I own three WO telescopes, and I can tell you their optics are a clear winner - you won't regret buying them at all. Even a doublet delivers very sharp and crisp image.
@@ASC-Explore I owned the FLT98 (with FF4 reducer), Star71 and ZenithStar66. The doublet is ZenithStar66, my default scope for wide field, and FLT98 is a workhorse scope you can image just about anything with.
Good comparison, Certainly WO telescopes seem like a lot of care is put into the manufacturing process, this imo sends a good message to customers. Not that Askar scopes are bad, they're putting really cool instruments in the market. I only have an FMA180, the tiny 180mm triplet, but the FRA300 and the PHQ65 (just to name two) look really nice and have got great reviews lately.
My telescopes is a sharpstar 130mm f2.8 HNT. I like it and use it regularly, but there are some flaws in it that make me frustrated sometimes. Now that I have gotten a Takahashi dealership and can get them at a discount I am so tempted to get myself the Takahashi equivelant scope and test it out. I have also come to realize that the reason Takahashis cost so much outside Japan is shipping cost. Shipping stuff from Japan is rediculously expensive
I have a WO GT-81 IV and it's exquisite. I have no doubt that the Askar scopes are also great. If you're chasing perfection, you need to be spending £20k minimum, which rules out both these manufacturers, so it probably doesn't matter which of these you buy from, because they ain't perfect. :)
I would not say chasing perfection, I ended up buying the Sharpstar 130HNT and had to spend some time tuning the focuser, for most people they would have returned it to me as a defect and claimed warranty. Not everyone is a tinkerer like me. For example, the prima luce labs 90ED for which I had serviced the focuser had ball bearings on the fine focus mechanism, the Sharpstar had a spring pushing a piece of teflon and it would not stay perfectly centered, hence the crunchy sound in the video. These simple cost cutting measures cause frustration in use. Some people are willing to put up with it and some are willing to spend a bit more for a smoother experience
I happen to own both, Askar 65PHQ and the WO ZenithStar Z81 soon to have the FLT91 and I am not on either side of the fence, they are both great scopes for my budget. I have captured excellent images on both of these and would buy either one again. Both of these produce excellent star results, even for the Z81 being a doublet it has great images. However, even the images are up to ones own perspective so I say, if you are happy with the results, it doesn't really matter. Just enjoy the one you have and can afford and be thankful for our Heavenly Father for creating such a wonderful universe to explore and take pictures of. Clear skies to all.
I own the Sharpstar 13028HNT and I'm not sure I agree with your views about the focuser. The focuser on mine is butter smooth and I get sharp, pinpoint stars with an Autofocuser. I will say that it could be better and that Sharpstar seems to have quality control issues.
Hi, I ended up purchasing the unit in the video. Focuser used a spring with teflon pads instead of ball bearings, it would sometimes move from position and cause the crunchy sound, I have figured out how to tune the tension to fix the issue. Still not the best design
I've never owned a WO scope but we looked at a few Sharpstar telescopes at the Practical Astronomy Show earlier this year & I have to say I was disappointed with it, the focusers were awful with a crunchy feel to them, after looking at the 3rd scope sharpstar had an offer that was enough for me to say no not impressed by them one bit.
As I mentioned earlier in the comments , I ended up buying that Sharpstar HNT, and I tuned the focuser myself. It's hard to resist the temptation of f2.8
In the dark you cannot see the pretty anodizing. Prioritize optical quality over aesthetics and you will not regret it. Seek telescopes with a published documented Strehl rating above .95 that are also well color corrected. IF a manufacturer does not measure these things on your telescope they cannot control optical quality.
I assessed mechanical quality because I am knowledgeable enough to assess the quality there. Mechanical quality is important because it will affect things like how rigid the focuser is, repairability, orthogonality and so forth, as to the optical quality, the reason I did not assess it is simple, we have a saying in Arabic that goes "God has mercy on he who knows the limitations of his own capabilities."
As I mentioned, I did not have the ability tp do precise optical testing. For example, I personally use an ASI533 camera, sensort is way too small to ahow issues.
I did end up buying the f2.8 Sharpstar for my self in the end and after some tune in it is now sliky smooth, but I still think William Optics is better made. They just didn't have an f2.8 scope for me
I beg to defer, William Optics costs more but not by too much and quality is better. Sharpstar is also very good for what you pay. I think telescopes are far more accessible these days than in the past as costs have gone down for higher quality instruments.
Didn't know that, but definitely my direct side to side comparisons including with models not shown in the video have shown a distinct finish quality difference. Could be that sharpstar are targeting a different part of the market and put less effort into the anodizing amd other processes of their own products
Yeah, pretty and all that but WO has the absolute worst customer service I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with!😂 Sharpstar, on the other hand, has some of the best customer service out there!
