To Vc or not Vc, That is my question.

John Mc

John Mc

Messages
742
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
So yeah, I'll be looking to buy a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 towards the end of next month. Dependent on the price I may buy new but I might be looking to go second hand as i'll be looking to go Full frame at the end of this year.

Any how, My question is. Should I go for one with IS or stick with my initial idea and go for one without? It's a frustrating question, As I feel I may use it (The IS) more if the options there, even though I don't use the one on my kit lens as I feel it hinders more and feel it can cause blur when taking still shots.
My main use for a new kit lens would be portraits and landscapes, So a fair bit of use will be on a tripod.
What I do like about the VC compared to the non VC is the size. It's slightly larger, and for people like myself with large hands, It could be a benefit.

Any help would be advantageous, Or personal reviews/images etc.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
The non-VC is generally considered to be sharper, so if sharpness is your priority then go for non-VC! The VC version is obviously IS, but you have to weigh up whether or not you need a big aperture wide-open and IS... If you're in to landscapes and are going to spend a lot of time hand-held at the wide end, the IS combined with a smaller aperture (therefore slower shutter speed) could be useful.

[EDIT] Forgot to mention, I've used both and they're both very nice lenses. I will admit that the VC version does feel tougher and better made but is a fair bit heavier. The IS is very good and excellent for video if you're into that.
 
Last edited:
VC on a 17-50 lens would be low on my priority list.

If you can get a non-VC lens that is optically better, cheaper, ligher and smaller (it is actually a good thing!) that you plan to sell soon anyway, don't think about it and get the non-VC one.
 
Eddzz!! said:
[EDIT] Forgot to mention, I've used both and they're both very nice lenses. I will admit that the VC version does feel tougher and better made but is a fair bit heavier. The IS is very good and excellent for video if you're into that.
Click to expand...

What was your experience re. The oft repeated opinion that the non VC is sharper? Do the claims hold true or are we talking pixel peeping territory i.e. not significant in real life use ? Just curious.
 
Gazamonk said:
What was your experience re. The oft repeated opinion that the non VC is sharper? Do the claims hold true or are we talking pixel peeping territory i.e. not significant in real life use ? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't notice a difference. It was only after I'd read reviews for both lenses that I saw 100% crops showing an extremely marginal difference. Things like that don't bother me. The only advantage of the VC version in my opinion is the advantage of IS in video.
 
Tried both had the vc version..razor sharp wide open!..Lots of threads on the forum if you search.Dont buy into the whole non vc is sharper internet chat.:lol:
 
Well, the information about VC sharpness comes from photozone.de measurement. They are normally reliable source of information.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/2...ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=1

There could be a sample variation issue (not uncommon for Tamron lenses). However, it is fair to expect that in a budget lens with fast aperture like this an extra group of complex decentering elements will have some impact on image quality.
 
TBH, once shutter speeds drop below 1/30th or so, gross movement becomes a problem more than vibration is and VC/IS/VR/OS etc only really cope with the small movements involved in vibration, so VR etc is of limited use in shorter lenses, Not sure what the price difference between the 2 versions is but it would have to be very small to persuade me that the VC version was worth having!
 
 
At the moment I have both the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and the 17-50 f2.8 VC and I have to say I can find very little between them. I bought the Tamron to try as I am thinking of buying a FF body so wanted something in this range to use with my 7D (also got it off Ebay at a silly price), the idea being I could sell the Canon lens to raise a bit of cash should the Tamron be ok and tbh I can't see much of a reason to keep the 17-55mm.

Couple from the other day with the Tamron VC at Highcliffe castle





And one of the dog wide open at f2.8

 
Another one of those "The one I have is best" threads eh?

Well, I had the non-VC, got it cheap as chips used and it served me well for a couple of years - only sold it on when I went FX.

Either version will do the job, both very sharp, get the one you can get the cheapest. VC certainly isn't needed between 17mm and 50, unless you do a lot of video, then it's useful.
 
Thank's for the reply's so far folk's. I haven't read all through them, so If I have questions i'll ask soon. But looks like a fair bit of reading and more research for tonight :)
 
Sadly both are Di 11 lenses and not suitable for full frame should you move up to it.

Both however would be cracking lenses on your 500D, I had one on mine (non VC)
 
That is the question every week. Take a look at the other 100 threads already started.
 
Mike.P said:
At the moment I have both the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and the 17-50 f2.8 VC and I have to say I can find very little between them. I bought the Tamron to try as I am thinking of buying a FF body so wanted something in this range to use with my 7D (also got it off Ebay at a silly price), the idea being I could sell the Canon lens to raise a bit of cash should the Tamron be ok and tbh I can't see much of a reason to keep the 17-55mm.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the Tamron 17-50s could be used on full frame bodies? I was under the impression that they were designed around APS-C sensors :thinking:
 
Eddzz!! said:
I didn't think the Tamron 17-50s could be used on full frame bodies? I was under the impression that they were designed around APS-C sensors :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think he means he bought it as the 17-50 is similar focal length to the 24-70 2.8?? I'm not to sure, but you are correct in saying it was designed for APS-C's.
 
Eddzz!! said:
I didn't think the Tamron 17-50s could be used on full frame bodies? I was under the impression that they were designed around APS-C sensors :thinking:
Click to expand...

You're right but I think Mike is saying that he has bought the Tammy to replace his Canon 17-55 to free up cash to buy a full frame lens.
 
gad-westy said:
You're right but I think Mike is saying that he has bought the Tammy to replace his Canon 17-55 to free up cash to buy a full frame lens.
Click to expand...

