telescopecomparison · 2-way
Askar 130PHQ vs William Optics FLT 132
Askar
130PHQ
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
William Optics
FLT 132
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
+8% focal length
Slower by 0.7 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Askar 130PHQ | William Optics FLT 132 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Petzval quintuplet FPL-51 | Apo triplet FPL-53 |
| Aperture | 130mm | 132mm |
| Focal length | 1000mm | 925mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/7.7 | f/7.0 |
| Image circle | 60mm | 52mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 10.2kg | 7.9kg |
Advantages of Askar 130PHQ
- Larger image circle (60mm) — supports bigger sensors
Advantages of William Optics FLT 132
- Faster optics at f/7 vs f/7.7
- Lighter (7.9kg 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 132
- 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 132 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.23° × 1.49°Scale: 0.84"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.46° × 0.97°Scale: 0.84"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 0.70° × 0.70°Scale: 0.84"/px
Askar 130PHQ — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
William Optics FLT 132 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.