tamron 17-50 vc vs no Vc which really to have ?

tomkbucks

tomkbucks

Messages
877
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
So everyone always says to get the non vc as its lighter and has better IQ, but ive not seen one crop up for sale for a while, so im temped just to buy a new one - but i only seem to be able to find the VC version for sale - is there really that much difference between the two ?
 
typical someone asked the same question ! so am i right in thinking the 'new' vs is different and better regarded than the old non vc... ? hum now were to buy one - oh and how do i know its the new vc one ??
 
Sphinx said:
non vc is supposed to sharper than the vc version.
Click to expand...

I have owned both and in my personal experience of actually using them, the VC is undoubtedly sharper.

What are you basing your statement on?
 
I have owned both and will say that without a shadow of a doubt the non vc is sharper. It is also quicker to focus and more usable in a studio environment.

Dean
 
this is my point so many for's and against.. if only i could find one of each and try them myself !
 
A shop?

Take your body in and ask to try them (if you can find one with both in of course) so that you can take the images home and compare directly.
 
Thomas shame you own canon gear as I am just down the road from you in Tring and would have happily let you try the lens out. I got mine from srs in Watford and they are pretty helpfull so sure they would let you have a play with both versions if they have them in stock.They are also pretty good on prices and will match most;)
(edit to add your still welcome to whack an sd card in my d90 and try it if you want to)
 
Last edited:
cheers Stuart , i think SRS in watford is the only shop i can go to - aylesbury, reading and oxford has very little in terms of camera shops - at least none that hold any stock ! also i like the idea of testing them both but your right finding a shop with them both in stock were they let me 'try before i buy' is going to be tricky :(
 
Give them a call they may well have a used non vc..stock of the vc is usually pretty good so that way you get to try both.
 
HappySnappy1977 said:
I have owned both and will say that without a shadow of a doubt the non vc is sharper. It is also quicker to focus and more usable in a studio environment.

Dean
Click to expand...

That is weird, over the years I have had 3 non VC Tamrons and now i have a VC one, the VC is not only sharper but i have found it to focus more accurately and get focus lock more consistently.

Either I was extremely unlucky with 3 below par non VC's or very lucky with one above average VC.
 
That's my point too I do wander this in which case I think I have to try both and make my own mind up
 
samems said:
Is it a case that newly manufactured vc lenses are better?
Click to expand...

I have seen a quote that the "Made in Japan" VC model is better than the ones marked "Assembled in China". How true that is I can't say as I have yet to see any proof.

I would add that my VC version is marked "Made in Japan".

But then it could just be an Internet rumour like much else that swirls around the sites.....
 
Dave1 said:
I have seen a quote that the "Made in Japan" VC model is better than the ones marked "Assembled in China". How true that is I can't say as I have yet to see any proof.

I would add that my VC version is marked "Made in Japan".

But then it could just be an Internet rumour like much else that swirls around the sites.....
Click to expand...

Seen that too
 
Not a clue what mine said as I've now sold it!

as a side note, I actually liked the fact that it was bigger and heavier as the non VC feels like a toy on my cameras (D200 & gripped
D7000)

Dean
 
I use non VC for the following reason:

1) Tried both version in the shop and the non VC give me better reason (possible the VC version in the shop is bad copy)
2) non VC is cheaper
3) non VC weight less and smaller when attached to my D7000 so i can use it on holiday/walkaround instead of using my D300 with Nikon 29-70 f2.8.
4) VC is good to have but i feel i don't need it on that focal.

Everyone's preference is different
 
badboy1984 said:
I use non VC for the following reason:

1) Tried both version in the shop and the non VC give me better reason (possible the VC version in the shop is bad copy)
2) non VC is cheaper
3) non VC weight less and smaller when attached to my D7000 so i can use it on holiday/walkaround instead of using my D300 with Nikon 29-70 f2.8.
4) VC is good to have but i feel i don't need it on that focal.

Everyone's preference is different
Click to expand...

Did you notice the VC version being slower to focus?
 
Hi...dont know if this will help but I'll be puting mine up for sale on here prob tomorrow...used for my 50D...

