Tamron 17-50 Non-VC sharper - still true?

zerodeluxe

zerodeluxe

Messages
262
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Hi

Been thinking of ordering up one of these and it's been mentioned on here many times that the non-VC version is the sharper.

However, I've also heard newer versions of the VC version are better - can anyone confirm this?!

To have VC would be advantageous, if the difference in sharpness isn't that noticeable, but if it's a lot softer then I'll go non-VC (and try and keep a steadier hand!)

Thanks!

Ben
 
I've been in the exact same dilemma for a few weeks now, any information seems to be a little out of date but I went non-VC just in case

My hope is that that sort of shots I'll be taking with that lens will not require much stabilisation, if I find I am too much of a shaking stevens then I will sell and change to something that is stabilised
 
Can't compare non-vc and vc versions, but my daughter bought the latter in July and its excellent

Only comparison I can make is with my Canon 17-55mm and to be honest i wouldn't be paying an extra 350 quid if my lens needed replacing, very impressed with the Tamron and in no way could it be described as soft
 
zerodeluxe said:
Hi

Been thinking of ordering up one of these and it's been mentioned on here many times that the non-VC version is the sharper.

However, I've also heard newer versions of the VC version are better - can anyone confirm this?!

To have VC would be advantageous, if the difference in sharpness isn't that noticeable, but if it's a lot softer then I'll go non-VC (and try and keep a steadier hand!)

Thanks!

Ben
Click to expand...

Like you say this has been done to death here and at Flickr, I reckon people who bought the VC version just don't want to admit they spent more money on something that produces pictures with worse IQ!!!

But seriously, do you really need VC on a 17-50 focal length? My answer is I don't think so. If its dark, then use a faster prime.I would rather have the non-VC personally. And I have had it.
 
But seriously, do you really need VC on a 17-50 focal length? My answer is I don't think so. If its dark, then use a faster prime.I would rather have the non-VC personally. And I have had it.
Click to expand...

Camera shake doesn't only happen in the dark, not everyone has a faster prime or wants to up the iso, stabilisation is an excellent feature for any lens.

You may have had the non vc version, but unless you personally did a direct comparison with the vc lens how can you honestly say which is better
 
I had both, I could see no difference; the non-VC is smaller, I kept it
 
If you have seen some of the new reviews the rating of the VC model has improved a lot, the 1st production runs were soft but production qc seams to have improved.

I have seen a couple of reviews which rate the VC as good as the canon 17-55. It has been rated has a nice sharp lens.

I guess it all depends if you get a good one just like most other lens.

The price diffrance between the VC and Non VC has also reduced. But if you dont need or want the VC you can still save a few quid.
 
I tried both and couldn't really see any difference so I got the non VC, it's a fair bit smaller and lighter and cheaper so it was a no brainer for me.
 
I bought the VC and it was rubbish. I didn't get any of the shots. I tried another copy and it behaved the same. Also tried another body to eleminate my camera as a fault with both copies of the lens and it was the same.

Tried the non VC and the difference was noted immediately.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Camera shake doesn't only happen in the dark, not everyone has a faster prime or wants to up the iso, stabilisation is an excellent feature for any lens.

You may have had the non vc version, but unless you personally did a direct comparison with the vc lens how can you honestly say which is better
Click to expand...

You're right of course, I can't say which is better for sure. I also agree that lens stabilisation is a great bit of technology... However,

I do know that I prefer better image quality, and that on a lens with that focal length with a little practice of good hand-holding technique you shouldnt really need VC. Not to mention you save some money.
 
I just picked up the non vc lens as an upgrade to the kit lens. Went on the advice that you could get away without the vc for that range. Anything longer and vc or image stabilisation is very handy...
 
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC

Worst lens I ever bought...

I bought a Nikon 17-55mm instead, money well spent.

That is all
 
lol here was me looking for an upgrade. Had read there were the odd rogue lens with problems out there but the majority advied it was a very good lens for the money....just need to get out and try mine now!!
 
I have the VC version. Can't compare it with the non-VC version but when deciding which lens to upgrade the 18-55 kit to, I also read the 'non-VC is sharper than VC' comments. However, having been blessed with my father's shaky hands, non-VC isn't really an option for me ... so I opted for the VC and decided to see how it went*.

Here are a few 100% crops from 'straight from camera' images taken with it (they're not the most interesting photos I'm afraid, just taken in my garden as the lens test):


Hoverfly by Carousels Spin, on Flickr


Dunelm Mill by Carousels Spin, on Flickr


Acer by Carousels Spin, on Flickr

IMO, they don't appear to be soft and I'm very impressed with the lens. However, as said before, it's not like I can compare with a non-VC and I could just have a good copy.

(* That's not strictly true. First I went for a Sigma 17-70 OS. Awful lens, front-focused like nothing on earth. That went back the next day and the Tamron was purchased.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top