Home > Celestron Product Lines > CPC XLT Series

CPC XLT Series

Products (Total Items: 3)

Sort by:

Celestron CPC 800 GPS (XLT) Computerized Telescope

Sale

~~CAD3,509.00~~ CAD3,349.00

Usually ships in 5-7 business days

Celestron CPC 925 GPS (XLT) Computerized Telescope

Sale

~~CAD4,905.02~~ CAD4,179.00

Usually ships in 5-7 business days

Celestron CPC 1100 GPS (XLT) Computerized Telescope

Sale

~~CAD5,941.37~~ CAD5,149.00

Usually ships in 5-7 business days

If you’re considering the Celestron CPC XLT lineup, the main models to compare are the Celestron CPC 800 XLT, Celestron CPC 925 XLT, and Celestron CPC 1100 XLT. They share a lot of core technology, but differ in aperture (light-gathering), portability, and performance trade-offs.

CPC XLT Series — Quick Comparison

Model	Aperture / Focal Length	Strengths	Trade-offs / Considerations
CPC 800 XLT	8" (203 mm), 2032 mm focal length (f/10)	Most portable & manageable — easier to transport and set up; good “first big scope” for serious visual observing.	Less light-gathering than larger models -> less detail on faint deep-sky objects.
CPC 925 XLT	9.25" (235 mm), 2350 mm focal length (f/10)	Solid balance: more aperture (better light-gathering and resolution) while still relatively manageable in size. Great mid-range all-arounder.	Heavier and less portable than 800, but still significantly less “bulk” than 11".
CPC 1100 XLT	11" (279.4 mm), 2800 mm focal length (f/10)	Maximum light-gathering and resolution — superb for planetary detail, dim deep-sky objects, and high-resolution views/imaging.	Much heavier and bulkier; setup more effort. Long focal length gives narrow field of view — less ideal for wide-field deep-sky views. Not as easy to transport.

What They All Share (CPC Series “XLT” DNA)

All are Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes: compact yet powerful optical design.
All come with Celestron’s “StarBright XLT” coatings — improving light throughput and delivering brighter, sharper views.
All use dual-fork alt-azimuth computerized GoTo mounts with built-in GPS, and include a large database (~40,000 objects), automatic alignment (e.g., SkyAlign), and easy GoTo + tracking capabilities.
All are reasonably “portable” given their aperture: ergonomic handling, carry-handles, and tripod-mount combos that make setup and teardown viable for field-use or backyard sessions.
All are compatible with optional accessories — eyepieces, equatorial wedges (for astrophotography), cameras, filters, etc.

Which Model is Best for What Use-case

Best for portability / occasional use / travel / small spaces -> CPC 800 XLT. If you want a “do-it-all” telescope that you can carry out easily, set up quickly, and still get good views of the Moon, planets, and many bright deep-sky objects, 8" is a sweet spot.
Best all-around for visual astronomy and occasional astrophotography — balanced performance & usability -> CPC 925 XLT. For many observers, 9.25" gives a noticeable jump in resolution and light gathering over 8", without making the scope unwieldy.
Best for deep-sky, fine detail, planetary work, imaging potential -> CPC 1100 XLT. If you care about maximum light, the ability to see faint galaxies / nebulae, or high-resolution planetary views — or plan on doing short-exposure planetary imaging / visual observing — the 11" will deliver the most.

That said — the long focal length of the 1100 (f/10 at 2800 mm) makes its field of view narrower, which can make wide-field deep-sky observing less comfortable compared to shorter-focal-length scopes (or refractors / Dobsonians).

Trade-offs & What to Watch For

Weight & portability: 11" scopes are heavy and bulky — more demanding to transport and set up. The 8" and 9.25" strike better balance for backyard use or travel.
Field of view: Larger, long-focal scopes tend to have narrower true fields, which may limit the “big picture” view of large nebulae or star clusters, unless you use wide-angle eyepieces or focal reducers. This is more obvious on the 1100.
Astrophotography limitations: While the CPC mount can be adapted (with a wedge, camera, autoguider etc), these scopes — especially the 1100 — are less than ideal for long-exposure deep-sky astrophotography, mainly due to “mirror shift,” long focal length, and the alt-az mount geometry. Short-exposure planetary imaging is more realistic.