(For sale as I bought a 5D Classic...I now use a 24-105L on my 5D...and the 70-200L on the 50D)

Non-VC and Ill be taking a few photos...so Ill take a few photos and drop them on here as well as the For Sale Section...

I must admit...I loved the lens...great pics...nice and fast to focus...but having not tried the VC I cannot comment on a comparison...(when I was buying the non-VC did review better in all the web research I done than the VC version) the only reason I changed is that my new setup is practicable for a 2 camera shoot with no lens changes and max focal length range coverage...

Hope this and the photos help...

STEVIER
 
samems said:
Did you notice the VC version being slower to focus?
Click to expand...

No, it's not, but if you repeat it often enough over enough threads it will become an internet "truth" like all the other facts you have seen/read on the net ;) .
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
Hi...dont know if this will help but I'll be puting mine up for sale on here prob tomorrow...used for my 50D...

(For sale as I bought a 5D Classic...I now use a 24-105L on my 5D...and the 70-200L on the 50D)

Non-VC and Ill be taking a few photos...so Ill take a few photos and drop them on here as well as the For Sale Section...

I must admit...I loved the lens...great pics...nice and fast to focus...but having not tried the VC I cannot comment on a comparison...(when I was buying the non-VC did review better in all the web research I done than the VC version) the only reason I changed is that my new setup is practicable for a 2 camera shoot with no lens changes and max focal length range coverage...

Hope this and the photos help...

STEVIER
Click to expand...

What's the 24-105 like do you not find the 24 end a bit restrictive??
 
both VC and non VC is good, i say go tried it in the shop to see which one you like.

Some like the less weight on the non VC and some prefer the bigger VC version .... and some prefer a tad sharpness on the non VC (both VC and non VC pretty much the same unless you pixel peep .....).

By experience the VC i tried in the shop is not as good as the non VC but it could be a bad copy.
 
"One mans meat" as the saying goes, but the mags seem to go for the non VC.
 
eagercat said:
"One mans meat" as the saying goes, but the mags seem to go for the non VC.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a head to head test in a magazine, which one was it?

But as an aside, I didn't manage to get the same consistent results with any of the non VC's I owned, and colour also seems better on the VC as well, I don't think this (handheld) pic would have been possible with the non VC unless I had had a tripod with me.


Tyne Bridge at Night. by Dave_ 1, on Flickr


1/10th, f2.8

_
 
Last edited:
Could the confusion between which is best stem from the fact that Tamron tend to be very hit and miss regarding getting a sharp copy?
 
Adam Priseman said:
Could the confusion between which is best stem from the fact that Tamron tend to be very hit and miss regarding getting a sharp copy?
Click to expand...

It is possible, but the unfortunate fact is the majority of the posters who claim the lens is poor/not sharp/can't focus/ VC doesn't work have never actually owned the lens but "read it on the internet" or "someone told them".

I haven't been unhappy with any of the Tamron's I have owned, all have been capable of good results and been sharp, the VC model has just been better.

There must be a variance in quality (every company will have some sort of variance), but it must be in fractions of 1%.

A company wouldn't remain in business if half of their products left the factory substandard.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
It is possible, but the unfortunate fact is the majority of the posters who claim the lens is poor/not sharp/can't focus/ VC doesn't work have never actually owned the lens but "read it on the internet" or "someone told them".

I haven't been unhappy with any of the Tamron's I have owned, all have been capable of good results and been sharp, the VC model has just been better.

There must be a variance in quality (every company will have some sort of variance), but it must be in fractions of 1%.

A company wouldn't remain in business if half of their products left the factory substandard.
Click to expand...

Lots of reviews on the net state the non VC is superior
 
samems said:
Lots of reviews on the net state the non VC is superior
Click to expand...

If you have made your mind up because the internet has said so, why haven't you just ordered the non VC? It seems idiotic to carry on discussing something over and over when you seem to have clearly already made your decision.

If you are so convinced the non VC is better, then just order one. It's a good lens, and should easily satisfy if you are used to the kit lens or your old m4/3rds kit.

You'll even save some money by doing so.
 
Because I have to move away from a DSLR, I am looking at M4rds now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top