Back to forums

Noobie requires help

Askar 80PHQ iOptron SkyGuider Pro Canon EOS 6D Refractors Buying Advice
17 replies•421 views
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
Okay, I'm faced with a very serious choice. I'm becoming more and more attracted to DS astrophotography, and I'm currently choosing (my first) telescope. To avoid frustration and save money in the long run, I decided to immediately buy equipment that will last for me a long time (I don't like selling things). Since I already have a Canon 6D, I'm considering a telescope that A) handles full frame well, B) has an adequate field of view with full frame. At the same time, in the future I'm thinking of buying an astro camera with an APS-C sensor (ZWO 2600 MM, or something like that).
Now I have a choice - Askar 65PHQ or 80PHQ. At first, 65PHQ seemed like the best choice to me - its fairly light weight, I can theoretically mount it on my Skyguider PRO, that will give me opportunity to practice before buying a proper mount, but I'm not entirely happy with its field of view with full frame. 80PHQ has perfect field of view for me, but it's heavier (Skyguider probably won't work) and I'm not entirely sure about its image quality (the only subs I've seen had a fairly strong, albeit thin vignette). I'd be incredibly grateful if someone could help me with my choicesmile
Marko avatar
Marko avatar
I actually like the idea to spend more in the first place instead of buying twice. It probably depends on when you plan to get a better mount.
I see the followning scenarios:
1. You get the big telescope and need to get a new mount soon or right away. Then you have a telescope you like and a stable mount and paid only once.
2. You get the small telescope and can take nice photos until you get a new mount and then you might be unhappy with the telecscope and buy the large one. In that case you spend more. Or you simply have a second telescope to be happy with.

On the other hand, I guess you want more than one telescope with different focal lenghts anyway sooner or later. This is actually why I got my Askar V. Gives me lots of flexibility as a beginner and depending on how I configure it, I can be light with short focal length or it can have longer focal length with more weight. And since I want a bigger telescope anyway, I just see it as an additional part on the list of equiptment that I will buy anyway.
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
On the other hand, I guess you want more than one telescope with different focal lenghts anyway sooner or later. This is actually why I got my Askar V. Gives me lots of flexibility as a beginner and depending on how I configure it, I can be light with short focal length or it can have longer focal length with more weight. And since I want a bigger telescope anyway, I just see it as an additional part on the list of equiptment that I will buy anyway.

I thought about Askar V, but unfortunately I can't find a suitable distributor in my area. As for buying several telescopes, yes, I understand that sooner or later I will be overtaken by focal length fever) But while my head is still clear, I am trying to find an option that will cover all my desires (well, except for very small objects or the solar system, but that's another story)
Marko avatar
Marko avatar
In that case I would say the the 65phq should be fine. 416mm is not so much shorter than 600mm and for many targets even too long. But if you really want longer focal length you should think about getting a better mount right away if it fits your budget in my opinion.
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
416mm is not so much shorter than 600mm and for many targets even too long.


I would argue. I used Andromeda as an example of a large object that I am willing to shoot without using a panorama. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my opinion the difference is quite strong, full frame at 80PHQ is almost identical to APS-C at 65PHQ


Orion in my opinion looks better at 80PHQ, as does the Triangulum Galaxy



Even if I miscalculated somewhere, don't forget about the 80PHQ 0,76х reducer, it just brings the field of view to about the level of 65PHQ. But once again, I may be wrong
Marko avatar
Marko avatar
I have to admit, that I might be a bit biased because I only have an ASI533 with small chip.
Nevertheless, from what I see here on Astrobin, focal length seems to bring not always as much gain in image quality as one would feel it would. It certainly helps, but different pixel sizes and seeing can also make a big difference. But of course that should not keep you from buying the larger scope, since its just my opinion. If you can afford a larger mount as well then the large scope certainly will be nice.
Respectful
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
focal length seems to bring not always as much gain in image quality as one would feel it would. It certainly helps, but different pixel sizes and seeing can also make a big difference.


