Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics GT 71 vs William Optics FLT 132

William Optics GT 71
William Optics

GT 71

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

William Optics FLT 132
William Optics

FLT 132

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

Key differences

-55% focal length
-46% aperture
Faster by 1.1 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics GT 71William Optics FLT 132
Optics
Typerefractorrefractor
Optical designApo triplet FPL-53Apo triplet FPL-53
Aperture71mm132mm
Focal length420mm925mm
Native f/ratiof/5.9f/7.0
Image circle44mm52mm
Full-frame supportYesYes
Physical
Weight3.4kg7.9kg
Advantages of William Optics GT 71
  • Wider field — 420mm vs 925mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/5.9 vs f/7
  • Lighter (3.4kg vs 7.9kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of William Optics FLT 132
  • Tighter framing — 925mm vs 420mm focal length
  • 86% more light-gathering aperture
  • Larger image circle (52mm) — supports bigger sensors
Best for — William Optics GT 71
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics FLT 132
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
William Optics GT 71 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 4.91° × 3.27°Scale: 1.85"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 3.21° × 2.14°Scale: 1.85"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.54° × 1.54°Scale: 1.85"/px
William Optics FLT 132 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.23° × 1.49°Scale: 0.84"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.46° × 0.97°Scale: 0.84"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.70° × 0.70°Scale: 0.84"/px
William Optics GT 71 — recommended user

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

William Optics FLT 132 — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives