Astrophotoguru · Compare

Back to planner
telescopecomparison · 2-way

TEC APO180FL f/7 vs William Optics Pleiades 181

TEC APO180FL f/7
TEC

APO180FL f/7

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

William Optics Pleiades 181
William Optics

Pleiades 181

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a permanent observatory setup.

Key differences

+26% focal length
Slower by 1.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationTEC APO180FL f/7William Optics Pleiades 181
Optics
Typerefractorastrograph
Optical designApo triplet fluoriteAstrograph (7-element)
Aperture180mm181mm
Focal length1260mm998mm
Native f/ratiof/7.0f/5.5
Image circle55mm
Full-frame supportNoYes
Physical
Weight15.0kg
Advantages of TEC APO180FL f/7
  • Tighter framing — 1260mm vs 998mm focal length
Advantages of William Optics Pleiades 181
  • Wider field — 998mm vs 1260mm focal length
  • Faster optics at f/5.5 vs f/7
  • Larger image circle (55mm) — supports bigger sensors
Best for — TEC APO180FL f/7
  • Small galaxies, planetary nebulae, lunar & planetary detail
Best for — William Optics Pleiades 181
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
TEC APO180FL f/7 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.64° × 1.09°Scale: 0.62"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.07° × 0.71°Scale: 0.62"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.51° × 0.51°Scale: 0.62"/px
William Optics Pleiades 181 — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.07° × 1.38°Scale: 0.78"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.35° × 0.90°Scale: 0.78"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.65° × 0.65°Scale: 0.78"/px
TEC APO180FL f/7 — recommended user

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

William Optics Pleiades 181 — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a permanent observatory setup.

Recommended alternatives