telescopecomparison · 2-way
ZWO FF110 APO vs William Optics FLT 120
ZWO
FF110 APO
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
William Optics
FLT 120
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
-8% aperture
Slower by 0.5 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | ZWO FF110 APO | William Optics FLT 120 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | Refractor |
| Optical design | Apo quadruplet ED | Triplet APO |
| Aperture | 110mm | 120mm |
| Focal length | 766mm | 780mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/7.0 | f/6.5 |
| Image circle | 44mm | 44mm |
| Full-frame support | Yes | Yes |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 5.7kg | 7.7kg |
Advantages of ZWO FF110 APO
- Lighter (5.74kg vs 7.7kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of William Optics FLT 120
- Faster optics at f/6.5 vs f/7
Best for — ZWO FF110 APO
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — William Optics FLT 120
- Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
ZWO FF110 APO — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.69° × 1.80°Scale: 1.01"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.76° × 1.17°Scale: 1.01"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 0.85° × 0.85°Scale: 1.01"/px
William Optics FLT 120 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.64° × 1.76°Scale: 0.99"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.73° × 1.15°Scale: 0.99"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 0.83° × 0.83°Scale: 0.99"/px
ZWO FF110 APO — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
William Optics FLT 120 — recommended user
Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.
