Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P vs Askar 107PHQ

Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P
Sky-Watcher

Quattro 200P

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

Askar 107PHQ
Askar

107PHQ

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

Key differences

+7% focal length
+87% aperture
Faster by 3.0 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationSky-Watcher Quattro 200PAskar 107PHQ
Optics
TypeNewtonianrefractor
Optical designImaging NewtonianPetzval quintuplet FPL-51
Aperture200mm107mm
Focal length800mm749mm
Native f/ratiof/4.0f/7.0
Image circle32mm44mm
Full-frame supportNoYes
Physical
Weight10.5kg7.5kg
Advantages of Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P
  • 87% more light-gathering aperture
  • Faster optics at f/4 vs f/7
Advantages of Askar 107PHQ
  • Larger image circle (43.9mm) — supports bigger sensors
  • Lighter (7.5kg vs 10.5kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
  • Faint-object imaging under dark skies
Best for — Askar 107PHQ
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.58° × 1.72°Scale: 0.97"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.68° × 1.12°Scale: 0.97"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.81° × 0.81°Scale: 0.97"/px
Askar 107PHQ — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.75° × 1.84°Scale: 1.04"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.80° × 1.20°Scale: 1.04"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.86° × 0.86°Scale: 1.04"/px
Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P — recommended user

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

Askar 107PHQ — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives