VC or Non VC

wibbly

wibbly

Messages
5,216
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm considering either the Tamrom 17-50 or Sigma equivalent, but am interested in the variables of vibration control against non vibration control.

Personally I can't see a reason to be without it, can anyone offer reasons against - before I splash my cash :lol:
 
if you're in the 17-50mm range, I assume you'll be doing 'some' landscapes or tripod work

Nikon says to turn its VR to 'off' on a tripod or it ''hunts''....:lol:

do you really need VR up to 50mm anyway
 
I want to use it for all round walkabout to be honest, VC is a nice option..
 
Ive just ordered the non VC tamron lens myself, from everything ive read the non vc one is by far sharper than the vc one. I bought because of the 2.8 to get a higher shutter speed for low light and moving targets so vc wouldnt of been that benifical anyway.
 
studioworks said:
Ive just ordered the non VC tamron lens myself, from everything ive read the non vc one is by far sharper than the vc one. I bought because of the 2.8 to get a higher shutter speed for low light and moving targets so vc wouldnt of been that benifical anyway.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm thinking of the Tammy, as it has the low light capability..

Oh decisions, decisions :bonk: :lol:
 
Dave, I turn off the VR/VC/IS on my Nikon 70-200 when photographing rugby.

Although I use a monopod, Nikon say turn it off when using a tripod but you can leave it on when using a monopod, but I prefer to leave it off.

So with a 50mm I personally would turn it off.
 
Hi Dave, I'm happy with my Tamy 17-50mm VC on my 7D.
 
Crikey, it's a real mixed bag isn't it :cuckoo:

It's really annoying as my local Jessops has the VC version in so I can order one and go have a look at, but not the none VC version, typical :shrug:

It seems there's only about £30 quid difference in them as well :bonk:
 
Everything I have read pointed towards the non VC being sharer than the VC version.

I have just bought a 2nd hand non VC version off gumtree for 200 notes!
Thing has hardly been used.
Guy I bought it off wanted a quick sale to move to full frame, bonus was it was only 5 mins from where I work...result!
 
stupar said:
Everything I have read pointed towards the non VC being sharer than the VC version.

I have just bought a 2nd hand non VC version off gumtree for 200 notes!
Thing has hardly been used.
Guy I bought it off wanted a quick sale to move to full frame, bonus was it was only 5 mins from where I work...result!
Click to expand...

Blimey, what a bargain! Not that is worth going non VC for :lol:
 
wibbly said:
Crikey, it's a real mixed bag isn't it :cuckoo:

It's really annoying as my local Jessops has the VC version in so I can order one and go have a look at, but not the none VC version, typical :shrug:

It seems there's only about £30 quid difference in them as well :bonk:
Click to expand...

Could it be that because the Non VC is soo much popular that they have run out of those and hence only the VC lens availability? From what I have read, the Non VC is much sharper so I would be inclined to go with that..

Raj
 
wibbly said:
Crikey, it's a real mixed bag isn't it :cuckoo:

It's really annoying as my local Jessops has the VC version in so I can order one and go have a look at, but not the none VC version, typical :shrug:

It seems there's only about £30 quid difference in them as well :bonk:
Click to expand...

When I bought mine there was over £100 difference, I got it when it first came out. Now everyone realises its poo so the prices are now almost the same.

Non VC all the way. Or used nikon 17-55 ;)
 
I have used both the Non VC and the VC versions (Canon fit) of this lens - both have been more than acceptably sharp.

I sold the Non VC version last year, so cannot now do a comparison, but from my experiences, the VC version is superior in that it has the VC image stabilisation system plus it is sharper...........

If you look at the review made by Digital Picture, [click here] the VC version of the lens is sharper at 17mm - F2.8 than the more expensive Canon 17-55mm lens which everyone aspires to.

Whilst I do not doubt there may be soft copies of this lens like any other lens, it is my belief that the issue in the main may be attributed to the difficulties of shooting in poor lighting and wide open at F2.8.........

I certainly had some focussing issues with the Non VC version of the Tamron lens, sometimes it would struggle to achieve focus in poor light, but that is true of any lens in low lighting conditions where a lack of contrast will make focusing that much more difficult.

The best test is to use the lens in a real life situation rather than concentrating on the 100% crops seen in these reviews and tests, its a terrific walkabout lens that I am sure you will be very happy with.
 
lostsoulal2 said:
I have used both the Non VC and the VC versions (Canon fit) of this lens - both have been more than acceptably sharp.

I sold the Non VC version last year, so cannot now do a comparison, but from my experiences, the VC version is superior in that it has the VC image stabilisation system plus it is sharper...........

If you look at the review made by Digital Picture, [click here] the VC version of the lens is sharper at 17mm - F2.8 than the more expensive Canon 17-55mm lens which everyone aspires to.

Whilst I do not doubt there may be soft copies of this lens like any other lens, it is my belief that the issue in the main may be attributed to the difficulties of shooting in poor lighting and wide open at F2.8.........

I certainly had some focussing issues with the Non VC version of the Tamron lens, sometimes it would struggle to achieve focus in poor light, but that is true of any lens in low lighting conditions where a lack of contrast will make focusing that much more difficult.

The best test is to use the lens in a real life situation rather than concentrating on the 100% crops seen in these reviews and tests, its a terrific walkabout lens that I am sure you will be very happy with.
Click to expand...

My copy was soft at f8 1/250 with studio strobes....QC issues are very prominent, the VC lens price has dropped to almost the same as the old non VC which I see as an admission that the newer VC lens is poor, and the general consensus is the lens is soft. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Low light technique MAY be an issue with some people, but that's impossible to comment on, especially seeing as at least most people will have owned or used a fast prime like the 50mm, with a much shallower dof at 1.8.

