Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics FLT 156 vs Explore Scientific ED152 FCD-100

William Optics FLT 156
William Optics

FLT 156

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

Explore Scientific ED152 FCD-100
Explore Scientific

ED152 FCD-100

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a permanent observatory setup.

Key differences

Faster by 0.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics FLT 156Explore Scientific ED152 FCD-100
Optics
Typerefractorrefractor
Optical designApo triplet FPL-53Apo triplet FCD-100
Aperture156mm152mm
Focal length1085mm1140mm
Native f/ratiof/7.0f/7.5
Image circle52mm52mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight11.5kg12.0kg
Advantages of William Optics FLT 156
  • Faster optics at f/7 vs f/7.5
Advantages of Explore Scientific ED152 FCD-100

Closely matched on the compared specs.

Best for — William Optics FLT 156
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — Explore Scientific ED152 FCD-100
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
William Optics FLT 156 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.90° × 1.27°Scale: 0.71"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.24° × 0.83°Scale: 0.71"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.60° × 0.60°Scale: 0.71"/px
Explore Scientific ED152 FCD-100 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.81° × 1.21°Scale: 0.68"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.18° × 0.79°Scale: 0.68"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.57° × 0.57°Scale: 0.68"/px
William Optics FLT 156 — recommended user

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

Explore Scientific ED152 FCD-100 — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a permanent observatory setup.

Recommended alternatives