telescopecomparison · 2-way
Borg 107FL vs William Optics GT 102
Borg
107FL
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
William Optics
GT 102
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
-15% focal length
Faster by 1.3 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Borg 107FL | William Optics GT 102 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | refractor |
| Optical design | Apo doublet fluorite | Apo triplet FPL-53 |
| Aperture | 107mm | 102mm |
| Focal length | 600mm | 703mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/5.6 | f/6.9 |
| Image circle | — | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 3.5kg | 5.6kg |
Advantages of Borg 107FL
- Wider field — 600mm vs 703mm focal length
- Faster optics at f/5.6 vs f/6.9
- Lighter (3.5kg vs 5.6kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of William Optics GT 102
- Tighter framing — 703mm vs 600mm focal length
- Larger image circle (44mm) — supports bigger sensors
Best for — Borg 107FL
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics GT 102
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Borg 107FL — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.44° × 2.29°Scale: 1.29"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.24° × 1.50°Scale: 1.29"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.08° × 1.08°Scale: 1.29"/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
Borg 107FL — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a portable travel rig.
William Optics GT 102 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
