telescopecomparison · 2-way
William Optics GT 102 vs ZWO FF107 APO
William Optics
GT 102
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
ZWO
FF107 APO
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
-6% focal length
Specifications
| Specification | William Optics GT 102 | ZWO FF107 APO |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Apo triplet FPL-53 | Quintuplet FCD-100 |
| Aperture | 102mm | 107mm |
| Focal length | 703mm | 749mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/6.9 | f/7.0 |
| Image circle | 44mm | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 5.6kg | 7.2kg |
Advantages of William Optics GT 102
- Lighter (5.6kg vs 7.2kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of ZWO FF107 APO
Closely matched on the compared specs.
Best for — William Optics GT 102
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — ZWO FF107 APO
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- 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
ZWO FF107 APO — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.75° × 1.84°Scale: 1.04"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.80° × 1.20°Scale: 1.04"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 0.86° × 0.86°Scale: 1.04"/px
William Optics GT 102 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
ZWO FF107 APO — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
