Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

Takahashi Epsilon-160ED vs Askar FRA600

Takahashi Epsilon-160ED
Takahashi

Epsilon-160ED

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

Askar FRA600
Askar

FRA600

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

Key differences

-12% focal length
+48% aperture
Faster by 2.3 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationTakahashi Epsilon-160EDAskar FRA600
Optics
TypeNewtonianRefractor
Optical designHyperbolic astrographPetzval Quintuplet APO
Aperture160mm108mm
Focal length530mm600mm
Native f/ratiof/3.3f/5.6
Image circle44mm60mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight10.0kg7.8kg
Advantages of Takahashi Epsilon-160ED
  • Wider field — 530mm vs 600mm focal length
  • 48% more light-gathering aperture
  • Faster optics at f/3.3 vs f/5.6
Advantages of Askar FRA600
  • Tighter framing — 600mm vs 530mm focal length
  • Larger image circle (60mm) — supports bigger sensors
  • Lighter (7.8kg vs 10kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Takahashi Epsilon-160ED
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Askar FRA600
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Takahashi Epsilon-160ED — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 3.89° × 2.59°Scale: 1.46"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.54° × 1.70°Scale: 1.46"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.22° × 1.22°Scale: 1.46"/px
Askar FRA600 — 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
Takahashi Epsilon-160ED — recommended user

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

Askar FRA600 — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives