Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics FLT 132 vs SharpStar 61EDPH III

William Optics FLT 132
William Optics

FLT 132

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

SharpStar 61EDPH III
SharpStar

61EDPH III

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Key differences

+176% focal length
+116% aperture
Slower by 1.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics FLT 132SharpStar 61EDPH III
Optics
TyperefractorRefractor
Optical designApo triplet FPL-53Doublet APO
Aperture132mm61mm
Focal length925mm335mm
Native f/ratiof/7.0f/5.5
Image circle52mm32mm
Full-frame supportYesNo
Physical
Weight7.9kg2.4kg
Advantages of William Optics FLT 132
  • Tighter framing — 925mm vs 335mm focal length
  • 116% more light-gathering aperture
  • Larger image circle (52mm) — supports bigger sensors
Advantages of SharpStar 61EDPH III
  • Wider field — 335mm vs 925mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/5.5 vs f/7
  • Lighter (2.4kg 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 61EDPH III
  • Wide-field nebulae and Milky Way regions
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 61EDPH III — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 6.16° × 4.11°Scale: 2.32"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 4.02° × 2.69°Scale: 2.32"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.93° × 1.93°Scale: 2.32"/px
William Optics FLT 132 — recommended user

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

SharpStar 61EDPH III — recommended user

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Recommended alternatives