Sure, but as far as I can tell, a longer focal length gives you more freedom (as one character from "Aliens" said: "It's better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have one"). My dilemma is precisely in the flatness of the field, I'm not sure about 80PHQ. If everything is really as I think, then I'll rather choose 65PHQ and just crop the photo in post.
Amit avatar
Amit avatar
Alex Lutes:
Okay, I'm faced with a very serious choice. I'm becoming more and more attracted to DS astrophotography, and I'm currently choosing (my first) telescope. To avoid frustration and save money in the long run, I decided to immediately buy equipment that will last for me a long time (I don't like selling things). Since I already have a Canon 6D, I'm considering a telescope that A) handles full frame well, B) has an adequate field of view with full frame. At the same time, in the future I'm thinking of buying an astro camera with an APS-C sensor (ZWO 2600 MM, or something like that).
Now I have a choice - Askar 65PHQ or 80PHQ. At first, 65PHQ seemed like the best choice to me - its fairly light weight, I can theoretically mount it on my Skyguider PRO, that will give me opportunity to practice before buying a proper mount, but I'm not entirely happy with its field of view with full frame. 80PHQ has perfect field of view for me, but it's heavier (Skyguider probably won't work) and I'm not entirely sure about its image quality (the only subs I've seen had a fairly strong, albeit thin vignette). I'd be incredibly grateful if someone could help me with my choice



Hi Alex, I have been down this road as I also started with a tracker mount and a canon aps-c camera and a Rokinon 135mm lens. I was soon sucked into the deep space astro targets. I agree to what @Lumpi3000 mentioned above. You can also take a look at the Askar 71F. Weight and Focal length wise it is in between the 2 PHQs but at an amazing budget pricing. My camera is also a 533mc Pro so that gives a even narrower FOV. 

Below (Priority wise) is just how I approached with the equipment's for  my Imaging set-up - 
1.Mount - Am3 (Does great at 102mm APO refractor and should also support a 6 or 8in SCT (future FOV scope)
2. Camera - Went with 533mc pro 
3. Telescope - Rokinon 135mm and starfield 102ED(714mm) - these scopes plus 533mc pro satisfies my FOV needs (at least for now )
4. very recently added guiding and Focuser to the rig and am getting 5min subs.

 Welcome to the DS astro imaging club and wish you the best in your Rig setup.

Clear Skies!
Helpful Supportive
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
Amit:
Below (Priority wise) is just how I approached with the equipment's for  my Imaging set-up - 
1.Mount - Am3 (Does great at 102mm APO refractor and should also support a 6 or 8in SCT (future FOV scope)
2. Camera - Went with 533mc pro 
3. Telescope - Rokinon 135mm and starfield 102ED(714mm) - these scopes plus 533mc pro satisfies my FOV needs (at least for now )
4. very recently added guiding and Focuser to the rig and am getting 5min subs.

 Welcome to the DS astro imaging club and wish you the best in your Rig setup.

Clear Skies!


Thanks for the info! I've considered trying to start with Samyang 135, but there was 2 problems: 1. It's not really easy to get here (idk why, honestly), 2. I don't think that this will be a good solution for me. Guess I'm still under some kind of ptsd from my Samyang 14 f/2.8, which has some really nasty coma on my canon 6d. I know that 135 is really good lense, but considering full frame fov and problem #1, I think buying refractor is a better option for me.

CS m8!
Amit avatar
Amit avatar
Alex Lutes:
Amit:
Below (Priority wise) is just how I approached with the equipment's for  my Imaging set-up - 
1.Mount - Am3 (Does great at 102mm APO refractor and should also support a 6 or 8in SCT (future FOV scope)
2. Camera - Went with 533mc pro 
3. Telescope - Rokinon 135mm and starfield 102ED(714mm) - these scopes plus 533mc pro satisfies my FOV needs (at least for now )
4. very recently added guiding and Focuser to the rig and am getting 5min subs.

 Welcome to the DS astro imaging club and wish you the best in your Rig setup.

Clear Skies!


Thanks for the info! I've considered trying to start with Samyang 135, but there was 2 problems: 1. It's not really easy to get here (idk why, honestly), 2. I don't think that this will be a good solution for me. Guess I'm still under some kind of ptsd from my Samyang 14 f/2.8, which has some really nasty coma on my canon 6d. I know that 135 is really good lense, but considering full frame fov and problem #1, I think buying refractor is a better option for me.

