telescopecomparison · 2-way
William Optics FLT 91 vs William Optics RedCat 91
William Optics
FLT 91
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
William Optics
RedCat 91
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
Key differences
+9% focal length
Slower by 0.5 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | William Optics FLT 91 | William Optics RedCat 91 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | Refractor | Refractor |
| Optical design | Triplet APO | Petzval APO |
| Aperture | 91mm | 91mm |
| Focal length | 540mm | 496mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/5.9 | f/5.5 |
| Image circle | 44mm | 45mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 4.5kg | 4.3kg |
Advantages of William Optics FLT 91
Closely matched on the compared specs.
Advantages of William Optics RedCat 91
- Faster optics at f/5.45 vs f/5.9
Best for — William Optics FLT 91
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics RedCat 91
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
William Optics FLT 91 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.82° × 2.55°Scale: 1.44"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.49° × 1.67°Scale: 1.44"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.20° × 1.20°Scale: 1.44"/px
William Optics RedCat 91 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 4.16° × 2.77°Scale: 1.56"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.71° × 1.81°Scale: 1.56"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.31° × 1.31°Scale: 1.56"/px
William Optics FLT 91 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
William Optics RedCat 91 — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.