What to choose - Askar 103apo vs Explorer scientific ed102 fcd-100

Amit, I have the Askar 103 apo with the 1x flattener and .8x reducer.  I use it on the AM3 mount(usually with the counterweight), although not required. My cameras are the 533 and the 2600. It is a very good value and very well made. Optical quality is good, you may get some chromatic aberration occasionally. I like mine very much. My images are hindered more by my meager processing skills than the scope. If you go under equipment - telescopes you can see lots of examples with the 103apo. Mine are there under dummieastro.  However, if you want to take a step up I would go for the Askar 107phq instead of the Explorer Scientific. Get the counterweight for the AM3 which does not cost much. I don't think you will be disappointed with the 107phq.

CS, Bob

Amit, I have the Askar 103 apo with the 1x flattener and .8x reducer.  I use it on the AM3 mount(usually with the counterweight), although not required. My cameras are the 533 and the 2600. It is a very good value and very well made. Optical quality is good, you may get some chromatic aberration occasionally. I like mine very much. My images are hindered more by my meager processing skills than the scope. If you go under equipment - telescopes you can see lots of examples with the 103apo. Mine are there under dummieastro.  However, if you want to take a step up I would go for the Askar 107phq instead of the Explorer Scientific. Get the counterweight for the AM3 which does not cost much. I don't think you will be disappointed with the 107phq.

CA, Bob

thanks Bob, I have a AM3 as well and 533mc pro. I did have 107phq in my list but it was touching that $2000 mark which was getting way over my budget. I will keep an eye for a used one if available. Thanks.

I use the Askar 103 APO with its field flattener and 0.8x reducer. It is really good considering its price. Does it have super premium opitcal quality? No, but it performs quite well and by using modern day editing tools, you can fix most minor optical issues. I can't speak to the quality of the Explore Scientific scope. Most of the images that I have posted are from the Askar so feel free to check them out. I also tried the 0.6x reducer, but I had issues with elongated stars in the corners. The standard 55 mm backfocus didn't seem to work.

I  also use the Askar 103 APO with its field flattener and 0.8x reducer. It's on an AM3 which I think is a terrific mount. At the price the combination is unbeatable. 

Many of my images posted were taken with the 103. There are many other examples up here. I think the images speak for themselves.

I have not found counterweight is needed with the APO 103. Tracking is as good as I have seen.  I know someone who has the 120 and he has no issues on the AM3, but he considers a counterweight 'an option'.

I have the 102 essential series (not FCD) and I have the 127 carbon fiber with FCD100 lenses, the difference between both lenses is noticeable when you pay special attention to the chromatic aberration, but I recently acquired an Askar 140APO with the 0.8x reducer and I am surprised by the punctuality of the stars and I do not notice much chromatic aberration with respect to the 127FC, what I mean is assuming that the quality of the lenses of the askar 103 is the same as that of the askar 140, maybe they are a little behind the FCD100 lenses, but it is not a big difference so noticeable.

Awesome! Thanks for the feedbacks . Looks to me it’s better spending the money on post-processing software and go with the Askars.

I have many scopes but not in 4" category of refractors until last year, so i ordered 106mm f/6.6 and the seller included 0.92x with it free of charge and also hard case and all are free shipping, total was $1400, i even asked the seller to make a mask, aperture mask to reducer it from 106mm to 70mm so i can use the scope for solar sometimes making it as 70mm f/10, it is a triplet with FCD-100, i never tested or took it out of the shipping box yet, but i always trust anything i buy, because i am lucky enough with long patients, i never worry or care about stars, because for stars i will just buy a dedicated scope for it which is corrected as field and as CA, and a Quintuplet is the best idea for that, also thinking too much about stars halo or CA is very annoying these days, you can always eliminate or reduce that by post processing and also using some filters to cut it off, if you are too much crazy about it then just buy a reflector, believe me even a 10" semi APO or achromatic refractor can have that CA to a degree even not very noticeable and you still worry about it.

Now i have two 90mm triplets and 106mm triplet i only need a scope in that range 90-110mm giving me about 400-450mm focal length but being as a Petzval or Quintuplet and not so expensive, WO and ZWO scopes are $2000 or above for those range although other brands are cheaper, i don't pay attention much about the optics quality, my Askar FRA400 doesn't have CA, and even if it has it is very minimal that i can easily remove it if i want, i don't like to spend time with post processing also, so that i can try to find methods and ways to go around that, one of them is to have a perfect scope inexpensive for stars only, while for narrowbanding i can use even my sunglass or binocular for that because it is very narrow so CA isn't an issue.