**Help please** Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and Non-VC lens

T

TonyNI

Suspended / Banned
Messages
864
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

I purchased a Canon 17-55 2.8 lens yesterday and feel that for my needs I have spent too much on the lens! I would really appreciate if any of yous have experience with the 2 similar specification Tamron alternatives (VC vs Non VC)
I heard the VC model is worse but cant get my head around it as I thought it was the exact same lens but with stabilisation added?

Im really considering bring back the Canon and getting one of the Tamron models and maybe the Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro lens and probably another flashgun.


Im pretty new to this forum but have already found a great deal of help and support

I appreciate all the support guys


:)
 
I ve heard the same that the vc is worse. Very happy with my non vc though. Could it be a different design to accommodate the stabilisation in the same size? Let alone that the vc of the Tamron's I lacking a bit so I am not sure I'd bother any way.
 
The VC lens is a different design, its not simply a non VC with VC added. And they messed it up
 
I am into MTBing and there is always the choice between much more expensive bits for my bike or cheaper bits that are 90% of the quality/performance + a nice 3-4 days away to enjoy the bike. And invariably I take the second route cause does me no good to have expensive bits on a bike sitting at home. Same with cameras it is no good to have expensive gear and taking it down your high street all the time :)

Between a 900£+ lens and a 250£ lens + a long weekend away to enjoy it I know which way I'd go and I have. Yes I'd like the 900£ 17-55 from Nikon and the 600£ 10-24 from Nikon but I bought the Tamron equivalents, the image quality is about as good as I could ever be able to tell and got a nice 1k spare for a few trips to enjoy both my bike and my camera.

Yes some times you need the top gear but unless you can justify it by making money out of it or you have enough money to not make a difference to your lifestyle if you buy a 1k or 250£ lens then go for it.
 
The new Sigma 17-50 OS is also supposed to be very good, not sure of the price, but no doubt cheaper than your new Canon lens.

Only danger is that you might one day desire the 17-55mm and then any money you save now will be get spent along with more in the future
 
I have had both when i had a 40d and found them both to be very sharp.
If i had to choose again i would go with the tamron excellent value for money.
 
Stick with the 17-55mm if you want the best IQ. Don't want to downgrade and regret it down the line.
 
Im really not sure what to do. I like the lens but for the money I think its insane not to get a hood or anything with it. Does anyone have any recommendation for the best in camera picture settings for a 550D or this lens? I know its a matter of personal preference but just wondered what yous currently have your kit set to (contrast , sharpness etc)

Thanks agauin for all the help
 
Why not shoot raw and jpeg and process the raw as much as you like and experiment with the in camera jpeg settings

If you want jpeg straight from the camera try a setting like 3,1,1,0 in that order for the neutral picture style. Leaves some room for post production adjustment if you wish, but also fine for 7x5 picture printing with no adjustment
 
i have the tamron and i think its pretty cool. i got a decent deal on the vc version.
 
All good advice here. When I got my 17-55 I also felt a bit funny about spending that much money as I also had a Tamron 17-50 (non VC) and other than lacking IS I couldn't see where the extra money had gone. After a few weeks I was very un decided but the way I saw it was if I sent it back I would probably want one again at some point. Keeping it meant I had reached the top of the tree as far as this type of lens goes so I would stop looking for a better lens.
It worked and 4 years on I've never once regretted keeping it and I think it's stopped me buying more lenses as the 17-55 is so versatile and sharp etc I've even sold a few primes.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
The VC lens is a different design, its not simply a non VC with VC added. And they messed it up
Click to expand...

There were a couple of reviews of the first units of the VC lens which suggested it was a little soft - the non-VC version is an amazing lens for the money so the comparison was always going to be tough.

As for saying they messed it up, that's simply not true. Everyone that I've met who actually owns one (including me, I got mine a couple of months ago) is very happy with it!
So far, everyone on this thread who owns the Tamron VC has come out in support of it.

I was exactly the same as the OP - wanted the Canon but couldn't justify the cost so went with the Tamron and love it.
 
Last edited:
I'm happy with the IQ of my Tamron 17-50 VC.

It's working well for me thanks.
 
personally I would say that VC is not needed at that focal range, so go for the cheaper option :)
 
I bought the NON VC version and it was superb!
 
I think both VC and non VC versions are great but IMO its only by taking identical shots with both that you can tell if one is better than the other.

If i had to choose i would go for the VC version. I disagree that VC (or IS) is not needed at this focal range. Its probably not as useful as on a long zoom but having had the non VC and now the Canon i find i can shoot a lot slower and get more keepers. In fact IME thats true compared to my 50mm f/1.4 as well, especially if i dont want or need narrow DOF so a smaller aperture is needed.
 
I hear this alot about the Tamron, that the VC is pointless between 17 & 50mm.

For me with the 7D, I believe it does help from time to time.

Interestingly, not many seem to complain about IS being present on Canon's 17-55mm.

Just sayin'
 
Of course VC is useful on these - it's a versatile walkabout focal range so it's likely to be the lens that stays on most often. I know that the VC is useful for indoor and/or dark shots since it let's me expose a scene that I otherwise couldn't.
 
incapete said:
There were a couple of reviews of the first units of the VC lens which suggested it was a little soft - the non-VC version is an amazing lens for the money so the comparison was always going to be tough.

As for saying they messed it up, that's simply not true. Everyone that I've met who actually owns one (including me, I got mine a couple of months ago) is very happy with it!
So far, everyone on this thread who owns the Tamron VC has come out in support of it.

I was exactly the same as the OP - wanted the Canon but couldn't justify the cost so went with the Tamron and love it.
Click to expand...

My opinion was based on owning the lens also, there are plenty of reviews the reiterate my opinion on this lens. It's softer than the non VC version (it's not suggested...it's true), and more expensive...I don't consider this a success for what was probably intended as a replacement lens for the older non VC design. I bought it when it was £100 more expensive than the non VC, within a couple of months the price dropped dramatically, which I can only assume is to due the poor reviews this lens received.

I've had this exact conversation on here a few times and it's the same old thing...

I'd go for sharpness over VC any day :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top