telescopecomparison · 2-way
ZWO FF107 APO vs William Optics GT 102
ZWO
FF107 APO
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
William Optics
GT 102
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
+7% focal length
Specifications
| Specification | ZWO FF107 APO | William Optics GT 102 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Quintuplet FCD-100 | Apo triplet FPL-53 |
| Aperture | 107mm | 102mm |
| Focal length | 749mm | 703mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/7.0 | f/6.9 |
| Image circle | 44mm | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 7.2kg | 5.6kg |
Advantages of ZWO FF107 APO
Closely matched on the compared specs.
Advantages of William Optics GT 102
- Lighter (5.6kg vs 7.2kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — ZWO FF107 APO
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics GT 102
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
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 — 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 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
William Optics GT 102 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
