telescopecomparison · 2-way
Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P vs Askar 65PHQ
Sky-Watcher
Quattro 200P
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
+92% focal length
+208% aperture
Faster by 2.4 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P | Askar 65PHQ |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | Newtonian | Refractor |
| Optical design | Imaging Newtonian | Quintuplet Petzval |
| Aperture | 200mm | 65mm |
| Focal length | 800mm | 416mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/4.0 | f/6.4 |
| Image circle | 32mm | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | No | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 10.5kg | 3.6kg |
Advantages of Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P
- Tighter framing — 800mm vs 416mm focal length
- 208% more light-gathering aperture
- Faster optics at f/4 vs f/6.4
Advantages of Askar 65PHQ
- Wider field — 416mm vs 800mm focal length
- Larger image circle (44mm) — supports bigger sensors
- Lighter (3.6kg 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 65PHQ
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- 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 65PHQ — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 4.96° × 3.31°Scale: 1.86"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.24° × 2.16°Scale: 1.86"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.56° × 1.56°Scale: 1.86"/px
Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Askar 65PHQ — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.