Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics GT 102 vs William Optics RedCat 91

William Optics GT 102
William Optics

GT 102

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

William Optics RedCat 91
William Optics

RedCat 91

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

Key differences

+42% focal length
+12% aperture
Slower by 1.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics GT 102William Optics RedCat 91
Optics
TyperefractorRefractor
Optical designApo triplet FPL-53Petzval APO
Aperture102mm91mm
Focal length703mm496mm
Native f/ratiof/6.9f/5.5
Image circle44mm45mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight5.6kg4.3kg
Advantages of William Optics GT 102
  • Tighter framing — 703mm vs 496mm focal length
  • 12% more light-gathering aperture
Advantages of William Optics RedCat 91
  • Wider field — 496mm vs 703mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/5.45 vs f/6.9
  • Lighter (4.3kg vs 5.6kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — William Optics GT 102
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • 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 GT 102 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.93° × 1.96°Scale: 1.10"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.92° × 1.28°Scale: 1.10"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.92° × 0.92°Scale: 1.10"/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 GT 102 — recommended user

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

William Optics RedCat 91 — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives