Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics FLT 132 vs SharpStar 100QII

William Optics FLT 132
William Optics

FLT 132

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

SharpStar 100QII
SharpStar

100QII

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

Key differences

+68% focal length
+32% aperture
Slower by 1.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics FLT 132SharpStar 100QII
Optics
Typerefractorrefractor
Optical designApo triplet FPL-53Quadruplet astrograph
Aperture132mm100mm
Focal length925mm550mm
Native f/ratiof/7.0f/5.5
Image circle52mm44mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight7.9kg5.5kg
Advantages of William Optics FLT 132
  • Tighter framing — 925mm vs 550mm focal length
  • 32% more light-gathering aperture
  • Larger image circle (52mm) — supports bigger sensors
Advantages of SharpStar 100QII
  • Wider field — 550mm vs 925mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/5.5 vs f/7
  • Lighter (5.5kg vs 7.9kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — William Optics FLT 132
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — SharpStar 100QII
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
William Optics FLT 132 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.23° × 1.49°Scale: 0.84"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.46° × 0.97°Scale: 0.84"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.70° × 0.70°Scale: 0.84"/px
SharpStar 100QII — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 3.75° × 2.50°Scale: 1.41"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.45° × 1.64°Scale: 1.41"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.18° × 1.18°Scale: 1.41"/px
William Optics FLT 132 — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

SharpStar 100QII — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

Recommended alternatives