Longs Focal Length scopes 16" RC vs. CDK 12.5 vs. C14 Edge HD

15 replies321 views
JohnAdastra avatar

Our group is seeking a potential scope replacement for a GSO 16” RC at our dark dry site. Two alternatives within our price range seem to be the CDK 12.5” and the Celestron 14” EdgeED. Each has acceptable focal lengths though the optical designs are a bit different between each. If anyone has experience with one or more of these telescopes, we would to hear your honest opinion about the ins and outs and any relative experience you may have had - good or bad. The scope is to be used for astrophotography with high quality filters and a full frame ASI6200MM mono cam. We’re looking to take some high end photos and potential APODS. Please get back if you can help.

Thanks,

John

Well written Respectful Concise Engaging
TiffsAndAstro avatar

Mind if I ask why you don't want the 16” Gso rc anymore? Might help others with their suggestions

Well written Respectful Engaging Supportive
Reg Pratt avatar

I’d ask the same question. What are you looking for that the RC doesn’t provide but the alternatives do?

Well written
Yuxuan avatar
  • With EdgeHD 14 you get half the field size compared to the CDK 12.5”.

  • If you want perfectly round stars all the way to the corner, with EdgeHD 14 you will be constantly dealing with mirror flop.

  • With a closed-tube design and a much larger mirror, the cooldown time for the EdgeHD 14 is going to be significantly longer.

  • If you also want stunning planet images and views, EdgeHD 14 has the ‘edge’.

Well written Helpful Respectful Concise Engaging
JohnAdastra avatar

Thanks Yuxuan , Reg and Tiff for your replies. Our GSO 16” RC was recently moved between locations and collimation is proving difficult for unknown reasons. The stars start out round but go egg-shaped after several hours. We’ve tried multiple attempts at collimation but none are succeeding now. Collimation was hard in the past, but not impossible. The primary was recently reseated as it would pinch and give triangular stars at temps below 0C. Now the mirror is free floating with a tiny paper thin gap to the edge clamps.

We have an ASI6200MM camera and M54 spacers in the imaging train, so we have no vignetting (FL 3250). I always thought the C14 was a way to go, but not with the issues mentioned. A C14 or a used CDK 12.5 may be about the max for our budget. We are into deep sky, not planetary. We’d like to stay at around 2500mm FL or larger as smaller galaxies and nebulae are in our interest.

Any further thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

John

Well written Respectful
TiffsAndAstro avatar

Collimated fine before repositioning primary.

Might be worth checking how it's mounted?

Best of luck either way, small galaxies are worthy of your efforts :)

Well written Respectful Concise Engaging Supportive
Ross Salinger avatar

That camera is worthless when using an Edge. I have an Edge11 and because I’m a stickler for data quality it uses a QHY533M camera rather than a full frame.

Get the CDK if you have the budget. It’s a decision you will never regret. After a very bad collision between my CDK and my Paramount MX+, collimating the CDK took less than 30 minutes.

The CDK I have now, again, collimated after a different problem in a matter of minutes.

Those GSO scopes can be a real trap when it comes to collimation. It really kills all the fun to spend hours trying to get it just right.

Well written Engaging
Reg Pratt avatar

So the RC was fine until you moved it? If that’s the case I would exhaust all options in getting your RC sorted before spending money on an entirely new optical system. How were you collimating in the past? RCs aren’t difficult to collimate if done with the right process. Unless some mechanical component was damaged during the move you should be able to get it back into good collimation.

If you have already exhausted all options then then CDK is definitely the way to go. I would just hate to lose aperture if it isn’t strictly necessary.

Well written Helpful Concise Engaging Supportive
JohnAdastra avatar

Reg Pratt · May 13, 2026, 04:08 PM

So the RC was fine until you moved it? If that’s the case I would exhaust all options in getting your RC sorted before spending money on an entirely new optical system. How were you collimating in the past? RCs aren’t difficult to collimate if done with the right process. Unless some mechanical component was damaged during the move you should be able to get it back into good collimation.

If you have already exhausted all options then then CDK is definitely the way to go. I would just hate to lose aperture if it isn’t strictly necessary.

Thanks Reg. That’s the dilemma. We have tried 3 or 4 different collimation tools including a newly purchased Takahashi collimation scope. We can get an alignment but then it drifts over time. The scope is about 20 years old and something may be going south with age. Despite the efforts of several qualified individuals the problem has not been resolved. The CDK seems like an option if we can find one at the right price.

