tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc - any comments?

p1tse

p1tse

Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
i have the nikon 18-200 vr, which is very versatile lens
also my other favourite is the nikon 35mm f1.8, but has not vr.

majority of my shots are chasing after my 16 month old son, so keeping a steady hand at that moment is difficult at times, where i think VR comes to play.

Used to have the tamron 28-70 f2.8 on the sony system which was great which had inbuilt IS.
 
Hi

Firstly VR, VC, or IS isn't particularly useful when shooting fast moving subjects. VR allows you to use slower shutter speeds. Fast shutter speeds are what you want for anything like chasing, panning, action, sports etc.

And secondly I had that lens...and it stinks! Softest lens I've ever owned please do not buy it!

Hope that helps

Danny
 
p1tse said:
i have the nikon 18-200 vr, which is very versatile lens
also my other favourite is the nikon 35mm f1.8, but has not vr.

majority of my shots are chasing after my 16 month old son, so keeping a steady hand at that moment is difficult at times, where i think VR comes to play.

Used to have the tamron 28-70 f2.8 on the sony system which was great which had inbuilt IS.
Click to expand...

I read a bunch of reviews before ordering my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens and the general consensus was that the IQ on the VC was inferior to the non-VC model. As image quality was the priority for me, I ordered the standard one and have been very happy with it, although I have no hands on experience with the VC version :shrug:.
 
so far I've read a lot of good stuff about the Tamron but that the non-VC is a better one. Another lens you could take a look at is the Sigma 18-50 2.8 which is very similar to the Tamron.
 
ah thanks
maybe next time i'll try the shutter speed, but if indoors it's then the limited lighting
 
hmm.. thanks
a rethink me thinks ;-)
 
I am also looking for a decent lens, I have got my eyes on this one, the best is to try in store.
 
Negative reviews always get a higher profile than the good ones - I've got this lens and am very happy with it! Nice and sharp, the only complaint I have is the VC is a little noisy (but then it's the only lens I have with VC/IS).

Go for it, it's a good buy.
 
I too have a 17-50 vc and the IQ is good. Its sharp stopped down a little a tad soft wide open but very close to the canon 17-55 for less than half the money.

The VC helps in low light hand holding.

Most review I have seen show the non VC is sharper but has noisy af. Vc on the newer model can be an advantage depending on what you are shooting.

Try both and see what you think
 
tris101 said:
I too have a 17-50 vc and the IQ is good. Its sharp stopped down a little a tad soft wide open but very close to the canon 17-55 for less than half the money.

The VC helps in low light hand holding.

Most review I have seen show the non VC is sharper but has noisy af. Vc on the newer model can be an advantage depending on what you are shooting.

Try both and see what you think
Click to expand...

Luckily, it's not the kind of 'noise' that you see in the final image :D (although you do see the sharpness ;)).
 
While the VC IS softer at most points, unless your a pixel peeper are you going to notice? The only side by side example I have seen was a test chart (which had a clear difference) but are you going to see the difference on an average day to day shot?
 
maninsuitcase said:
While the VC IS softer at most points, unless your a pixel peeper are you going to notice? The only side by side example I have seen was a test chart (which had a clear difference) but are you going to see the difference on an average day to day shot?
Click to expand...

Mahoneyd187 said:
...
And secondly I had that lens...and it stinks! Softest lens I've ever owned please do not buy it!

Hope that helps

Danny
Click to expand...

Well, this owner did :thumbs:!

As I said before, I looked at several example shots and reviews when I bought my Tamron 17-50, about 3 or 6 months after the new VC version was released. The opinion all around (back then) was that the VC version was "noticeably soft" (i.e. in actual photos, not in lab tests) at larger apertures and larger apertures were what I was buying it for. Otherwise, without being able to use f/2.8-f/3.5) it's no better than the Nikon kit lens (which isn't actually that bad at all, IMHO).

Also, AFAIK, four people in this thread own that lens - two say it's good and two say it's soft :|. Try finding an owner of the non-VC version who says theirs is soft - you'll be hard pushed, I reckon.

I know that I'm biased, as I've already been along this path and made the opposite choice, but the strength of opinion for one and against the other is pretty noticeable when you go around the forums, which is why I wanted to highlight it to the OP :shrug:.
 
Naboo32 said:
Try finding an owner of the non-VC version who says theirs is soft - you'll be hard pushed, I reckon.

.
Click to expand...

Correct. Mine was almost on a par with my Canon 17-55IS f/2.8 that cost over double the price.
Having owned both a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and 17-50 f/2.8 on Canon bodies i would say to the OP to go for the non VC version. Although ive not used a VC nearly all the posts about it say its not as shape as the non VC.
I would go with the majority if IQ is important, but if i really needed stabilisation I wouldn't be put off with the VC. It might not be as sharp as the old version but it still seems to be a good lens. Photozone liked it after all.

Personally, and based on the chasing a small child around a house situation i would (and did) get a flash unit and not worry about the light or a stabilised lens. Then again, the OP would probably benefit from something a bit wider than the current lens line up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top