INCREDIBLE Scope with an Achilles Heel? - Askar 130PHQ Review

[@NebulaPhotos]

Very nice job Luke! At the time of my review, I didn't have a small-pixel, large-sensor OSC camera (since remedied - got a 2600MC), but that really is what to use for testing corners as you showed here. My Canon Ra (5.36 micron pixels) didn't show these problems with the reducer, probably due to its bigger pixels. We really are pushing the limits of optics with the cameras now. I've seen a lot of reports that since the IMX571 and IMX455 sensors have taken over, people are no longer so happy with their Takahashis. The small pixels + large sensor combo really takes no prisoners!

[@lukomatico]

Thank you Nico!! That means an awful lot coming from you mate :-) Totally agree by the way, 100%! - as you say, these small pixel cameras and the fine sampling ratios that usually accompany them are utterly merciless at showing up aberrations that would otherwise be invisible with a bigger pixel/coarser sampling ratio. I've seen similar reports by the way, on a related note I believe takahashi recently released a 1.01x flattener for their fsq85edx as a response to that kind of issue! Hopefully more options will become available for folk who need them too. Thanks so much for watching my friend!

[@kamylko]

@@lukomatico I have the same abberation problem on my FRA500 with my 0.7 reducer aj FF sensor.

[@Astro_Shed]

Absolutely correct, since getting my QHY268m and OSC version, I am selling my tak, as it just does not like the small pixels at all…☹

[@nadirteymurov1]

I seem to be the only one who is absolutely happy with FSQ-106 and IMX455 fullframe performance ? Also 1.01x flattener mentioned here for Baby-Q is absolutely fantastic and covers well FF sensor + doesn't cost a lot

[@Astro_Shed]

@@nadirteymurov1 sorry but I don’t agree re the FSQ85, it’s poor even with the new corrector on even APS-C size sensors, I had one for a good few years and with modern small pixels cameras it’s not good, you zoom in 3-1 on your images and then take a good look….uncropped images that is..👍🏻

[@WilliFromEarth]

I just got the ZWO 130mm (believed to be a rebranded Askar 130mm PHQ). It is such an amazing scope. The contrast is great! I like to add to your excellent and pretty complete review (one reason why I bought it!), that I also used this scope visually for one night at good seeing conditions. It is also performing extremely well visually. I never saw so many details on planets (Jupiter and Saturn) and could split double stars beautifully. Of course, at 130mm aperture diameter deepsky objects are still pretty dim, but whoever likes to look at planets and those tight doubles, this scope is great for that, too.

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much mate! - I really enjoyed using the scope visually too, my little visual report in this video barely touched upon it but I definitely know what you're talking about - such crystal clear views :-) lovely!

[@noddyonice]

Great review Luke. Thoroughly enjoyed the comparison of FL. Looks like an absolute belter at native. Glad it’s not just me that sniffs new gear! 👍🏻 Noddy

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much mate! - Glad to hear I'm not the only new gear sniffer LOL! :-D Clear skies buddy!

[@deep_space_dave]

Happy New Year Luke! I am starting to see a pattern with your review videos... They are honest and subjective which is very appreciated in this world of influencers and paid reviewers. Excellent job in your unboxing and review. I look forward to more reviews in the coming year and excellent image of the heart of the heart nebula 🙂

[@lukomatico]

Thank you Dave!! :-D I really appreciate that mate, It's been a lot of fun doing a review like this - luckily I have more gear to be testing too, so I'll be a busy guy each clear night for a while now lol! :-) Thank you again for your support my friend! Clear skies

[@SKYST0RY]

A superb and thorough review. The pixel peeping with the reducer issue really gives a solid sense of the new challenges accompanying the increasing advantages of our newest tech.

[@lukomatico]

Great to hear! Thank you so much for watching and leaving a lovely comment - clear skies my friend!

[@darkskygeek]

Great review, thank you for putting the time and effort to share your findings with us!

[@lukomatico]

My pleasure mate! I'm ever so glad to hear you liked the review :-) Thanks for watching and Clear skies!

[@deepskysanctuary]

Happy New Year Luke! This is a fantastic review and I really appreciate you taking the time to show ASTAP and corner performance. My least favorite thing to do in this hobby is to fix tilt and backfocus, so this is very helpful to demonstrate the actual out of the box performance. This scope looks awesome at native FL, so hopefully there is another iteration on the focal reducer. Props to Askar for sending it out to you for review - they put it in good hands!

[@lukomatico]

Happy new year to you too mate! :-) I'm glad you enjoyed the review, that's awesome to hear! It was quite a lot of work to compile everything together, but it was also rather enjoyable overall and if it's been helpful to people then that's wonderful! Huge thanks for watching the video my friend! Hope you're having plenty of clear skies!

[@gregerianne3880]

Happy New Year! Thank you so much for this, Luke. I've been scouring KZbin and the internet looking for reviews of the Askar PHQ series and there aren't many comprehensive videos. I purchased a 107PHQ before the Holidays and, unfortunately, had to return it due to pinched optics (I think) since when the scope cooled down in the ridiculously cold weather we had in Dec, the stars were a bit triangular. Unfortunately, the clouds moved in after that and haven't left since so I didn't have a chance to test the reducer which I kept (and is now not returnable) since I was planning to order another 107PHQ. I have another 107PHQ on order and hopefully it should arrive near the end of January. The 107PHQ is really optimal for me in a lot of ways, so I thought I'd take a chance and order another one hoping the problem I had was a one-off. Askar was really terrific with their support, so that was a plus. Fingers crossed the next 107PHQ is as great as I've seen everyone report. Thank you once again for a great video!

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much for the lovely comment my friend! - My apologies about the slow reply too. I'm sorry to hear you had issues with pinch, that's a real annoyance! I'm highly hopeful your replacement will be perfect, I've seen so many good things said about the 107PHQ! :-) Thanks ever so much for watching, and good luck with your scope!

