Tamron 17-50 2.8 vc and none vc quality

LauraJ23

LauraJ23

Messages
14,759
Name
Laura
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I have just looked here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx to try and find out if the lens is going to be a good purchase. It has been recommended by people on here, but this review albeit brief, doesnt seem to suggest its worth going for.

So as I am considering saving up for a lens of this style, I would like to here your thoughts on the 2 versions. Pros and Cons would be great. As i'm saving, I have plenty of time to digest all of your comments and help that you provide.
Many thanks in advance. :thumbs:
 
photozone notes a loss of image quailty on the VC model, coupled with the fact that VC isn't really helpful at shorter focal lengths it makes sense to save your money and buy the non-VC.

But I haven't used either vesion.

Stuart
 
I've never seen the point on a fast lens of such a short focal length of image stability, it strikes me as more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.
 
stu_the_flat said:
photozone notes a loss of image quailty on the VC model, coupled with the fact that VC isn't really helpful at shorter focal lengths it makes sense to save your money and buy the non-VC.

But I haven't used either vesion.

Stuart
Click to expand...



Flash In The Pan said:
I've never seen the point on a fast lens of such a short focal length of image stability, it strikes me as more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.
Click to expand...

It's incredibly useful if you're shooting still subjects in low light. Without IS, you might just be able to manage 1/20th and avoid camera shake, with IS 1/5 should be possible unless you're really shaking. That's two stop's worth of extra exposure, and pretty much eliminates the need to get the tripod out, especially with it being f/2.8. There are times where I really wish my 17-40 had IS, mainly because I often use it in low light.
 
iancandler said:
I have the non VC, great lens and razor sharp, I feel no need for VC on it
Click to expand...

:plusone: (well, I had the non-VC, sold it when I moved to full-frame)


trencheel303 said:
It's incredibly useful if you're shooting still subjects in low light. Without IS, you might just be able to manage 1/20th and avoid camera shake, with IS 1/5 should be possible unless you're really shaking. That's two stop's worth of extra exposure, and pretty much eliminates the need to get the tripod out, especially with it being f/2.8. There are times where I really wish my 17-40 had IS, mainly because I often use it in low light.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, when do you wish you had IS on your 17-40? I'm also of the opinion that IS isn't really needed on such short focal lengths, and I can't see when I'd need it personally. If you're shooting low-light landscapes, I'd have thought you're unlikely to be at f/2.8 anyway, as the depth of field will be too shallow. If it's low light people shots, you probably couldn't shoot at 1/5 anyway, as they'd move and blur. If you're stopping down for landscape work, there's no chance you'll get usable shutter speeds in low-ish light anyway, and a tripod will be essential.

Just my thoughts, I'd be interested to hear yours in more detail :)

Chris
 
Thats what I thought. I'm still not sure how Camera Shake Reduction methods are as effective as you claim at short focal lengths?

If you are in a dark gig or what ever you would be much better off using a fast prime?

Stuart
 
Urbex. When you're in a dark building lit only by natural light, in order to keep an atmosphere you really only have two options: Longish exposure to let the natural light expose the shot, or the same but with light painting. There are no people here, so shutter speeds are not an issue.

An IS/VC/VR/OS lens allows you to handhold for that bit longer , often up to two stops or more, and it's not just at longer focal lengths. With the 17-40, I'm really pushing it for a steady shot at 1/15, if I had IS I know I could manage it at 1/5 or even 1/3 - I could with Canon's IS kit lens, and those extra few split seconds are a lot more light.

The 17-40 is great don't get me wrong, but with no IS, and especially being f/4, I need to use a tripod or gorillapod more often and have to find different ways of lighting the scene.
 
O.K, I can see where you're coming from, but surely using a wide aperture will still lead to not everything being in focus? I'd have thought you'd need to stop down still, otherwise surely you'll just get a choice as to whether you have the foreground or the background in focus (even in a fairly small room)?
 
now I'm really confused. your saying you don't have a short focal length IS lens but you are claiming you know it will give you sharper shots. What are you basing this on? IS is dependant on focal length and distance from subject so can you really say that it is the equivant of two stops under all conditions?

For your Urbex shots why not just snap out a tripod (which is cheaper than ungrading to IS) and your shots will be much sharper than any hand helds with or with out IS?

Stuart
 
chris321 said:
O.K, I can see where you're coming from, but surely using a wide aperture will still lead to not everything being in focus? I'd have thought you'd need to stop down still, otherwise surely you'll just get a choice as to whether you have the foreground or the background in focus (even in a fairly small room)?
Click to expand...

