Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

Askar 130PHQ vs William Optics FLT 120

Askar 130PHQ
Askar

130PHQ

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

William Optics FLT 120
William Optics

FLT 120

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

Key differences

+28% focal length
+8% aperture
Slower by 1.2 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationAskar 130PHQWilliam Optics FLT 120
Optics
TyperefractorRefractor
Optical designPetzval quintuplet FPL-51Triplet APO
Aperture130mm120mm
Focal length1000mm780mm
Native f/ratiof/7.7f/6.5
Image circle60mm44mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight10.2kg7.7kg
Advantages of Askar 130PHQ
  • Tighter framing — 1000mm vs 780mm focal length
  • Larger image circle (60mm) — supports bigger sensors
Advantages of William Optics FLT 120
  • Wider field — 780mm vs 1000mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/6.5 vs f/7.7
  • Lighter (7.7kg vs 10.2kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Askar 130PHQ
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics FLT 120
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Askar 130PHQ — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.06° × 1.38°Scale: 0.78"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.35° × 0.90°Scale: 0.78"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.65° × 0.65°Scale: 0.78"/px
William Optics FLT 120 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.64° × 1.76°Scale: 0.99"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.73° × 1.15°Scale: 0.99"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.83° × 0.83°Scale: 0.99"/px
Askar 130PHQ — recommended user

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

William Optics FLT 120 — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives