Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

William Optics RedCat 71 vs William Optics Zenithstar 61 II

William Optics RedCat 71
William Optics

RedCat 71

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

William Optics Zenithstar 61 II
William Optics

Zenithstar 61 II

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

Key differences

+16% aperture
Faster by 1.0 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationWilliam Optics RedCat 71William Optics Zenithstar 61 II
Optics
TypeRefractorrefractor
Optical designPetzval APOApo doublet FPL-53
Aperture71mm61mm
Focal length350mm360mm
Native f/ratiof/4.9f/5.9
Image circle45mm44mm
Full-frame supportYesNo
Physical
Weight2.7kg1.9kg
Advantages of William Optics RedCat 71
  • 16% more light-gathering aperture
  • Faster optics at f/4.9 vs f/5.9
Advantages of William Optics Zenithstar 61 II
  • Lighter (1.9kg vs 2.7kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — William Optics RedCat 71
  • Wide-field nebulae and Milky Way regions
  • Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics Zenithstar 61 II
  • Large emission nebulae and star clusters
William Optics RedCat 71 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 5.89° × 3.93°Scale: 2.22"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 3.85° × 2.57°Scale: 2.22"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.85° × 1.85°Scale: 2.22"/px
William Optics Zenithstar 61 II — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 5.73° × 3.82°Scale: 2.15"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 3.74° × 2.50°Scale: 2.15"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.80° × 1.80°Scale: 2.15"/px
William Optics RedCat 71 — recommended user

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

William Optics Zenithstar 61 II — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives