telescopecomparison · 2-way
Astro-Physics 92mm f/6.65 Stowaway vs Borg 90FL
Astro-Physics
92mm f/6.65 Stowaway
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
Key differences
+22% focal length
Slower by 1.1 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Astro-Physics 92mm f/6.65 Stowaway | Borg 90FL |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Apo triplet | Apo doublet fluorite |
| Aperture | 92mm | 90mm |
| Focal length | 612mm | 500mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/6.7 | f/5.6 |
| Image circle | — | — |
| Full-frame support | No | No |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 3.2kg | 2.5kg |
Advantages of Astro-Physics 92mm f/6.65 Stowaway
- Tighter framing — 612mm vs 500mm focal length
Advantages of Borg 90FL
- Wider field — 500mm vs 612mm focal length
- Faster optics at f/5.6 vs f/6.65
- Lighter (2.5kg vs 3.2kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Astro-Physics 92mm f/6.65 Stowaway
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
Best for — Borg 90FL
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
Astro-Physics 92mm f/6.65 Stowaway — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.37° × 2.25°Scale: 1.27"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.20° × 1.47°Scale: 1.27"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.06° × 1.06°Scale: 1.27"/px
Borg 90FL — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 4.13° × 2.75°Scale: 1.55"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.69° × 1.80°Scale: 1.55"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.29° × 1.29°Scale: 1.55"/px
Astro-Physics 92mm f/6.65 Stowaway — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
Borg 90FL — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
