Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

Sky-Watcher Evolux 62ED vs Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P

Sky-Watcher Evolux 62ED
Sky-Watcher

Evolux 62ED

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P
Sky-Watcher

Quattro 150P

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

Key differences

-40% focal length
-59% aperture
Slower by 1.8 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationSky-Watcher Evolux 62EDSky-Watcher Quattro 150P
Optics
Typerefractornewtonian
Optical designApo doublet FPL-53Newtonian astrograph
Aperture62mm150mm
Focal length360mm600mm
Native f/ratiof/5.8f/4.0
Image circle44mm
Full-frame supportNoNo
Physical
Weight2.2kg7.5kg
Advantages of Sky-Watcher Evolux 62ED
  • Wider field — 360mm vs 600mm focal length
  • Larger image circle (44mm) — supports bigger sensors
  • Lighter (2.2kg vs 7.5kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P
  • Tighter framing — 600mm vs 360mm focal length
  • 142% more light-gathering aperture
  • Faster optics at f/4 vs f/5.8
Best for — Sky-Watcher Evolux 62ED
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
Best for — Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
Sky-Watcher Evolux 62ED — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 5.73° × 3.82°Scale: 2.15"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 3.74° × 2.50°Scale: 2.15"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.80° × 1.80°Scale: 2.15"/px
Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P — 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
Sky-Watcher Evolux 62ED — recommended user

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives