telescopecomparison · 2-way
Borg 107FL vs Stellarvue SVX102T
Borg
107FL
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
Stellarvue
SVX102T
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
-16% focal length
Faster by 1.4 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Borg 107FL | Stellarvue SVX102T |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Apo doublet fluorite | Apo triplet |
| Aperture | 107mm | 102mm |
| Focal length | 600mm | 714mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/5.6 | f/7.0 |
| Image circle | — | 52mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 3.5kg | 6.5kg |
Advantages of Borg 107FL
- Wider field — 600mm vs 714mm focal length
- Faster optics at f/5.6 vs f/7
- Lighter (3.5kg vs 6.5kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of Stellarvue SVX102T
- Tighter framing — 714mm vs 600mm focal length
- Larger image circle (52mm) — supports bigger sensors
Best for — Borg 107FL
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Stellarvue SVX102T
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Borg 107FL — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.44° × 2.29°Scale: 1.29"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.24° × 1.50°Scale: 1.29"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.08° × 1.08°Scale: 1.29"/px
Stellarvue SVX102T — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.89° × 1.93°Scale: 1.09"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.89° × 1.26°Scale: 1.09"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 0.91° × 0.91°Scale: 1.09"/px
Borg 107FL — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
Stellarvue SVX102T — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
