Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC or non-VC?

nuttyboy78

nuttyboy78

Messages
745
Name
nutty
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to upgrade my kit lens to the Tammy 17-50 but just when I had all but decided to go for it, they had to bring out a VC version. While i do prefer to go IS/VC for most of my kit, could you guys tell me whether the VC is really going to be worth the extra dosh that I will have to spend on it at this range? Also the problems noted so far on the current crop of VC lenses isn't helping. I'm going on holiday in January and was hoping to buy it in time for that.

I currently use the 18-55mm IS but to be honest, the IS on this is so subtle that I don't really know whether it's helping or not. Whereas it does make an appreciable difference on my 55-250mm IS.

So my question is - do I need VC on this lens? Maybe some of you lens owners can help?


:help:
 
I have recently bought a Nikon fit Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and the one and only time I have used it in anger indoors in relatively low light I turned the VC off because it wasn't helping at all.

Having tested the VC under controlled conditions it certainly works and gives good results but how useful it is during an actual shoot is yet to be seen.
 
Hmm.... thanks Rob.

Anybody else with wisdom to share?
 
nuttyboy78 said:
Hmm.... thanks Rob.

Anybody else with wisdom to share?
Click to expand...

If you search the forum there are quite a few threads on both lenses which should help.

There are not, as far as I know, any users of the non VC that now have a VC to give a direct comparison to. The IQ, from good copies of both, seem pretty similar so I would say the decision is whether you need VC or not and that of course depends completely on your subjects and your own ability :)
 
jnO said:
If you search the forum there are quite a few threads on both lenses which should help.

There are not, as far as I know, any users of the non VC that now have a VC to give a direct comparison to. The IQ, from good copies of both, seem pretty similar so I would say the decision is whether you need VC or not and that of course depends completely on your subjects and your own ability :)
Click to expand...

Believe me, I have looked at the threads you are referring to. But, like you said, there is no direct comparison.

I understand that the IQ is similar, but that could be because the pics from the non-VC lens were tripod mounted, thus negating any effect VC might have.

I'm looking to use this hand-held most of the time and as you say - my own ability :bang:
 
nuttyboy78 said:
Believe me, I have looked at the threads you are referring to. But, like you said, there is no direct comparison.

I understand that the IQ is similar, but that could be because the pics from the non-VC lens were tripod mounted, thus negating any effect VC might have.

I'm looking to use this hand-held most of the time and as you say - my own ability :bang:
Click to expand...


The book shots and those of the cleaner bottle I posted in the main VC thread were not tripod mounted, they were handheld.
The VC does work and as such your consideration should be aimed at whether you need it, that is a question that only you can really answer ;)
I bought the VC version as I am a novice, and as such (whilst my technique is improving and I am not too 'shakey' anymore) it can save certain shots when my camera settings are less than perfect.

My style of shot with this lens will be a mixture of urban & urban portrait/candids, landscape and general use so for the latter the VC will probably be worth the extra £120 in the long run. Had it been purely for moving subjects (where stabilisation is almost pointless) and landscapes (tripod mounted) then I would have gone for the non VC, not for quality purely for cost.
 
Thanks Jon, that is really helpful. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top