[@wooddogg8]

Hi Luke, long time viewer, rare commenter and I gotta say I appreciate your review as well as Nico's. Especially since I'm in the market for a bigger refractor right now. This one might be just above my budget plus I think the weight would be pushing my old AVX mount and I'm certainty not ready to upgrade both this year. Looks like a fine offering, however. Thanks for the wonderful review. Clear skies and I'd love to see you keep it 😃, entirely up to you, of course. Happy new year!

[@lukomatico]

Thank you so much! :-D I'm chuffed to hear you say that my friend, It's a heck of a scope if you do decide to look at one in the future! I'm going to have a good long think about what to do with the scope when this review period is over, it does fit quite well in the obsy but it's also quite a lot of money to part with I guess! - decisions, decisions!! Thanks again for watching :-)

[@peterlaubscher3989]

Thanks for a great review - that's a stunning image!

[@brettnordby8554]

Luke, thanks for validating my own results. My 130PHQ reducer seemed so bad that I actually thought it was defective. Every manufacturer deals with production variances, but in my case I couldn't believe I needed to add a whole 3mm! After watching your video, I now wonder if I need to add even more. I ended up buying about $400 in M68 spacers, including a Baader Varilock, so I will try adding another mm or two when the weather warms.

[@lukomatico]

I'm happy to hear this was useful to you Brett 👍 I was really surprised by the reducer, especially since the scope is just so crisp at native, it felt like a downgrade to use it unfortunately :-( I think playing with more back focus could indeed be useful, I wish you the very best of luck with it mate! Thanks for watching and clear skies!!

[@jjjscharf8059]

Hi Luke! Very much appreciate the effort you clearly put into this thorough review of the Askar 130PHQ. Love your channel :)

[@lukomatico]

My pleasure mate!! Thanks so much for your lovely comment, it's appreciated! :-D Clear skies!

[@andrewj1132]

Hello Luke, thanks for the lengthy review. Much appreciated because I’m sure it’s a lot of work. I was thinking of buying the 107PHQ because I think the 130 is too bulky and heavy for my circumstances. But your review has left me in something of a quandary with regard to the reducer. I realise it’s a different scope obviously, but I just wonder whether the problems you found with the reducer might also occur in the 107. I hope Askar get this resolved. It’s really good to have the excellent optical performance at the native focal length, but it would be really excellent if that quality of imaging were also available with a reducer for wider field imaging. 😊

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much Andrew! From what I've seen online it looks like the reducer works great with the 107, personally I'd just look into the return policy of whichever dealer you're thinking of using to give yourself peace of mind, maybe even approach them directly about the reducer, that way they can work with you from the get-go I guess :-) I'm sure it's a beautiful scope if it's anything like this 130phq! Thank you for watching and clear skies my friend 👍

[@jonbasstro1413]

Happy New Year Luke, a great review on a beautiful looking scope.The image at the end you produced was excellent.

[@lukomatico]

Thanks ever so much Jon! - It's a superb scope for sure mate :-) great bit of kit!

[@prostcj]

It appears the .7 reducer with the 60mm backspacing could still be a useful tool for narrowband imaging. Shame it couldn't perform better for broadband.

[@MooseHenderson1]

This was excellent Luke, most of the other reviews I have seen about Askar said scopes were budget scopes, for that reason I always dismissed the reviews as I want quality stuff, not an econo scope. I know something can be semi-budget and still good quality. You have really enlighted me and provided an excellent review. I have been planning to add a refractor to my scope collection, I was leaning strongly toward William Optics (Redcats and GT series) but now will add Askar to the mix. I know Takas are top of the line but I need something I can afford, Askars are in my price range.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you my friend!! - That really means a lot to hear. I've been hugely impressed by the fit & finish and optical performance of this scope at native focal length for sure, a true performer! - A pity about the reducer, but I'm sure Askar will be able to remedy it somehow, it may also be that I simply got a bad reducer unit! I genuinely believe if you wanted a scope in this price/size range then you could certainly do a lot worse than the 130PHQ! :-) Clear skies my friend, thanks again for watching!

[@deepskysanctuary]

In this kind price range, also look into the Esprit 120. It has been battle tested and sharpness is known to rival Taks for sensor sizes that aren’t full frame and has an excellent flattener/reducer. Secret tip is to buy from First Light Optics in the UK even if you are in the US. After import duties/shipping it is still cheaper than most US retailers and they even bench test for you!

[@HeavenlyBackyardAstronomy]

WOW, what a WONDERFUL scope! Super in-depth review, Luke. I have the Orion EON 130mm Triplet and that scope is quite top-heavy. That quadruplet lens must be super heavy, but wow, what a clean native image. I looked at the price and for $3,500 USD), that is a bargain for such a great scope. I appreciate your honesty on the reducer review. That might be a scope you might want to hold onto. I love my 130mm triplet ... but that quad is something that you could absolutely do nothing but love.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you Pat!! - it's definitely a pretty hefty scope, but as you say, what a performer! :-D I hope your weather has heated back up a bit now my friend! Thanks for watching :-)

[@raddock0]

Awesome review, love the comparison with the reducer. You did it justice. I bought and learned the hard way that the reducer for the Askar FRA400 wasn't as good as the scope's native views, and sold it. So again, great review. All the right points to cover.

[@lukomatico]

So happy you liked the review mate!! That's awesome to hear :-) I'm sorry to learn the fra400 reducer wasn't up to the mark also, that's no good at all - Hopefully they can figure things out with their reducers in the future! Thanks so much for watching and sharing your experience mate!

[@larrycable984]

@@lukomatico @raddock0 FRA500 is excellent FYI

[@SeaLintAstro]

Luke, Thank you for the amazing review. I just placed my order for the Askar 130 PHQ. Even though I could get a free reducer through ZWO's version of the scope, it was clear from your review that I wouldn't have used it (THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY!) This was a fantastic review and gave me 100% peace of mind ordering the scope. Now I just have to sell two scopes to pay for it! 😂

[@lukomatico]

Hey there Clint! - that's absolutely fantastic to hear, -congratulations!! you'll be very happy indeed with the scope my friend, what a wonderful piece of kit! :-) I'm glad you enjoyed the review, thanks for watching and commenting! Clear skies :-)

[@АлександрБень-я8ю]

Thank you for this full and deep review.

[@lukomatico]

My pleasure! Thanks for watching :-)

[@dmintz88]

Awesome review, Luke! I absolutely love my 80PHQ and it looks like the impressive performance has continued into their bigger offerings. I can't speak on the reducer quality, though, as I just shoot my 80PHQ at the native FL of 600mm and it's razor sharp from corner to corner.

[@lukomatico]

Thanks mate! and absolutely yeah, the performance natively is razor sharp on this too! :-) Hope you enjoy that scope buddy!

[@josephluciani5531]

Thank you for this great review Luke. Every one of your videos is an education-this one is no exception. Would you mind answering a basic newbie question? When you decided that you wanted to tackle the chroma issues, how did you conclude to increase back focus. Was this simply from your years of experience? Anyway a most happy 2023 for Lukomatico and how about a celebration video when you hit 10K subscribers!!!!

[@lukomatico]

Thank you Joe!! - I'm glad you find them so useful my friend :-) RE: the reducer issues, it was experience that told me it was too close - how much it needed to be moved though was pure guesswork, lol! :-D I had a similar issue with the Esprit 120 0.77x reducer, stars were good at 55mm, but I perfected them with an additional 5mm back-spacing added, really odd. Thanks for watching mate!

[@billblanshan3021]

Excellent review Luke! Hope you fo more like this.

[@lukomatico]

Thanks bro!! Appreciate that :-D

[@alexevans7916]

I bought one and did not bother with a reducer and it works fantasic ...does not seem "slow" in the least. It has taken my imaging to a much higher level and I am just so happy with the scope I regard it as perfect. Thanks for your wonderful video. And thanks to Niko who inspired me to get this scope and to run it at native...

[@lukomatico]

So glad you found the review enjoyable my friend! - The 130PHQ is a really lovely scope for sure, congratulations on getting a fine piece of equipment!

[@AstroOnBudget]

Thanks Luke. Love the detailed review!

[@lukomatico]

My pleasure mate! :-) Glad you liked it! Clear skies!

[@realair5472]

A great review and very valuable observations regarding the reducer. My 0.7x reducer for Edge HD 8 gives me identical chroma issues as the reducer in your review. Nobody told me about that before I bought it (I really don't like it). I will sell the SCT reducer and I am now looking for an alternative for 1000 mm focuslength. The 130PHQ without the reducer is now on the shortlist!

[@lukomatico]

Glad it was helpful mate!! - That's really interesting to hear about the 8" Edge HD 0.7x reducer, I saw the exact same thing on mine when I still owned it (a few years ago) - Really disappointing! (and as you mentioned, nothing much talked about online regarding it either!) If you want a 130PHQ for 1000mm work then I think you'd be very happy indeed! :-) Good luck mate!

[@MountainFisher]

That was a one hour exposure of Alnitak and the associated Flame Nebula, Barnard 33 (Horsehead Nebula) and NGC 2023 reflection and emission nebula without a H Beta filter was outstanding for an aperture 0f 127mm.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you for watching!! It really was a very high quality telescope :-)

[@aw7425]

Super review….when’s Christmas again….I must have one, clear skies

[@lukomatico]

Haha! Maybe you could get one as a REALLY early Christmas gift for next time? 😁👍

[@GilPaulbert]

very informative and objective review, well done ! I wish, there would be more of those, who actually measure flatness and aberration, any chance you could do a review on the newest offering from the phq line, the 65 ? I would love to see, how it compares to the likes of red cats and other scopes in that similar price range, as there aren't many, who own this scope yet. Clear skies 🌠, you got yourself a new subscriber 😊🔭🌌

[@lukomatico]

Thank you ever so much for your support mate!! It'd be nice to take a look at another Askar scope at some point for sure 👍 I must say, we have a Redcat 51 and love it so if I did test a phq65 or similar it'd have big shoes to fill!! Thanks again for watching!

[@briankotak403]

Nice review Luke. Although I am not in the market for another telescope, it is fun to keep up on new products. I really liked your review. I have a WO ZenithStar 61 refractor with a Flat61R 0.8x reducer. It is finicky and I am still playing with the back focus distance to sharpen the stars at the edges of my APS-C frames. Good thing the Flat61R is adjustable. It makes experimenting with the back focus easy. Like any good food recipe, think it is best to start with the 55mm back focus and adjust to taste! Clear skies my friend. Dr B from Manitoba, Canada 🇨🇦

[@lukomatico]

Hey Brian! - Hope you're doing well my friend :-) I like the idea of looking at 55mm like a starting point for the recipe haha, season to taste indeed! I appreciate you watching mate, very much hoping you get your back focus sorted on the ZS61! Clear skies

[@shinyy187]

Would you recommend this scope over the Esprit 120? Looking for an upgrade in the 800-1000mm FL range. I’m trying to decide which is the better deal and this and the esprit stand out to me. Glad to see the great performance although unfortunate about the reducer.

[@lukomatico]

Hey mate! - I probably would say it's pretty even, but the extra aperture never hurts! one consideration is if you can manage the extra length of this scope on your mount, it's quite a lot longer than the Esprit 120!

[@bengterlandsson7921]

Great job on the review of the scope.

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much my friend! :-)

[@Astrolavista]

The EAF may have been as easy as F, Luke lol but you get an A for the review! Sorry I'll get my coat ;) I like how you made this review both In-depth and casual at the same time, tons of useful information for anyone looking at this scope trying to make an informed decision, well done mate :) Honestly what an age we live in hey, it wasn't long ago that only premium brands like Takahashi could pull off these complex Petzval flat field apo's and they understandably didn't get it right all the time. Yes it's a 4k scope but the Takahashi FSQ-106 is nearly double this and from what I'm seeing the Askar's fit and finish plus native optics look just as stunning. Askar have really caught my attention recently, I've been ogling the 65PHQ since it was announced..but maybe not in the barbie pink anodised option :D Well done mate on a completely impartial review with good vibes and what an image at the end!

[@lukomatico]

Thanks Chris!! :-D Hugely appreciate the lovely comment buddy, it means a lot coming from you! You're absolutely right, it's crazy that we're practically swimming in complex optical designs these days haha! I'm sure the 65PHQ is going to be tremendous mate, looks a lovely thing! I appreciate you watching my friend, cheers! :-)

[@alandyer910]

Nicely done! Great review and very thorough. I would be concerned about having a filter in place for optical testing as dichroic filters are known to add colour to off-axis images with faster light cones. And Optolong’s are known to exhibit haloes. However, I assume the same filter was in place for the native focal length images. If so, that does even the score between the two sets of images and does point to the Reducer being the source of the aberrations. SharpStar/Askar are known for issuing units initially that have optical issues, only to correct them in later product runs. Owners of the first defective units may or may not get a replacement sent out to them. Thanks again!

[@lukomatico]

Thanks for the great feedback Alan! - I definitely hear your point about the dichroic filter issue for the test, I guess I'm a bit stuck though as if I wish to test any scope's performance with a duo-narrowband filter then it'll be inevitably be a dichroic filter in nature as I don't believe any narrowband filter is dyed-in-the-mass! So, at least it's a level playing field :-) Thanks so much for watching and sharing your experience! All the very best, Luke

[@SimonsAstro]

An excellent review of the Askar 130 Quad Luke! What an awesome scope mate! I really like the Askar and love my little FRA400! The build quality is the same across the range by all accounts as my 400 has the same quality paint finish as the 130! I like the fact that it’s a quad and don’t have to worry about back focus at its native length, and that it has a built in rotator. An honest review, very concise and informative mate! Beautiful final image, thanks for sharing Luke, all the best and clear skies👍

[@lukomatico]

Thank you Simon!! :-D Sorry about the late reply mate, been a busy few days lol!! The FRA400 looks wonderful mate, yours is certainly a keeper too! :-) Totally agree that not worrying about back focus at native is a lovely feature of the Petzvals, it's hard to give up and go back to normal scopes haha! Really appreciate your lovely comment mate, glad you liked the review! All the very best, Luke

[@alexevans7916]

Thanks Luke. I am thinking of getting one so your review was wonderful to see...Funny I have been wondering how it went at native.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you for watching Alex!! :-) I think you'll be very happy with it at native, 100%! Clear skies my friend!

[@alexevans7916]

I was so inspired I started adding a fourth pier in my observatory and put in place my eight inch Newtonian on an EQ 6 and tripod which coincidently has a F/L of 1000 mm ...all for the purpose of determining how things will fit etc namely the hole I have to cut in the floor tomorrow... I am very happy to have 1000 mm F/L refractor I can manage the speed as I am in a very dark spot thank goodness...my other scopes are an 80 mm, a 115 mm, and a RASA 11 all with shorter F/L... will buy the concrete and reo on Monday...I have emailed my supplier to see if/ when for the scope and a ZWO harmonic mount ( no tripod)...so your video certainly set a few things in motion for me...I plan to go narrow band and I would love to see a review on how it goes there...I have both zwo 2600 MC and MM so I can test before I get it its own camera but I sure hope it goes well with narrow band..I cant see why jt would not be great...Thank you again

[@jimbub1001]

Luke, I have a newly acquired 151PHQ - with the native focal length and no reducer, the field flatness and color are excellent across the entire frame. With the reducer (same one as yours), 60mm backspacing appears to work much better than the stated 55mm. I have reached out to Askar and sent them the data to look at - stay tuned. Great video!

[@lukomatico]

Huge congratulations on the new scope Jim! Very interesting to hear that you've had the same findings with your scope too. I think the spec is off for the askar reducers, can't be pure coincidence that we've both reached the same conclusion independently! Good luck and clear skies mate 👍👍

[@jimbub1001]

@@lukomatico Not quite independently! :-). I saw your video before I tested the reducer on the 151 at 55mm backspacing and when it did not work, went from 55mm to 61mm in 1mm increments - eventually landing on 60mm as ideal. You did all of the heavy lifting! :-)

[@Wheeljack678]

Reviews like these are very helpful (even if the scope is way, waaaay out of my comfortable price range). Thanks for keeping it honest. "Sellouts" are easy to spot and this didn't feel like that at all. Good job. If I'm allowed to name and fame (not shame); I bought some equipment after seeing reviews from Ruzeen (from Astrofarsography) and my experiences were the same as what he mentioned in his videos. Both the good and the bad, so I was warned. The world of equipment is massive and can be confusing and overwhelming. Having skilled people giving trustworthy reviews is extremely helpful. I hope more manufacturers send you stuff for review (if you want to continue doing them of course).

[@lukomatico]

I appreciate your kind message my friend!! I've always enjoyed Ruzeen's videos too, he does a great job of keeping it real! :-) I've got a few other bits to be reviewing when the skies clear, so that'll keep me busy for a while at least! More reviews to come! Thanks so much for watching mate, Luke

[@siegfriednoet]

Great thorough review Luke, looks like a very beautiful and good scope, bit pitty though the result with the reducer. If it's better than an Esprit than it must be very good

[@lukomatico]

Thanks Siegfried!! - I appreciate your comment my friend! :-D RE: Esprit, - I'd say it's better built yeah! Optically though, probably about the same - both seem to be perfect! :-)

[@DSOImager]

Excellent review Luke! Looks like an awesome scope. How does image quality/color correction compare to your Esprit 120 (both non reduced)?

[@lukomatico]

Great question mate! I'd have to devise a test to really say for 100% certain, but from my own experience with both then I'd say that the Esprit 120 is pretty much indistinguishable in sharpness from this, they're both so darn good that the atmosphere is the real limiting factor I guess! :-) Thanks for watching!

[@DSOImager]

@@lukomatico knowing how good the esprit is, that's really saying something. :)

[@paulwood6729]

Happy new year! For £4k you could get a Televue np101, which at f5 rather than f7.7 is substantially smaller.

[@lukomatico]

Happy new year Paul! Televue make some beautiful scopes for sure mate! :-) Thanks for watching!

[@walterhaase]

Awesome job on the video! At 34:12 you showed you took 3 hrs on the shot. What was the length of the subs?

[@lukomatico]

Hey there Walter! - Good catch mate, I missed that info out! everything was done with 5m exposures, hope that helps! :-)

[@walterhaase]

@@lukomatico Hmm, I have to try again. I did the same , but I could not salvage mine after 1.5hrs lol

[@lukomatico]

@@walterhaase Ah I hear you mate, sometimes getting the data to play ball is a real task haha! 😀Good luck mate!

[@paulsmaglik5063]

Thanks for the review, I am so tempted to buy it however I just bought a William Optics FLT 120 last month for $2200 from Cloudy Nights website. I am prepping it now for the season in the spring, so I am very interested on how it performs. Th is scope will be sitting on a ZWO AM5 mount which is brand new, and I will be using the ASIPRO Plus to control the whole mount. Plus, I bought a ZWO 2600 MC camera, so all the equipment is brand new. Damn I wish I saw this video in December! 🙂

[@lukomatico]

Sounds like a beautiful setup Paul, wow! :-D I'm sure your FLT 120 will be incredible mate, I wouldn't sweat it - enjoy it! I really hope you have a lovely clear springtime mate - you're going to catch a lot of galaxies! Good luck mate!

[@dustingibson5153]

Excellent review.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you so much Dustin, that means a lot coming from you buddy! :-) Clear skies!

[@LeePulitzerPullen]

Great review Luke, thanks for sharing. I use this telescope too, but I don't have the reducer -- based on your findings I'm happy with that decision! If you're interested, I've also written a review of the telescope on my website, Urban Astrophotography. In fact, just today I posted my own Heart Nebula photo taken using the Askar 130PHQ!

[@lukomatico]

Thank you Lee!! - I've checked out your review and the images too, great job buddy - you're knocking it out of the park! :-D I appreciate you watching mate!

[@SeaLintAstro]

Thanks for your review too! Definitely helped solidify my decision to buy this scope.

[@AstroCloudGenerator]

Hi Luke. Fantastic thoroughness. I would love to see it compared against a direct alternative. Say a WO FLT132 and it’s flattener reducer. I had a Askar FRA 600 which I sent back due to the softness and dodgy corners. I was told by the supplier that I could exchange but there was no guarantee of an improvement due to Askar‘s questionable quality control. It will be interesting to hear what Askar has to say.

[@lukomatico]

Thanks Richard!! - That would be nice to test with something side by side like that, the only comparable scope I have is my Esprit 120 which is beautifully corrected and sharp - might be worth doing if I get the chance! :-) Thanks for watching! (I'll be sure to update when askar gets back to me!)

[@afryhover]

Question: did you add backspacing for the additional filter? IE: 3mm filter width = add 1mm backspace to the 55mm. I've found that this makes a difference even down to .10mm makes improvement. Edit: Ok, yes you did experiment with the backspacing. :)

[@lukomatico]

Thanks for the suggestion mate!! I do appreciate it :-D Clear skies!

[@ferenc-x7p]

Looks like a fantastic telescope! To be fair, this isn't the only telescope that is held back by an inferior reducer. I had a W.Optics with beautiful clear field of view of the stars, but placing the only compatible reducer/flattener in it, it was like a whole different unit, something a lot worse. I hope Askar is watching and they remedy this issue! Otherwise at full focal length, this is definitely a go telescope!

[@lukomatico]

Thank you my friend! - That's interesting to hear, I too have had scopes with poor reducers but never really this objectionable, for the asking price and stated specifications it should be perfect I reckon, a real pity because the scope is beautiful at native so I'd got such high hopes for the reducer! I appreciate you watching and sharing your experience!

[@boxeentrainement3312]

Very Nice video Thanks to you!! Is there a good reducer that could fit on (other than Askar one)? Thank you (i have had some difficulties to translate you but i have understood anyway) 🙏

[@lukomatico]

Thank you so much for watching my friend! I appreciate your time :-) RE: reducer, I don't believe there is an alternative one yet - sorry mate!

[@nikaxstrophotography]

Now THATS a review Would I give it up for my TS photoline 130? hard to determine but the thought of a full flat field without a flattener is tempting the cost not so much

[@lukomatico]

Thanks for watching mate!! - The sharpness of this thing at native 1000mm is something to behold when seen in person, but I absolutely agree that it's quite a pretty penny! :-D All the very best!

[@Tony-Elliott]

Thanks for a really honest review Luke. This scope looks amazing at its native focus length, such a shame that the reducer downgraded the images so much.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you for watching Tony!! - It's a beautiful scope at native, 100%! wish that reducer was better as it'd be a killer combination at that. All the best!

[@paulholdsworth2502]

Happy New Year Luke ! I think the perfect pairing of two scopes is probably one at 400mm and the other at 1000mm ( spooky that askar do both !). For me if money was no object I would probably go for the askar 400 and this askar 130 phq. Brilliant review mate; very thorough and unbiased. I'm guessing you would probably need the eq8 mount or equivalent to carry this beast effectively ?

[@andysmith4050]

i use my eq6r pro and it works great

[@lukomatico]

Thanks Paul mate! - Glad you liked it :-) RE: mount size, the EQ8 does hold it very steady indeed but is probably overkill, the EQ6 will be fine with it I'd say mate! :-)

[@toddweiler227]

Since this 130PHQ and ZWO’s 130FF APO are carbon copies of each other I wondered if ASKAR did a better job of building their case. In particular, can you attach the ZWO EAF on the PHQ and put it away in the case? I love my Askar V scope which can DO THAT. It even has a cutout in the case to do that. I’m a mobile astronomer and need the portability. Taking the EAF to move every time would be a pain…small screws in the dark. Also no mount point for ASIAir on OTA cage with ZWO. Askar? Wondering? Thanks!

[@lukomatico]

Hey mate! - I don't believe you'd be able to use the case with an EAF attached unfortunately! I agree, it's really an annoying design oversight that we see on so many scopes, it's great we get a case, just let us use it with the scope 'trimmed up' ready to go hey! :-D

[@KingLoopie1]

A year later and I'm getting to this. No doubt it is the reducer. I wonder if the optics in that particular reducer are over tightened at the factory or maybe even pinched. Did you try another reducer?

