telescopecomparison · 2-way
William Optics FLT 120 vs Askar 65PHQ
William Optics
FLT 120
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
+88% focal length
+85% aperture
Specifications
| Specification | William Optics FLT 120 | Askar 65PHQ |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | Refractor | Refractor |
| Optical design | Triplet APO | Quintuplet Petzval |
| Aperture | 120mm | 65mm |
| Focal length | 780mm | 416mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/6.5 | f/6.4 |
| Image circle | 44mm | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 7.7kg | 3.6kg |
Advantages of William Optics FLT 120
- Tighter framing — 780mm vs 416mm focal length
- 85% more light-gathering aperture
Advantages of Askar 65PHQ
- Wider field — 416mm vs 780mm focal length
- Lighter (3.6kg vs 7.7kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — William Optics FLT 120
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Askar 65PHQ
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
William Optics FLT 120 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.64° × 1.76°Scale: 0.99"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.73° × 1.15°Scale: 0.99"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 0.83° × 0.83°Scale: 0.99"/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
William Optics FLT 120 — 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.