an even better user experience, too. The AZ-GTi is also usable as an equatorial mount/star tracker with additional parts, and is compatible with any telescope that uses a Vixen-style dovetail bar. The Skymax 127 package includes two eyepieces, a star diagonal, and a red dot finder to get you started, and the 120mm aperture is enough for great views of the Moon, planets, double stars, and the brightest deep-sky objects. If you don’t like the somewhat flimsy stock tripod provided with the AZ-GTi/Skymax, it’s easier to replace it with a beefier photo unit thanks to the ⅜” stud on the bottom of the AZ-GTi mount head.

7. Best Value Catadioptric ($1000-$2000): Celestron NexStar 6SE

The Celestron NexStar 6SE isn’t the most powerful Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, but it’s more versatile than smaller Maksutovs and reasonably priced for its capabilities.
Celestron Nexstar 6SE
Ranks #10 of 16 telescopes in $900 range
  • 6” aperture is enough for some deep-sky viewing
  • Excellent performance for the price
  • Rock-steady mount/tripod

Of the four Celestron NexStar SE telescope models, the 6SE is the only one we really recommend, as the 8SE is unsteady while the other two models offer poor performance for the price. The NexStar SE mount requires a fair bit of setup to get going, but once ready, it can easily track and slew up to 40,000 objects of your choosing from its database. It comes with a hand controller by default, but you can purchase and install a WiFi dongle to use your phone or tablet for remote operation. The 6SE offers great views of the Moon and planets, and with its 6” aperture, you can observe a fair amount of deep-sky objects, and see details such as dust lanes in galaxies and individual stars in globular clusters, where smaller scopes fall short in capability. Moreover, the scope is still light and compact enough that you can take it on a plane with the tube attached to the mount. However, only a single 25mm Plossl (60x) and basic 1.25” visual back, diagonal prism, and red dot finder are included, so you will certainly want to add more accessories later on, and the NexStar SE mount cannot be aimed manually in any capacity.

8. Best in $2000-$3000: Celestron NexStar Evolution 8

The Celestron Nexstar Evolution 8 is easily the best version of the Celestron C8 available today, being far more stable and high-quality than the cheap NexStar 8SE and less cumbersome than an equatorial mount.
Celestron NexStar Evolution 8
  • 8” of aperture is enough for plenty of deep-sky viewing and fantastic views of the Moon/planets
  • Built-in battery, WiFi operability, and fairly compact design while remaining rock-steady
  • Surprisingly compact when disassembled

Celestron’s NexStar Evolution 8 provides the resolving and light-gathering power of Celestron’s classic C8 optical tube mounted atop an advanced GoTo mount. The NexStar Evolution mount features a built-in lithium battery, clutches to allow (theoretical) manual aiming when the scope is powered off, and a WiFi dongle along with a hand controller that allows you to run the scope with either the handset or your smartphone/tablet. The Evolution is significantly sturdier than the NexStar 8SE model, which we don’t particularly recommend, and the whole scope breaks down into fairly manageable pieces too. You also get a decent pair of 1.25” Plossl eyepieces to start out with, though the Evolution 8 benefits from a good 2” star diagonal and wide-angle 2” eyepieces.

9. Best Performance ($3000+) : Celestron Advanced VX 9.25” XLT

  • Slightly greater light-gathering and resolving power than an 8” SCT
  • Mount can be used with a smaller telescope for deep-sky astrophotography
  • Breaks down into manageable pieces

Celestron’s C9.25 XLT Schmidt-Cassegrain optical tube provides slightly better resolving power and resolution than the smaller C8 and is easier to focus and collimate (as well as typically made to a higher standard of quality) thanks to its longer f-ratio primary mirror and more weakly curved secondary, similar to the typical configuration of many Maksutov-Cassegrains. The Advanced VX GoTo mount is the smallest and lightest mount configuration that supports the C9.25 well, and being a German equatorial mount, it’s also designed for deep-sky astrophotography – though the C9.25 exceeds its capacity in that regard and a smaller telescope would have to be swapped in on the mount. The C9.25 Advanced VX package is ideal if you want a fairly large aperture scope and a setup that’s easily used for both viewing and imaging (planetary with the C9.25 and deep-sky with another telescope on the Advanced VX mount), and breaks down into fairly lightweight and compact pieces when disassembled.

Runner Ups

  • $300-$500 – Explore FirstLight 100mm Mak-Cassegrain with EQ3 Mount

The Explore Scientific FirstLight 100mm Maksutov-Cassegrain offers excellent performance, and the provided EQ3/”Exos Nano” equatorial mount is sturdy and easily motorized. Unfortunately, the included diagonal, eyepiece, and red dot finder are extremely low quality and next to unusable, and replacing them at this price range puts you nearly into the category of the price of a computerized scope of this aperture. Additionally, an equatorial mount is a little more complicated and difficult to get used to than an alt-azimuth mount design is for beginners.

  • $500-$700 – Explore FirstLight 127mm Mak-Cassegrain Telescope with EQ3 Mount

While it does deliver a true 127mm aperture, unlike the Sky-Watcher/Celestron “127mm” Maksutovs, the Explore Scientific FirstLight 127mm’s super-long 1900mm focal length and 1.25”-only eyepieces severely constrain its field of view. The EQ3 mount is adequate for holding this scope – if a bit on the light side – and can be easily motorized, but the poor included accessories and lack of versatility hurt the value of the FirstLight 127mm Mak severely compared to a more well-equipped 102mm or spending a little more on an equivalent scope from another brand.

  • $500-$700 – Celestron NexStar 4SE

The Celestron NexStar 4SE has the same optics as the Astro-Fi 102mm and Skymax 102, but it comes with an integrated flip mirror of lower optical quality than a standard 1.25” prism or dielectric mirror star diagonal. Additionally, the mount is quite heavy and bulky for the price, making it not as portable as the Astro-Fi 102 and Skymax 102, both of which in any case also offer more features at a comparable cost.

  • $500-$700 – Sky-Watcher 102 mm Skymax AZ-GTi

The Sky-Watcher 102mm Skymax AZ-GTi package is a great telescope with a very functional and user-friendly mount and an adequate set of accessories. The only difference between this telescope and the cheaper Celestron Astro-Fi 102 is that the AZ-GTi mount can be manually pointed, which you may or may not find worth paying extra for. If you’re ready to spend this much on a telescope, it might be worth considering upgrading to the larger 127mm model instead, or spending the difference on additional accessories for the Astro-Fi 102.

  • $700-$1000 – Explore FirstLight 127mm Mak-Cassegrain Telescope with Twilight I Mount

The 127mm Explore Scientific FirstLight Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope is an excellent performer optically, and the Twilight I is a rock-solid, high-quality alt-azimuth mount. However, its price tag is comparable to several computerized 127mm options, and its accessories are of low quality, making this combination a bad deal.

  • $1000-$2000 – Celestron NexStar Evolution 6

While none of the improvements over the Celestron NexStar 6SE are jaw-dropping with the NexStar Evolution 6, what you do get is pretty nice. In addition to a pair of Plossl eyepieces, the NexStar Evolution 6 features a mount with no plastic components and a superior-quality drive system. It also has a built-in rechargeable battery, and can be controlled either with the included handset or with your smartphone or tablet thanks to its built-in WiFi adapter. However, you could also just buy a WiFi dongle and batteries for the 6SE and get the same features, or spend a little more and wind up with the far more powerful 8” Evolution model.

  • $2000-$3000 – Celestron Advanced VX 700 Mak GoTo

The Celestron Advanced VX 700 Maksutov would be a great deal were it not for the existence of Celestron’s C9.25 XLT, which is similar in weight and bulk but offers significantly more light-gathering power, comparable or better resolution, and with the added benefits of faster cooldown time, a wider maximum field of view, and some deep-sky astrophotography capabilities (at least in principle). The 700 Maksutov is amazing on planets, the Moon, and double stars, but is severely hindered in deep-sky viewing performance by its long 2800mm focal length and inability to illuminate the field of a 2” eyepiece, and its long cooldown time can be an issue for some users.

  • $2000-$3000 – Celestron NexStar Evolution 8″ EdgeHD with StarSense

The addition of Celestron’s EdgeHD optical configuration provides minimal benefit for a visual telescope like the NexStar Evolution 8”, but the added vents help with cooldown time, and the StarSense AutoAlign makes setup even more of a breeze.

  • $2000-$3000 – Celestron CGEM II 800 SCT GoTo

The CGEM II mount makes for a good pairing with the Celestron C8 XLT optical tube for deep-sky imaging. However, visual astronomers will be happier with the more compact and feature-ridden NexStar Evolution 8, while astrophotographers intending to use the C8 XLT for deep-sky imaging might want a larger mount with better tracking and guiding accuracy, and/or to opt for the more expensive EdgeHD version with better field-flattening and mirror locks to improve imaging capabilities.