Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8

C

Cobbler72

Messages
46
Edit My Images
No
I am considering buying a Canon mount version of the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8. I have read that the VC version is not quite as sharpe. I like the idea of VC and am happy to pay the extra but do not want to waste my money if the cheaper one is better.

Can anyone comment on whether the VC is worth having on this lens and whether it really is inferior to the non VC version?
 
First question: do you need VC? The mk2 that I had (non-VC) was ultralight so was easy to hand hold at low shutter speeds. Optically it was brilliant. AF was fine, if not as fast as the brilliant Nikon 17-55, but it was a fine everyday lens. Personally, I'd go for the non-VC version just because for the money, it's an unbeatable piece of kit....
 
I have no experience of the VC version.
I do however have the non VC version and can confirm that it is very sharp indeed.
Being a constant 2.8 lens and having a short focal length I feel the need for stabilisation isn't required. In poor light a bump of the iso is enough to bring the shutter up if a faster speed is required.

It really depends on what you intend to shoot and whether or not the VC would be of benefit.
 
Vc can be worth having depending on what type of pic's you want to take. Its more important at longer focal ranges, but even then it was not that long ago when everyone managed ok without it.

As for Vc or non VC sharpness the early vc's could be a little soft between F2.8-4.0 but the more recent ones are very sharp, just like the non vc.

The No vc is cheaper and is a great lens. I think the build and af is better on the VC model, other may disagree.

The Canon 17-55 F2.8 is great but it costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top