telescopecomparison · 2-way
Askar 130PHQ vs ZWO FF80 APO
Askar
130PHQ
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
ZWO
FF80 APO
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
Key differences
+79% focal length
+63% aperture
Slower by 0.7 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Askar 130PHQ | ZWO FF80 APO |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Petzval quintuplet FPL-51 | Apo doublet FCD-100 |
| Aperture | 130mm | 80mm |
| Focal length | 1000mm | 560mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/7.7 | f/7.0 |
| Image circle | 60mm | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | No |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 10.2kg | 4.0kg |
Advantages of Askar 130PHQ
- Tighter framing — 1000mm vs 560mm focal length
- 63% more light-gathering aperture
- Larger image circle (60mm) — supports bigger sensors
Advantages of ZWO FF80 APO
- Wider field — 560mm vs 1000mm focal length
- Faster optics at f/7 vs f/7.7
- Lighter (4kg 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 — ZWO FF80 APO
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
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
ZWO FF80 APO — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.68° × 2.46°Scale: 1.38"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.40° × 1.61°Scale: 1.38"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.16° × 1.16°Scale: 1.38"/px
Askar 130PHQ — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
ZWO FF80 APO — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.