Spot on. He intends to use the Tammy exclusively on his 7d not the FF. He can then sell the 17-55 and use the extra cash to buy into an FF system.

FYI the tammy can be used on a FF as can many APS-c lenses (not all and some will break the FF mirror) however those that work will vignette very severely making thrm effectively useless.
 
Thank's once again for all the reply's guy's. Done a fair bit of research last night and this morning looking at both lenses. And for about £50 of a difference I can get the VC model over the Non VC, Which I might just do. I'll probably look at second hand first before buying from an online store(which will be either OSD or Digital Rev) so when I have cash, Will probably put up a wanted ad.

I have weighed up if I need VC or not. I don't use video that often but its something I'm looking at doing for a side project and abit of fun. And my hands dont shake that bad(Yet :P). But I will be shooting in window lit rooms where light isn't all that great, so being able to use a lower shutter speed to keep noise down would be handy.

I'm also a high believer of pay more pay once. I don't want to buy something and then sell it off to buy the thing I should have bought in the first place.
 
I agree with you. Having owned the non VC version, and borrowed the VC version a few years ago id say the non VC had the edge on sharpness, but the VC version had more going for it.

Ive never under stood the VC/IS not needed on a short lens argument. Having owned a 17-55 f/2.8 IS for almost 5 years, and now using a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC i can tell you it does make a difference if you want to keep ISO's low and are not shooting moving subjects. Being able to shoot at, say 1/4th at 50mm, either for effect or maybe you've run out of f stop (f/2.8 isnt that fast) will get you the shot that the non VC version wont.

Im also with you on the pay more pay once thing, although i learned the hard way. When i was just starting out i went for the cheaper f/2.8 zooms, all the while i wanted the Canon but thought it was too overpriced. When i did eventually get it i could see why it got so much praise. Im guessing the Canon is out of your price range though.
 
I think people problem mean its not essential at theses focal lengths, rather than not needed. It's a nice feature to have but not at the decrement of IQ. You are very limited to what you can shoot at 1/4th. Shooting brick walls will be ok, so you can see how much softer the the corners to the non vc ;)
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
I think people problem mean its not essential at theses focal lengths, rather than not needed. It's a nice feature to have but not at the decrement of IQ. You are very limited to what you can shoot at 1/4th. Brick walls will be ok so you can see how much softer the the corners to the non vc ;)
Click to expand...

Thats a better way of putting it but no, most of the comments i read say its not needed, that to me is different, especially as i know from personal experience how useful it can be.
As for softer corners, well normally when i shoot at f/2.8 or around that i want the subject to be in focus and the rest, including the corners, out of focus, so soft corners shouldn't really be a problem.

When i had my non VC Tamron i found i was using my 24-105L IS a lot more for low light shots. Museums and architecture being prime examples. Even more useful was the fact that i could stop down and get more in focus, rather than be forced to shoot at f/2.8 and get too narrow a DOF.
This got me on to the Canon 17-55IS f/2.8 as it had the best of both worlds.

Not wanting to go off topic but i took this last night with my 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Hand held at 1/6th. I doubt i could have got this without VC
 
John Mc said:
Thank's once again for all the reply's guy's. Done a fair bit of research last night and this morning looking at both lenses. And for about £50 of a difference I can get the VC model over the Non VC, Which I might just do. I'll probably look at second hand first before buying from an online store(which will be either OSD or Digital Rev) so when I have cash, Will probably put up a wanted ad.

I have weighed up if I need VC or not. I don't use video that often but its something I'm looking at doing for a side project and abit of fun. And my hands dont shake that bad(Yet :P). But I will be shooting in window lit rooms where light isn't all that great, so being able to use a lower shutter speed to keep noise down would be handy.

I'm also a high believer of pay more pay once. I don't want to buy something and then sell it off to buy the thing I should have bought in the first place.
Click to expand...

What will you be shooting under window light?

Shooting at 30mm you will probably be able to shoot 1/30th, i'm ok at 1/20 or 1/15th. These speeds are already too slow for shooting people (well children anyway) any movement and its a blur, so vr wouldn't be of any use it this sort of situation.
 
Last edited:
dave_bass5 said:
Thats a better way of putting it but no, most of the comments i read say its not needed, that to me is different, especially as i know from personal experience how useful it can be.
As for softer corners, well normally when i shoot at f/2.8 or around that i want the subject to be in focus and the rest, including the corners, out of focus, so soft corners shouldn't really be a problem.

When i had my non VC Tamron i found i was using my 24-105L IS a lot more for low light shots. Museums and architecture being prime examples. Even more useful was the fact that i could stop down and get more in focus, rather than be forced to shoot at f/2.8 and get too narrow a DOF.
This got me on to the Canon 17-55IS f/2.8 as it had the best of both worlds.

Not wanting to go off topic but i took this last night with my 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Hand held at 1/6th. I doubt i could have got this without VC
Click to expand...

The brick wall comment was in jest, but fair comment regarding wanting a larger DOF.

By the way what do you think of the tamron 24-70? I'm tempted to go with it to when i get a d600.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, i understood the comment but I just wanted to demonstrate real would use of VC/IS.

I love the 24-70. Its taken me two copies to settle down with it. The first had issues with the VC system. It replaced a 24-105L and i have no regrets. Its very sharp wide open, and seems even across the frame, which is something the first wasn't although not really an issue. AF is a bit slower than USM but so far its not missed too many shots, and i went for this over the Canon MKII because i did want VC, for the reasons above. Although high ISO is great on my 5DMKIII i'd still prefer to keep it down if i can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top