telescopecomparison · 2-way
Celestron RASA 11 vs Borg 107FL
Celestron
RASA 11
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a permanent observatory setup.
Borg
107FL
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
Key differences
+161% aperture
Faster by 3.4 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Celestron RASA 11 | Borg 107FL |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | astrograph | refractor |
| Optical design | Rowe-Ackermann Schmidt Astrograph | Apo doublet fluorite |
| Aperture | 279mm | 107mm |
| Focal length | 620mm | 600mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/2.2 | f/5.6 |
| Image circle | 43mm | — |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 20.0kg | 3.5kg |
Advantages of Celestron RASA 11
- 161% more light-gathering aperture
- Faster optics at f/2.22 vs f/5.6
- Larger image circle (43mm) — supports bigger sensors
Advantages of Borg 107FL
- Lighter (3.5kg vs 20kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Celestron RASA 11
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
- Faint-object imaging under dark skies
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Borg 107FL
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Celestron RASA 11 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.33° × 2.22°Scale: 1.25"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.17° × 1.45°Scale: 1.25"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.04° × 1.04°Scale: 1.25"/px
Borg 107FL — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.44° × 2.29°Scale: 1.29"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.24° × 1.50°Scale: 1.29"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.08° × 1.08°Scale: 1.29"/px
Celestron RASA 11 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a permanent observatory setup.
Borg 107FL — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.