An instrument bought for photography is judged on different things from one bought for looking, and the ranking of what matters inverts almost completely. Buying a visual telescope and then trying to image with it is the most expensive mistake on this shelf.
The mount comes first, by a long way
A camera integrates over minutes and records every tracking error as a trailed star. A visual observer nudges and never notices. So for imaging the mount takes the larger share of the budget, and a modest telescope on an excellent mount produces better pictures than an excellent telescope on a modest one, every time.
Focal ratio matters more than aperture
For extended objects the exposure time depends on the focal ratio rather than on the aperture, so a fast f/5 instrument records a nebula far quicker than a slow f/10 one of the same size. That is why imaging refractors are short and fast, and why long catadioptrics, which are excellent visually, are awkward for deep sky photography.
Field quality across the sensor
A visual observer looks at the middle of the field, and a sensor records all of it. So an imaging telescope is judged on how clean the stars are at the corners, which is why field flatteners and coma correctors exist and why apochromatic refractors and Ritchey-Chretien designs dominate this end. William Optics prints $498.00 for its cheapest apochromat.
What this site can and cannot help with
This index prices telescopes, not cameras, mounts or software, so it can tell you what an imaging telescope costs and it cannot rank cameras. That boundary is deliberate: a ranking of things this site has not priced would be exactly the score with nothing behind it that its whole method exists to avoid.
Questions people ask about telescope
What is the best telescope for astrophotography?
A short fast apochromatic refractor for wide field work, on the best mount the budget allows. The mount matters more than the telescope.
Can I use my visual telescope for astrophotography?
For the moon and planets, yes, with short exposures. For deep sky, only if the mount tracks accurately, which most visual setups do not.
Does astrophotography need a big telescope?
No. Focal ratio and mount accuracy matter more than aperture for deep sky imaging, and many well known images are taken through small refractors.