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

I own the non-VC version and I can't fault it, pretty sharp... I've never tried the VC version apart from in Jessops, so I can't really compare...
 
samems said:
Because I have to move away from a DSLR, I am looking at M4rds now
Click to expand...

You can't be serious! You have gone through acres of bandwidth about the Tamron but aren't actually looking to buy one?

Didn't you get rid of your m4/3rds camera because of the inferior IQ?

Other than the EM-5 now being available, I doubt any of the older bodies will have somehow suddenly attained improved IQ.
 
Arthritis is my biggest problem. Tried DSLR but too heavy 4 me. VC vs non VC always been of interest to me regarding the Tamron
 
tomkbucks said:
this is my point so many for's and against.. if only i could find one of each and try them myself !
Click to expand...


think you just answered yerself there try em both but try it low light also to get the benefit of the vc .. i use the non vc and love it ... saw a vc and ignored it but since buying a 70-300 vc on here from a really nice chap i wondered if should have snapped it up .. the vc is simply amazing on the 70-300 but wonder if needed on 17-50 could argue the 24-70 would need it low light but .. iso etc .... go try em ... the lens itself non vc is very very sharp if moving up from a standard zoom
 
50mm prime has no VC so is it really needed on a 17-50? My answer would be no.
 
VC is not a must have thing but is nice to have it. If you think VC is needed then buy VC otherwise just get the non VC .....

Prime lens can wide open the aperture to 1.4-1.8 which lets in more light .......
 
badboy1984 said:
VC is not a must have thing but is nice to have it. If you think VC is needed then buy VC otherwise just get the non VC .....

Prime lens can wide open the aperture to 1.4-1.8 which lets in more light .......
Click to expand...

Yes, but 2.8 is still a more useable aperture?
 
samems said:
50mm prime has no VC so is it really needed on a 17-50? My answer would be no.
Click to expand...

That isn't much to come to a conclusion on, without VC a safe minimum speed would be 1/30 (1/28 for the pedantic).

I have had excellent results down to 1/10th with the VC, and another user posted an image at 1/3rd. Without VC I would have had to move up to ISO 1600 and I doubt it would have printed as clean at 20"x30" at that ISO.

VC on the 50 would be a nice feature, it would just add too much expense to what is a super cheap budget lens.
 
samems said:
50mm prime has no VC so is it really needed on a 17-50? My answer would be no.
Click to expand...

You must be getting dizzy going round and round in circles.
 
samems said:
No as I would opt for a non VC if it were for me. I am heading towards either a G2 or a G5
Click to expand...

Would that be the same G2 you sold a couple of months ago? ;)

Wouldn't a choice between a G3 or G5 be better from an IQ point?
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
Would that be the same G2 you sold a couple of months ago? ;)
Click to expand...

Wish I hadn't sold it. With my condition getting worse I wil probably end up with a throw away camera!

Didn't like the feel of the G3 and few things on it were naff like no auto switching between EVF and LCD like on the G2 to name one thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top