John

Well written Respectful
Reg Pratt avatar

With a scope of that age you may be right and it’s just losing the battle to time. If it’s losing collimation mid-operation then the primary mirror cell could be your problem. Maybe consider looking into replacing the cell. If it’s possible it could save you a lot of money.

Helpful Concise
Tony Gondola avatar

I agree, it could be very much worth it to have the primary mirror cell and secondary support looked at. I know the scope is “old” but honestly, these things are not that complicated and the engineering is well understood.

Helpful Concise Supportive
John Hayes avatar

JohnAdastra · May 12, 2026 at 07:24 AM

Our group is seeking a potential scope replacement for a GSO 16” RC at our dark dry site. Two alternatives within our price range seem to be the CDK 12.5” and the Celestron 14” EdgeED. Each has acceptable focal lengths though the optical designs are a bit different between each. If anyone has experience with one or more of these telescopes, we would to hear your honest opinion about the ins and outs and any relative experience you may have had - good or bad. The scope is to be used for astrophotography with high quality filters and a full frame ASI6200MM mono cam. We’re looking to take some high end photos and potential APODS. Please get back if you can help.

Thanks,

John

Putting aide the issues with your current scope, I’ll try to answer your question. I’ve owned an Edge 14 and a CDK20. Both have pros and cons. Both companies can ship very high quality optics; unfortunately, they can also both ship very mediocre optics. Overall the mechanics of Planewave scopes are far superior to Celestron. Still both telescopes can be configured to produce spectacular results. The CDK 12.5 will provide a larger field of view but both scopes can fill a large sensor (36 mm x 36 mm) with corner to corder pinpoint stars. With the Celestron, you should plan on retrofitting it with an Optec SMFS focuser so that you can lock the position of the primary. In my view, both of those scopes can produce excellent results (if you get a good one). You can check out my gallery to see the images that I used to produce with my former C14 Edge. Naill McNeal also has a gallery with a lot of excellent images taken with his C14 Edge. The biggest differences between the two scopes are the price, the quality of the components, and the field of view.

John

PS I won a number of IOTDs and one APOD with data from my former C14 Edge…so if that’s your goal, you might do pretty well with one of those scopes!

Well written Helpful Respectful Engaging Supportive
JohnAdastra avatar

Thanks John for your reply. Thanks for confirming quality aspects of the CDK 12.5, which we are actively seeking. If we could find one with the Hedrick focuser, that would be nice. I mentioned the C14 as it’s in that same approximate price range. I have C9.25 Edge which has never given me any issues with no funky stars right to the corners of an APS-C sensor. So I’m sure the C14 will do a good job, the CDK appears to to the best for this price.

Regards,

John

Respectful Concise
JohnAdastra avatar

Reg Pratt · May 13, 2026, 04:36 PM

With a scope of that age you may be right and it’s just losing the battle to time. If it’s losing collimation mid-operation then the primary mirror cell could be your problem. Maybe consider looking into replacing the cell. If it’s possible it could save you a lot of money.

Tanks Reg. We have gone down a thorough list of troubleshooting and process of elimination. There is a aftermarket mirror cell for $3K, but we might just be adding to the sunk costs without a certain chance of resolution. A replacement scope appears more likely.

John

Concise
Jeff Herman avatar

I have favored corrected-RC over CDK because of the potential to bring the spot sizes down. Mid-way through this page you’ll see a graph indicating this: https://www.deepskyinstruments.com/truerc/rc14c.html

Seems like off-axis spot-size is more relevant than ever given how small the pixels have been getting. Could use a practicality-check on that though.

If you have a good corrector for your GSO RC it might be worth resurrecting it as it could have the potential to out-perform a CDK.

Helpful Concise Engaging Supportive
JohnAdastra avatar

Jeff Herman · May 14, 2026, 02:50 AM

If you have a good corrector for your GSO RC it might be worth resurrecting it as it could have the potential to out-perform a CDK.

That’s an interesting scope Jeff. Perhaps we’ll look into that brand which seems well designed. We got a corrector for the RC and have tried it with and without, but the collimation issue still is a problem. We haven’t got to the point where we've done an imaging run either way due to all the unsuccessful collimation tries.