CS m8!


absolutely! The samyang 135mm was just the first lens i got for astroimaging. The askar fma180 (slightly longer FL) is a great alternative to it for widefield refractor setup. and yes, definitely go with a refractor somewhere around ~350-500mm FL should be great to cover most of the widefield nebulas/galaxy with apsc sensor.
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar
Go with the 65mm and the mount you have. Once you have some experience with that rig you'll know what your next upgrade should be. When you do upgrade your mount and main scope, that little 65mm will make a dandy guide scope and can also be used for imaging depending on your FOV requirements.

As for FOV in general, please remember that M31 is a bad metric for how large a FOV would be the most useful. M31 is the largest galaxy in the sky so yes, you need a huge FOV to capture it all without doing a mosaic. The thing is, most galaxies are tiny. For most of the NGC catalog, 2000mm would be about right. The same goes too a certain extent for deep sky objects. Yes you can take a picture of, lets say, the Rosette Nebula at 400mm and what will you have? The same picture that everyone else has of the Rosette. A long FL will allow you to get in there and shoot an interesting detail within the nebula that not not everyone else and his uncle has. Something to think about.
Helpful
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
Tony Gondola:
As for FOV in general, please remember that M31 is a bad metric for how large a FOV would be the most useful. M31 is the largest galaxy in the sky so yes, you need a huge FOV to capture it all without doing a mosaic.


Yeah I know, like I said - I'm using this as an example of the largest object. Not quite getting your point - you said 65 is the best for me, but it still has more fov. My point is, that I'm trying to find some middle ground, scope that will have ok fov with full frame and aps-c in case of most popular nebulae.
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar
Alex Lutes:
Tony Gondola:
As for FOV in general, please remember that M31 is a bad metric for how large a FOV would be the most useful. M31 is the largest galaxy in the sky so yes, you need a huge FOV to capture it all without doing a mosaic.


Yeah I know, like I said - I'm using this as an example of the largest object. Not quite getting your point - you said 65 is the best for me, but it still has more fov. My point is, that I'm trying to find some middle ground, scope that will have ok fov with full frame and aps-c in case of most popular nebulae.

Alex, I think the 65 is the best for the setup you have now and will still be useful as you upgrade your rig later. The thing about FOV was really a general comment, something to think about as you grow your rig in the future.
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
Tony Gondola:
Alex, I think the 65 is the best for the setup you have now

Oh, now i see, thanks.
Tony Gondola:
as you upgrade your rig later

Well, that's the problem. I said this at the very beginning - I REALLY don't want to buy multiple OTAs, or rather I'd like to keep such purchases to an absolute minimum. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'd like to find an option that will cover the vast majority of my deep space needs, and I'm still inclined to think that the 65 is not a good fit for this. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Maybe I'm just trying to figure out in advance what can't stand it.
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar
Ok, my thinking on this is that it's really hard for me to imagine that, as a beginner, you won't change up your rig down the road. Maybe not in 6 months, maybe not in a year but as you progress in the hobby you most certainly will. At some point you will want to upgrade the mount. You are already thinking about upgrading your camera, on and on it goes. starting with the 65mm gives you the best chance of success with what you have now and there should never be a need to sell it. As one of many who have gone through the process, I've given you my best advice.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Supportive
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
Tony Gondola:
Ok, my thinking on this is that it's really hard for me to imagine that, as a beginner, you won't change up your rig down the road. Maybe not in 6 months, maybe not in a year but as you progress in the hobby you most certainly will. At some point you will want to upgrade the mount. You are already thinking about upgrading your camera, on and on it goes. starting with the 65mm gives you the best chance of success with what you have now and there should never be a need to sell it. As one of many who have gone through the process, I've given you my best advice.

Thanks for the advice! I guess it's my perfectionism and desire to think everything through in advance as much as possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't stop trying to be THAT practical.
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar
lol, I hear ya.
Alex Lutes avatar
Alex Lutes avatar
Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to be rational and I can't get rid of the thought of how difficult it will be for me to sell the equipment. From my point of view, it will be insanely difficult: I live in a small town, I don't realy trust delivery (even with insurance), and in general - I have a very vague idea of ​​the process of such a sale. Of course, this is due to lack of experience, and I haven't been in the subject for long. But if you take into account the scenario with the sale of old equipment - I completely agree with every word of yours