Tamron, 17-50

J

jimmy83

Messages
2,154
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Possibly looking at getting this lens next but not sure if its worth spending the extra on the VC version. Read a few reports saying the VC version is abit softer than the non VC.

What do you guys think? Anyone used both versions?
 
i try both version in the shop yesterday and walked away with the non VC version. The non VC version is much sharper at least the one i tried in the shop are. Also the VC system is not the same as the canon IS or nikon VR. It take a few sec before the VC settle and then you can snap a picture otherwise the image will become blur ......
 
badboy1984 said:
i try both version in the shop yesterday and walked away with the non VC version. The non VC version is much sharper at least the one i tried in the shop are. Also the VC system is not the same as the canon IS or nikon VR. It take a few sec before the VC settle and then you can snap a picture otherwise the image will become blur ......
Click to expand...

Ah just the man! I assume that was with a Nikon? Do you think it will be the same on a Canon? The non-VC is on DR for £ 234.99 very tempted.
 
i do not know whether the VC on the canon version is good or not but i prefer the non VC plus is cheaper as well. Personally i think a 17-50 VR/IS is not really needed ......... so i can live without it.
 
jimmy83 said:
...Anyone used both versions?
Click to expand...

I've had both on a Canon.

First I bought the VC version, fully expecting that was the end of the matter - I didn't expect to be questioning its sharpness. It was good, but pixel-peeping left me unhappy so, most unlike me, I went to the time and effort of returning it and ordering the non-VC version.

Been very happy with it ever since.

That's just my experience; one copy of the VC lens vs one copy of the non-VC lens.

I hope that helps.
 
Bicko said:
I've had both on a Canon.

First I bought the VC version, fully expecting that was the end of the matter - I didn't expect to be questioning its sharpness. It was good, but pixel-peeping left me unhappy so, most unlike me, I went to the time and effort of returning it and ordering the non-VC version.

Been very happy with it ever since.

That's just my experience; one copy of the VC lens vs one copy of the non-VC lens.

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bicko, thats pretty much what ive read on various sites.

Where did you get yours from?
 
Lots of threads on this lens lately..I have the vc version and its razor sharp wide open.Have posted plenty of sample shots and 100% crops so wont bore everyone again.If you cant find the threads just look on my flickr if you want to see how sharp the vc can be.(y)
 
I have the VC version on my 550d, and I must say, it's absolutely razor sharp when pixel peeping.
 
I to have a very sharp copy of the vc. I would also say the vc settles just as quick as it did on my old 28-135 is.
 
Thanks guys...maybe I should opt for the VC version now!

Anyone use one with a 40d by any chance?
 
I have the non VC and still can't believe how sharp this lens is and the colours are so rich and warm. Amazing lens for the money.
 
Best price I can see the VC version at is £295 from Panamoz - 5% if BT can anyone recommend any other websites to check the price of the lens?
 
I would also add my 2p, over the years I have had 3 (maybe 4) non VC Tamrons, I've just received a VC version and it easily exceeds the non VC's with regard to IQ in my initial tests.

I also dont understand what badboy1984 is on about, the VC works exactly like the IS in my Canon lenses.
 
Dave1 said:
I would also add my 2p, over the years I have had 3 (maybe 4) non VC Tamrons, I've just received a VC version and it easily exceeds the non VC's with regard to IQ in my initial tests.

I also dont understand what badboy1984 is on about, the VC works exactly like the IS in my Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

I not saying the VC sucks on the lens but from experience on testing it doesn't work exactly the same as nikon VR (assume IS on canon is same). On Nikon VR i could just turn the VR on and shoot and it will stabilize without a problem, but on Tamron VC it is totally different for me by experience. Using the Tamron VC like the way i use on Nikon VR i can only get blur image but if i focus and leave the VC to settle (approx 1 - few sec) then the VC works fine.

If thats not a problem for you then is all good.
 
jimmy83 said:
Thanks, does it produce good bokeh?
Click to expand...
I can't really answer, not having the VC, but looking at the shots by Matt earlier the thread, I'd say it's about what you'd expect rather than outstanding. It's not as 'creamy' as a prime, but there's nothing distracting about the OOF areas either. It's very nice - Looking forward to your verdict when you've got yours :)
 
matt b said:
Not the best pictures but here are some all shoot at 2.8

IMG_7557 by matt barton, on Flickr

IMG_7558 by matt barton, on Flickr

IMG_7682 by matt barton, on Flickr

IMG_7679 by matt barton, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Thanks, do you have anymore Matt?


Bicko said:
I can't really answer, not having the VC, but looking at the shots by Matt earlier the thread, I'd say it's about what you'd expect rather than outstanding. It's not as 'creamy' as a prime, but there's nothing distracting about the OOF areas either. It's very nice - Looking forward to your verdict when you've got yours :)
Click to expand...

(y)
 
a quick OOF background (I was actually testing for AF accuracy, AF on middle of the foot). Photo is straight from camera.

aa558295.jpg
 
Does the 17-50 'replace' the 50mm 1.8? Once on the camera is there a need to use the 50mm 1.8 then?
 
samems said:
Does the 17-50 'replace' the 50mm 1.8? Once on the camera is there a need to use the 50mm 1.8 then?
Click to expand...

from a DOF point of view, probably yes. Probably also from an IQ pov as well IMO.

It is bigger and heavier than the 50mm though.

This was another test pic, f2.8 available light, straight from camera. The zone of focus is pretty narrow (AF point was on the USB logo).

5f1017a0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thank Dave, what version is yours? What camera do you use it with?
 
samems said:
Does the 17-50 'replace' the 50mm 1.8? Once on the camera is there a need to use the 50mm 1.8 then?
Click to expand...

I would say no but it all depend on your purpose and preference. For walk around etc then i would say the Tamron can replace the 50mm since it can shoot at f2.8 (very sharp f2.8) and give you nice focal (17-50). A 50mm f1.8 prime you can shoot at 1.8 (faster lens) and when stop down the prime lens is very very sharp. It all depend on your purpose and preference. The 17-50 will be use more then the 50mm but it certainly won't replace my 50mm in my case.
 
I've got both the 17-50 non VC and a Canon 50mm f1.8, they're both very different! For a walkabout in Brighton with my girlfriend a few weeks ago, the 17-50 was used all of the time, the 50mm stayed in my bag and never got to see the sights :p The 17-50 is very versatile, the f2.8 gives just enough background blur to makes pictures look nice. The 50mm definitely has its place though, for example if I'm taking some pics/video of my friends at gigs then it's the only real choice for a dingy pub with no specific lighting on the band. Sometimes they're ok with me using the flash, so the 17-50 comes out for some more creative shots, or simply to get more than just head/shoulders.

tl,dr: No, the 17-50 doesn't 'replace' the 50mm f1.8 (y)
 
Thanks again, what camera do you use it with? VC version? Do you have any negatives about it?

Sorry for the questions, hope you don't mind :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top