telescopecomparison · 2-way
William Optics GT 71 vs William Optics Zenithstar 81 II
William Optics
GT 71
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
William Optics
Zenithstar 81 II
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
Key differences
-12% focal length
-12% aperture
Specifications
| Specification | William Optics GT 71 | William Optics Zenithstar 81 II |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Apo triplet FPL-53 | Apo doublet FPL-53 |
| Aperture | 71mm | 81mm |
| Focal length | 420mm | 478mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/5.9 | f/5.9 |
| Image circle | 44mm | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 3.4kg | 3.6kg |
Advantages of William Optics GT 71
- Wider field — 420mm vs 478mm focal length
Advantages of William Optics Zenithstar 81 II
- Tighter framing — 478mm vs 420mm focal length
- 14% more light-gathering aperture
Best for — William Optics GT 71
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics Zenithstar 81 II
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- 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 Zenithstar 81 II — 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 GT 71 — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
William Optics Zenithstar 81 II — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.