It depends. At f/4 on 17 ish mm most is still in focus beyond a few feet or so, so this isn't really an issue. Still, an IS lens used at f/5.6 could give the brightness of an f/2.8 lens (or more) by slowing down the shutter speed and still obtaining a sharp shot, so it's not entirely unrealistic to hand hold in abysmal lighting.



stu_the_flat said:
now I'm really confused. your saying you don't have a short focal length IS lens but you are claiming you know it will give you sharper shots. What are you basing this on? IS is dependant on focal length and distance from subject so can you really say that it is the equivant of two stops under all conditions?
Click to expand...


What am I basing this on... real life experiences. In my above reply I stated that I could easily achieve silly slow shutter speeds with the Canon IS kit lens and still get a sharp shot. :wave:

IS is NOT dependant on focal length and it is NOT dependant on the distance from the subject, and it is often the equivalent of 3 or more stops worth of light.

I don't have any slow shots from my IS kit lens to hand because I'm at work, but I do know that I'd often shoot at 1/6 or less without even thinking about it, before I even knew what IS or camera shake was, and would still get beautiful sharp shots. Not having the IS was noticeable, and was when I started to learn about the mechanics of taking a photograph more.



For your Urbex shots why not just snap out a tripod (which is cheaper than ungrading to IS) and your shots will be much sharper than any hand helds with or with out IS?
Click to expand...

Well at the moment I have to, but I don't like carrying around tripods - such is life. I don't know of any IS ultrawide lenses for Canon that are environmentally sealed - and the latter is more important to me hence my choice.
 
On the odd occasion I've been in the position where IS would be nice on a shorter focal length lens. I haven't got a tripod with me, or the means to steady the camera anywhere else, and if I want the shot at f8 I'm not going have an acceptable shutter speed (low light). IS would help in this case (subject is static). I've got the non VC Tamron and for the vast majority of what I use it for I have no need for VC, but that isn't to say it wouldn't be useful for the odd occasion. Currently I'm considering going for the Canon 17-55 IS, that is mainly for the faster AF though.
 
At 35-50mm safe shutter speed is around 1/60s. At 1/30s there may be significant shake. IS can help in these cases. Above 200mm IS becomes necessary for shooting handheld in anything but perfect light. However if IS degrades IQ - something that is know about Tamron 17-50 VC (no personal experience) - then it is completely pointless, as the loss of sharp images will be 100%.
 
stu_the_flat said:
I wish I could find a better resoure. I will have another look in my own time after work.

http://www.digicaminfo.btinternet.co.uk/antishake.htm

I will be interesting to see your you photographs

EDIT: I have just found out that it is dependant on Focal length but not subject distance, I will have a read tonight!

Stuart
Click to expand...

Well, this gets interesting, as it looks like I may well have blown my theory right out of the water, at least partially anyway.

I had a look through my old shots with 450D and IS kit lens, and had ones going right down to 1/10 or so, mostly at 18mm, but some at 35mm or more. They were sharp... well, as sharp as a kit lens could be, but I am still fairly certain there wasn't any motion blur.

I tried some tests with the 1Ds and 17-40 in a room lit simply by a lamp, and was able to expose it correctly at f/4, iso 800, 1/4. I took two shots at these settings and to my amazement, the pictures came out surprisingly sharp. At 100%, there is evidence of a tiny sliver of camera movement, but still the pictures were sharper than the kit lens. I upped the shutter speed to 1/8 and maxxed the ISO, and I noticed a sharpness increase.

I really can't be bothered uploading samples... so you'll just have to take my word for it... what can I say, I have steady hands :lol:

My conclusion is that the IS on my previous camera/lens combo was doing its job, especially when you consider the crop factor which can make shake even more apparent. (1/10 @ 35 ish mm x 1.6 is pretty good considering) It does indeed seem, as you suggested, that less of a difference is observed at these very short focal lengths, but that could just be because a shorter focal length appears to minimize shake anyway, and my test isn't exactly fair because my current camera is full frame and has huge juicy pixels compared to the last.

I will however maintain that I think IS on short focal length lenses, as well as longer lenses, can be incredibly useful for shooting still subjects, and I'd still quite like it if my 17-40 was equipped with IS ;)
 
Last edited:
thanks for the replies so far, I must admit to not being sure if I would need the is or not. Its been interesting in reading your comments regarding is, i think everyone agrees that the none vc is a cracking lens and well worth every penny, I just don't understand why adding the vc should or could make the newer version inferior to the older model. Also there are no real alternatives without spending a great deal more on a canon 17-55, I also believe the tamron is better than the sigma version, from what I have read. So if any of you has views on those two, it would be great to hear them. :thumbs:
 
from reviews and past experience of othr people I have read time and time again that the VC version turned out softer then its non VC counterpart. Apperently th VC was meant to improve but did the exect opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top