Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics RedCat 91 vs Askar 65PHQ

William Optics RedCat 91
William Optics

RedCat 91

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Askar 65PHQ
Askar

65PHQ

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Key differences

+19% focal length
+40% aperture
Faster by 1.0 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics RedCat 91Askar 65PHQ
Optics
TypeRefractorRefractor
Optical designPetzval APOQuintuplet Petzval
Aperture91mm65mm
Focal length496mm416mm
Native f/ratiof/5.5f/6.4
Image circle45mm44mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight4.3kg3.6kg
Advantages of William Optics RedCat 91
  • Tighter framing — 496mm vs 416mm focal length
  • 40% more light-gathering aperture
  • Faster optics at f/5.45 vs f/6.4
Advantages of Askar 65PHQ
  • Wider field — 416mm vs 496mm focal length
  • Lighter (3.6kg vs 4.3kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — William Optics RedCat 91
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Askar 65PHQ
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
William Optics RedCat 91 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 4.16° × 2.77°Scale: 1.56"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.71° × 1.81°Scale: 1.56"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.31° × 1.31°Scale: 1.56"/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 RedCat 91 — recommended user

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Askar 65PHQ — recommended user

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Recommended alternatives