Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics FLT 156 vs William Optics GT 81

William Optics FLT 156
William Optics

FLT 156

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

William Optics GT 81
William Optics

GT 81

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

Key differences

+127% focal length
+93% aperture
Slower by 1.1 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics FLT 156William Optics GT 81
Optics
Typerefractorrefractor
Optical designApo triplet FPL-53Apo triplet FPL-53
Aperture156mm81mm
Focal length1085mm478mm
Native f/ratiof/7.0f/5.9
Image circle52mm44mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight11.5kg3.8kg
Advantages of William Optics FLT 156
  • Tighter framing — 1085mm vs 478mm focal length
  • 93% more light-gathering aperture
  • Larger image circle (52mm) — supports bigger sensors
Advantages of William Optics GT 81
  • Wider field — 478mm vs 1085mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/5.9 vs f/7
  • Lighter (3.8kg vs 11.5kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — William Optics FLT 156
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics GT 81
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • 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
William Optics GT 81 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 4.32° × 2.88°Scale: 1.62"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.82° × 1.88°Scale: 1.62"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.35° × 1.35°Scale: 1.62"/px
William Optics FLT 156 — recommended user

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

William Optics GT 81 — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives