I have an C11 Edge and also now a SVX152T.
I have worked hard to collimate the C11 and work around its issues, notably I added an external focuser (LiteCrawler - highly recommend). I also am in an area which has good seeing; lousy transparency and awful light pollution, but good seeing.
I find I can get just slightly better FWHM with the refractor than the C11. The C11 with its 11" vs 6" aperture wins in terms of total integration time needed.
But the C11 is ... quirky.
First, the reducer that most people use with it can be problematic, especially on a full frame. It is very hard to find a backfocus spot that gets the corners really clean, the stars have slightly oblong shapes even if you work hard on tilt. I think this also may be instance specific as I know a lot of people claim not to have this problem (then again, I suspect they may have crop sensors and/or lower expectations and/or have it obscured by seeing). I find shooting at 2800 without the reducer however produces fairly clean corners. Tilt is both easy and hard to fix -- hard that it is hard to find an adequately dense star field much of the year to actually get a good read on tilt, but easy in that F10 makes for relatively large adjustments, not needing micron level precision.
The other issue is that the F10 and 11" aperture tend to require a change in exposure. Diffuse objects follow focal ratio, so F4 is twice as bright as F5.6, etc. But point sources mostly follow aperture, and the better the optics and more focused the more that is true. That means as you increase exposure for diffuse objects at F10, the stars tend to saturate more, and bloat. You can adjust exposure (more subs, less exposure) to accommodate that. Here is an example. This is a very bright star and (optical?) double near M5. Very bright. On the left is the C11 and right is the 152. The 152 has been scaled up to approximately match the C11, so you see more noise due to magnification. The C11 halo is larger, the rays extend further. They are actually a bit more symmetric, the 152 does not bloat evenly for reasons unclear, but they are different. The companion is probably a better example, it is visually larger on the left from bloat (though both nicely split it).
The other aspect that makes me like the C11 less, that may not be much of an issue in the observatory, is that it is physically difficult. Especially with the external focuser, it is VERY back heavy, which means on a saddle it is normally mounted VERY far forward. This gives an awful wind profile, effectively side-winds hit only the forward end, especially if a dew shield is present, which makes for a far greater wind impact than even its 12-13" wide body would normally cause. To offset this I put about 15 pounds of weight on the front of the C11, so it can center better. This heavier weight, the round body and lack of good handles on top, make for more difficult setup and tear down (which I do nightly). in an observatory most of these issues go away (though the potential need for front weights might not, so you may need a beefier mount).
Overall I simply have not been able to bring myself to sell it and just use the 152. I get better FWHM on the 152, though very slightly better. But the C11 is almost as good and integrates faster especially for things like globulars (not so much diffuse objects).
Oh... external focuser. It helped, but not as much as I hoped. I am not convinced even with the mirror "locked" that there is not some motion in there over time, as tilt seems to change over time (i.e. multiple nights, not over hours). Note that the "locks" are labeled as clutches, not locks - I do not know the physical difference, but apparently older C11 (non-edge) had actual locks, and the Edge does not. The really big win though with the LiteCrawler is now I can change focus (using focus offsets) without restarting guiding or even doing a settle. This means I can image like RRGGBB<dither>[repeat] instead of having to start/stop guiding in between filter changes. This is due to the amazing precision of the focus movement, it does not actually move the guide star. Dither or start/top time adds up a lot over a night.
Anyway... quirky is probably a good term. The 130, from what I understand, is also a bit quirky, so you are likely well prepared. Just be sure you have a good mount for it (the AP1100AE I have barely notices it, but I used it on a iOptron CEM70 where it was OK, but very very sensitive to wind).
Linwood
PS. That's the Blue filter which is the worst.