[@lukomatico]

I didn't try another reducer mate sorry!! Hard to say what was going on really, I'm not sure it was pinch though as I didn't see any tell-tale striae in star dispersion, but can't say for certain I guess!! Cheers!

[@arthurlamy5535]

Nice review. But you really should have used a FF camera to fully test it.

[@ianhagan7656]

Thanks Luke. I have been bitten by the bug wanting one of these but I am wondering if I am just making a "Very Heavy (and costly) Rod" for my back? Nico Carver is warning me about that but I am not yet totally discouraged to try it. Costly big bugger though it is $AUD 6500. If I may can I ask about guiding? I can see the need to use OAG to get the needed guiding accuracy at 1000mm. Is it essential to match the 2 path lengths between guide camera and the imaging camera or can their focus be calibrated and/or adjusted independently?

[@lukomatico]

Hey there Ian! Thanks for the great comment mate 👍👍 It's a beautiful scope indeed, but options for versatility with it are very limited as the reducer that's available just isn't good enough as you no doubt saw on this video! If you always plan on shooting at native FL then that's not an issue I guess, but still - well worth serious consideration given the price of admission! Re: OAG - truly equidistant is pretty much required yes, but luckily we live in an age of helical focuser off axis guitars! It makes the job very easy indeed 👍 Hope that helps mate, Clear skies!

[@ianhagan7656]

@@lukomatico Thanks Luke. After much thought I think I am going to keep my wallet shut

[@kellytaylor3915]

I would like to know the visual performance on the Moon and planets.

[@lukomatico]

Hey mate! :-) I did a segment in this video talking about the visual performance, I was very happy indeed with it! I wish I still had the scope for review to do more testing 👍 Clear skies to you!

[@kano2297]

Very late reply lukomatico , I know that. It was proven to me that I am a beginner and I am proud that I am a beginner. I have never and will never change what I own Celestron HD11 & sky watcher esprit 120 ED APO ❤❤ Forever 👍😎

[@Thommyw12345]

Hi Luke! What is in your opinion the better scope for astrophotographer, the esprit 120 or the askar 130 phq? 😊 Thx for your answer! Greetings from Germany and CS

[@lukomatico]

Hey there my friend! - that's a tough question! :-D I'd say the Askar 130phq is probably better if only for the focuser/build quality, it feels better made than the Esprit. Both are very sharp though! Clear skies!

[@Thommyw12345]

@@lukomatico thx for your answer and keep going with your great content! Cs, Thommy

[@LogansAstro]

Great review. Such a shame that the reducer is not up to the quality of the scope itself. But i am pleased to see the scope has pinpoint round stars to the corners natively - I hope that holds true for 65PHQ which I have on order and should arrive Feb. I see on the 65 they have included markings for the rotator. Clear skies

[@lukomatico]

Thanks Logan! - I think the 65phq will be superb, they've got quite a lot of experience making these petzvals by now I guess! :-) Good luck with it mate!

[@rodrigocaldas174]

Hi, what model of mounting did you use over the cement blocks? Thank you.

[@lukomatico]

I made it myself from steel plates my friend :-) I have a video on my channel detailing the construction and design if you'd like to see it!

[@billrouady2992]

I had a question as I am have been considering this Askar scope or even the next level (151) coming soon. Clearly to get wider views I was thinking the focal reducer was the way to go. The performance issues do cause concern. I was wondering, are there any reducer options from another company or does it need to be matched to the scope from Askar? Also, do you think you may be doing an early review of the 151? Thanks for a very useful review, the core scope certainly seems worthwhile!

[@lukomatico]

Hey Bill! Thanks for watching my video, I appreciate your support 👍 I think finding an alternative reducer is a real problem as the scope is natively a petzval, most reducers are designed for scopes with a degree of field curvature to also correct for, whereas this has none - I wouldn't hold my breath while trying to find an alternative, even the shape of the glass on the Askar reducer suggests it's probably a pretty radical design they're employing to reduce this thing, the rear element is curved like a snowglobe, never seen anything like it! As to testing the 151, I don't think so most likely - though I may be testing an SCA260 instead 👍 fingers crossed! Hope that helps 🙏

[@seanfullard2337]

nice telescope i want one may be one day

[@lukomatico]

Thank you Sean!! It's a great scope for sure if you're gonna use it natively at 1000mm mate, really sharp 👍 Thanks for watching and giving your support!

[@joakimastro]

0:56 Lol "scope of this video" ;P

[@lukomatico]

Haha :-D Thanks for watching and giving your support bud!

[@OlliesSpace]

An interesting piece of Kit Luke, certainly looks a very nice fit and finish. It's a shame about the reducer, I guess you'd expect this something to be addressed quite promptly. I do often wonder generally how the QC part of testing works with components like this? Thanks for the overview Luke, hope you start to get some clear weather pal. 👍👍 :)

[@lukomatico]

Thanks Ollie!! - I'm hopeful for some clear too haha, it's been a rough few weeks with no sky really to speak of, just bits here and there! RE: testing procedures for QC, good question! it's a bit of a trade secret I guess haha! Just noticed you've had a channel rebrand mate! - not sure why I didn't get the community post, just had a look manually and seen it! Huge congratulations buddy, you're doing the right thing - believe in yourself because I certainly do! :-D (I noticed on that post you've deleted insta too, man I'm considering the same thing. It's a massive drain on my time with all the questions/dm's etc with practically zero benefit it seems.)

[@OlliesSpace]

@@lukomatico Hey thanks man appreciate your support Luke. Yes it just felt the right time to change things up to represent me better. Instagram is a tough one mate I also just found myself looking at it for no real reason and like you say just felt like a drain. DM me anytime on Facebook pal and I really hope you get some clear skies soon. Oh and I'm having a go at playing Witcher 3 again lol after watching you lol 😂

[@palmereldrich]

That was a very decent review !! Not many include an aberration report astiga-who?? Lol. I know your an AP guy but i would have liked a visual report as well to define its contrast potential. With another equivalent scope; with perhaps a comparison to what you have used before? Liked and subscibed even tho i am visual only guy.

[@lukomatico]

Hey there mate! :-) Thanks so much for the support! RE: the visual report, I did include one in the video for people, you might just have missed it my friend! :-) it performed beautifully! I'm happy to hear you liked the review, thanks again! All the best, Luke

[@palmereldrich]

@@lukomatico i will gladly watch it again inbetween YT binges Luke !!

[@robertsogge7726]

I just bought the ZWO version ff107. Are there other aftermarket reducers available that may perform better than the Askar .7?

[@robertsogge7726]

After a little looking, it looks like the answer is "no". Best solution for me will be to buy a second scope for wider field stuff.

[@lukomatico]

I think the Askar .7 is probably your best bet really!

[@williamgreen3408]

Do you recommend the Askar 130 for visual use? Or would you recommend something else first? Please leave aside the question of cost. Thank you.

[@lukomatico]

I think it gave very pleasing views, there are better visual scopes out there though - I think an edge HD 11" would give far more preferable views at the same price for example 👍

[@williamgreen3408]

​​​@@lukomatico Thank you for your response. I am wanting a refractor, not an SCT. I've had SCT''s and don't want another. What interests me about the Askar 130 is its apparent high optical quality and beautiful mechanics. I don't mind paying more for a lifetime scope. By the way, your video review is great.

[@Rastislav.Photography]

Thank You for the Review. I am considering this Scope because of its 60mm Medium Format image circle but please does anyone knows or have experience if the optics of this Scope is capable to handle/resolve/be on par…or whatever, quality of 100MPx Medium Format camera…be it ordinary one or dedicated Astro one? Thank You

[@lukomatico]

Hey there! :-) Without personally testing on such a sensor I couldn't really say for sure, I know Takahashi FSQ106EDX scopes have a huge image circle also which are well documented and used by many, they could be worth your time investigating too! Good luck and I hope you find the information you need my friend!

[@Rastislav.Photography]

@@lukomatico thanx for the reply. Sure I was researching Takahashi but the FSQ106 is too short. Am looking for 1000mm focal length. And the long Takahashis, well you have to spend 2 or 3 times as much than the Askar130. At the moment i cannot spent another 12K and besides some people are not happy with focusing or something on the Takahashis. What i see is that people are happy with Askars.

[@briandiaz3758]

just one comment, the same history (Deja vu) with Williams optical zentihstar81 and the WO reducer 0.7x the only thing in common is the optolong l extreme filter . without reducer( native 560mm) perfect stars , my question is maybe the optolong l extreme or another bad reducer. maybe maybe. clear sky

[@lukomatico]

Good suggestion Brian! Unfortunately, off camera I tested that and it was the same in plain RGB, just a little less obvious but still very much there :-( Thanks for sharing your experience mate!

[@mickwhitaker4086]

Was there a flattener involved.

[@lukomatico]

Hey there Mick! - at native 1000mm f/l there's no flattener as it's a Petzval scope, so it's built-in effectively :-) but at 700mm with the reducer, that's when the issues in the corners began to creep in. Hope that helps mate!

[@larrycable984]

my ZWO 130 FF w/ reducer shows no such aberations w/ASI2600MCP...

[@lukomatico]

Good to know!! Perhaps the design has been revised for later models, I provided the engineering team with my data & findings as part of the wrap-up for this so I hope it was useful to them!

[@larrycable984]

@@lukomatico I'm going to try it n a 107 FF this weekend will let you know ...

[@michaelclem3339]

What was the total weight with the scope and camera?

[@lukomatico]

I'd say in the region of 15kg - hard to say exactly though as I never actually weighed everything! - still, hope that helps 👍

[@slacklinesteffen]

What did NINA‘s aberration inspector say to the backfocus? Could there more improvement?

[@lukomatico]

Good question mate! - I decided as I was already adding 5mm additional spacing that it was just getting a bit silly by that point and abandoned testing of the reducer further, needed to make the most of my rare clear sky! :-D Clear skies!

[@francescodoenz]

Does anybody know why the ZWO 130 IS SO MUCH CHEAPER??

[@Youtuber-ku4nk]

Great review and what a refractor. In my opinion it would be nice not to have background sound. It’s just distracting.

[@anata5127]

It is not expensive scope compared to similar scopes by other companies. No 5” refractor bitting it? Did you compare with AP grand tourismo or TAK?

[@lukomatico]

Hey Ana! :-) It's priced appropriately for the type of scope it is I guess, but still a lot of money to most people! RE: Tak/AP - Most Tak/AP owners won't ever want to admit it, but the Skywatcher Esprit line of scopes keep up with the Tak TSA/AP GT scopes when compared side-by-side from people who own both, so undoubtedly this would do the same! :-) (the TSA's are sharper than the FSQ's, so make for a better comparison) Best to look into the published spot diagrams if you'd like to investigate it further! All the best

[@anata5127]

@@lukomatico I compare purely by FWHM. This Ascar was reviewed by Nico Carver. I asked about FWHM. It was 2.5-2.7”. Now, I have no data from AP and Tak, but I have seen performance of 140mm TEC. FWHM was 1.7”! Now, I don’t know whether it was due to bortle 1, superb seeing (below 1”!) and AP 1100GTO mount. But, picture was razor sharp. The best that I have ever seen. Owner told me that 140mm TEC easily bits any Edge that he has owned. However, it cannot compete with 10” AG Optic, which is also high end scope. Esprit is exception to the rule, and cost comparable to AP and Tak, and Esprit price is higher than TEC. Interesting story. I have asked one famous astrophotographer (cannot name here) to process my data. He agreed (I thought he will send me packing). It was staggering difference. My looked total crap in comparison. Hmm 🤔.

[@lukomatico]

@@anata5127 Hey Ana! Good to know, thanks so much for sharing that information! 😀 I think it's pretty fair to say that for many of these high-end scopes the atmosphere is the main limiting factor to overall image sharpness - the Tak, TEC, AP, Televue, Borg, Esprit's and this Askar are all what I'd consider as "world-class" optics from what I've experienced & seen. In a blind test under matching capture conditions I think they'd be nearly impossible to separate from eachother! 😀 RE: comparison with bigger optics, 100% agreed! With good enough imaging conditions, a quality bigger aperture always wins! Clear skies!

[@anata5127]

@@lukomatico Yes, blind comparisons are absent. Therefore, it is so important to get numbers, which carry objective reflection of quality for systems. Another important factor is consistency. TEC is always consistently great. I am not sure whether SkyWatcher and Askar are consistent.

[@kecked]

is it possible that the reducer issue is that the distance between camera and lens is off by a fractional mm

[@lukomatico]

Thanks for the suggestion mate, I did test the back-focus as part of the course of the review :-) See the segment labelled "reducer part 2" for more info if you were interested! All the best!

[@matforsbon]

Show us the glass!

[@lukomatico]

Glass out for the lads!!

[@hawkesworth1712]

I use the 80PHQ and I have to wonder why anyone would want to install a reducer on these Askar quads.

[@lukomatico]

Hey mate! - If the reducers worked as good as native (or even close!) then it'd be a nice option for people, it'd make it easy to change your scope's focal length to alter your image scale etc, - that said, I'm actually in agreeance with you haha, adding a poor reducer to something that's otherwise razor sharp makes no sense at all does it! Clear skies mate! :-)

[@hawkesworth1712]

@@lukomatico Yep and ditto.

[@astrosleeper2235]

most companies buy a shell and then stick brand name on it. This is like the altair Astro 130 EDF

[@lukomatico]

This is very different to the 130 EDF mate, that's an f7 Triplet, so needs a separate flattener for astrophotography - this is a f7.7 Petzval Quadruplet, so is natively flat and needs no back focus calculations etc, just focus it and start capture! :-) What you're saying is true for a lot of scopes though for sure!! there's a ton of rebadging going on!

[@RumourHasitYT]

They say, your learn something everyday. I thought it was only me that got flying saucer stars 😂

[@lukomatico]

Hey Tom! - Hope you've been well mate :-D Those reduced stars were really disappointing to me, the thing is razor sharp at native so it made the wound all the deeper lol! Clear skies!

[@RumourHasitYT]

@@lukomatico sure I could hear it on your voice. No wonder, there no way that should have been shipped like that with a Telescope at any price point

[@drde4010]

Optics in these are very inconsistent but for imaging it doesn’t matter.

[@lukomatico]

I mean, imaging needs better corrected optics than visual so I'm not sure what you mean, - re: inconsistency, I've heard mixed reports, as you do for every manufacturer out there really 👍

[@dumpydalekobservatory]

EAF...Easy as F!! I think that's a phrase that's going to be used some more lol, looks a beast of a scope but way way out of my price range, great job though mate clear skies!!

[@lukomatico]

Haha!! It was right there mate, I just had to 😅 Clear skies to you buddy!!

[@johngleason6472]

A near f/8 refractor should perform very well. Too bad Askar provided a less than optimal flat field focal reducer. They are probably only taking from a short list of menu options from the OEM they arte buying from resulting in very little control over the optical performance.

[@lukomatico]

Indeed John, fair comment mate! 👍

[@prostcj]

This is a true point but seems to be lost when discussing the TOA-130. It is heralded as the best corrected scope out there.......but is F8 and twice the cost.

[@Kinderriegelfan]

Ok, we need a MONO CMOS Sensor with BIG PIXELs (~5µ) and 24 mpix

[@lukomatico]

Would be pretty cool! :-D

[@halloduda8142]

As weird as it may sound, this video helped me justify the purchase of my FSQ106

[@lukomatico]

I'm glad it was useful to you mate! :-) Enjoy that scope!

[@halloduda8142]

@@lukomatico there is a bit of a nitpick I'd like to get off my chest: The tangential and sagittal plane are by definition part of every astigmatic system. These two words are only used to refer to the different orientations of the two orthogonal planes of which the light is focused in the same location. What you probably wanted to say is that you see third-order astigmatism, also called oblique or radial astigmatism. The sad story is that this is something I saw in a lot of refractors already, even when used with high quality focal reducers from TeleVue. It's quite sad really. I mean, the ASI6200 I have is a demanding camera but ultimately what made me go for the FSQ. What I'm really disappointed with is that the PHQ with the focal reducer with a larger aperture and not even f/5 has such problems already with an APS-C size sensor. It seems Askar really has some work to do here.

[@cosmoscarl4332]

It's probably another Chinese brand they rushed to production. They're still catching up in the telescope industry, except for Syna brand who make telescopes for Orion. They make some great scopes but nothing too high end. Trevor at Astrobackyard had a similar problem with one of the new branded scopes from China. Fact is there are many great telescope companies out there already. I believe they rushed through these new scopes when the demand for them shot up 1000 % because of COVID 19. When your my age you remain skeptical of sudden, new products following social upheaval. I would stick with William Optics, Stellarvue, Meade, Takahashi and and other brands that have been around for a while, till these new companies start doing things better and for the right reasons. Astronomics in Oklahoma carry a great brand called Astro Tech that are great on a tight budget and good quality. They also make fine reflectors as well as apochromatic refractors. They're qyickly becoming a contender as astrographs go. Also, you get what you pay for. I have a William Optics Zenithstar 61mm that beats most, if not all these new triplet apos recently released in corrected image. No chromatic aberration nor coma with the proper flattener.

[@lukomatico]

Appreciate your thoughts Carl! Thanks for taking the time to share mate 👍 Clear skies!

[@cosmoscarl4332]

You're very welcome. I hope I didn't sound too cheeky with my opinions.

[@lukomatico]

@@cosmoscarl4332 Not at all buddy! I'm always glad to hear people's thoughts on things 👍👍 Hope you have a super weekend ahead!

[@larrycable984]

@cosmocarl4332 not sure (given @lukomatico detailed review of the product) that this comment is of much value...