Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

Celestron EdgeHD 9.25 vs SharpStar 100QII

Celestron EdgeHD 9.25
Celestron

EdgeHD 9.25

Best suited for experienced imagers chasing detail running a backyard imaging setup.

SharpStar 100QII
SharpStar

100QII

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

Key differences

+327% focal length
+135% aperture
Slower by 4.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationCelestron EdgeHD 9.25SharpStar 100QII
Optics
TypeSCTrefractor
Optical designAplanatic SCTQuadruplet astrograph
Aperture235mm100mm
Focal length2350mm550mm
Native f/ratiof/10.0f/5.5
Image circle42mm44mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight9.5kg5.5kg
Advantages of Celestron EdgeHD 9.25
  • Tighter framing — 2350mm vs 550mm focal length
  • 135% more light-gathering aperture
Advantages of SharpStar 100QII
  • Wider field — 550mm vs 2350mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/5.5 vs f/10
  • Lighter (5.5kg vs 9.5kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Celestron EdgeHD 9.25
  • Small galaxies, planetary nebulae, lunar & planetary detail
  • High-resolution long-exposure work
  • Faint-object imaging under dark skies
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — SharpStar 100QII
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Celestron EdgeHD 9.25 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.88° × 0.59°Scale: 0.33"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.57° × 0.38°Scale: 0.33"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.28° × 0.28°Scale: 0.33"/px
SharpStar 100QII — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 3.75° × 2.50°Scale: 1.41"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.45° × 1.64°Scale: 1.41"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.18° × 1.18°Scale: 1.41"/px
Celestron EdgeHD 9.25 — recommended user

Best suited for experienced imagers chasing detail running a backyard imaging setup.

SharpStar 100QII — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

Recommended alternatives