telescopecomparison · 2-way
William Optics GT 102 vs Askar SQA106
William Optics
GT 102
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Askar
SQA106
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
+21% focal length
Slower by 1.4 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | William Optics GT 102 | Askar SQA106 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Apo triplet FPL-53 | Quadruplet astrograph FPL-51 |
| Aperture | 102mm | 106mm |
| Focal length | 703mm | 580mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/6.9 | f/5.5 |
| Image circle | 44mm | 60mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 5.6kg | 6.5kg |
Advantages of William Optics GT 102
- Tighter framing — 703mm vs 580mm focal length
Advantages of Askar SQA106
- Wider field — 580mm vs 703mm focal length
- Faster optics at f/5.5 vs f/6.9
- Larger image circle (60mm) — supports bigger sensors
Best for — William Optics GT 102
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Askar SQA106
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
William Optics GT 102 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.93° × 1.96°Scale: 1.10"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.92° × 1.28°Scale: 1.10"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 0.92° × 0.92°Scale: 1.10"/px
Askar SQA106 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.56° × 2.37°Scale: 1.34"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.32° × 1.55°Scale: 1.34"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.12° × 1.12°Scale: 1.34"/px
William Optics GT 102 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Askar SQA106 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.