If you got a good sample then you're lucky and it would seem, you are in the minority

Now I buy Nikon, and I buy once. That's not for everyone admittedly.
 
wibbly said:
It's really annoying as my local Jessops has the VC version in so I can order one and go have a look at, but not the none VC version, typical :shrug:
Click to expand...


Go and look at one then :D
 
I have a Canon 40d, I bought it before Christmas. So far all I have for it is a 50mm prime lens so I'm keen to add to it.

I am concerned at making a good decision, I can pick a good used non VC one up off eBay for just over £200 quid compared to almost £350 for a new one regardless of VC or not from my local Jessops. To be honest I've lost enough buying new camera gear over the past 12 months to worry too much over whether it's secondhand or not, so long as it's in good condition!

It seems everytime I make a decision someone pops up and counters that decision with a post that tells me why I should buy the other! :lol:

I wonder if there's other lenses I should be considering.
 
I'd look at it this way; if you feel you'll max out the highest useable ISO wide open (f/2.8) to get say, 1/30th, then the VC will give you some additional leeway. However, if that isn't the case, go for a used non-VC and save yourself some cash.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
I'd look at it this way; if you feel you'll max out the highest useable ISO wide open (f/2.8) to get say, 1/30th, then the VC will give you some additional leeway.
Click to expand...

And in English Pat :lol:
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
My copy was soft at f8 1/250 with studio strobes....QC issues are very prominent, the VC lens price has dropped to almost the same as the old non VC which I see as an admission that the newer VC lens is poor, and the general consensus is the lens is soft. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Low light technique MAY be an issue with some people, but that's impossible to comment on, especially seeing as at least most people will have owned or used a fast prime like the 50mm, with a much shallower dof at 1.8.

If you got a good sample then you're lucky and it would seem, you are in the minority

Now I buy Nikon, and I buy once. That's not for everyone admittedly.
Click to expand...

Looking back over this thread, there are several happy VC owners, so I am not in the minority, in fact I was so pleased I bought another one for my other half to use :)..... and both are equally sharp.

Prices of lenses do drop naturally once they have been on the market for a while which does not mean the lens is not any good - for example the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II which is a very well regarded lens has dropped from ~£2,700 to ~ £1,600 in the last year.

Is there a possibility that this softness is more on the Nikon versions of the lens? Have you an example photo of the softness you refer to? Would be good to see the whole photo and a cropped 100% section.

Regards
 
lostsoulal2 said:
Looking back over this thread, there are several happy VC owners, so I am not in the minority, in fact I was so pleased I bought another one for my other half to use :)..... and both are equally sharp.

Prices of lenses do drop naturally once they have been on the market for a while which does not mean the lens is not any good - for example the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II which is a very well regarded lens has dropped from ~£2,700 to ~ £1,600 in the last year.

Is there a possibility that this softness is more on the Nikon versions of the lens? Have you an example photo of the softness you refer to? Would be good to see the whole photo and a cropped 100% section.

Regards
Click to expand...

The 70-200 isn't a good comparison. That more than likely was due to an realistic expectation on canons part, and with the nikon equivalent being £1600, they need to compete, as its their pro zoom and a consideration for pros when approaching their system choice.

There are many instances of unhappy VC owners. Some people get good copies, some don't, you can't compare the ratio based on internet searches and forums. You love yours, I hated mine. Maybe I got a crap copy? Or maybe they're all soft and I have higher standards as I shoot with primes?

My version was soft I can assure you, I'm only offering advice based on my experience of the lens which was a bad one. I see no reason to post a soft photo just so you can tell me that in your opinion its acceptably sharp and for me to argue otherwise. Pointless.

Enjoy whatever lens you buy, if you buy a VC Tamron then you ARE taking a gamble, fact. Sorry, bad copies exist its the way it is.

Regards

Danny

Edit: and "looking back over this thread there are several happy VC owners"....dude I count 2 including you. Thats hardly a lot
 
Last edited:
wibbly said:
And in English Pat :lol:
Click to expand...

Ha - that smiley has gone rogue!!!! Stupid emoticons - means we can't have an 8 tight to a )

What I mean is this; you only need the VC function if you're continuously maxxing out your camera's performance (i.e. only managing slow shutter speeds at f/2.8 ) If you are generally getting decent shutter speeds and you still have a lot of ISO to fall back on, then I'd get the cheaper non-VC version.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Ha - that smiley has gone rogue!!!! Stupid emoticons - means we can't have an 8 tight to a )

What I mean is this; you only need the VC function if you're continuously maxxing out your camera's performance (i.e. only managing slow shutter speeds at f/2.8 ) If you are generally getting decent shutter speeds and you still have a lot of ISO to fall back on, then I'd get the cheaper non-VC version.
Click to expand...

Thanks Pat, I understand that... Yeah, now you see I think I can live with that... however I've always lived with the fact that the VC is there just to help out regardless of shutter speed.

Perhaps that's where I'm going wrong!
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
The 70-200 isn't a good comparison. That more than likely was due to an realistic expectation on canons part, and with the nikon equivalent being £1600, they need to compete, as its their pro zoom and a consideration for pros when approaching their system choice.

There are many instances of unhappy VC owners. Some people get good copies, some don't, you can't compare the ratio based on internet searches and forums. You love yours, I hated mine. Maybe I got a crap copy? Or maybe they're all soft and I have higher standards as I shoot with primes?

My version was soft I can assure you, I'm only offering advice based on my experience of the lens which was a bad one. I see no reason to post a soft photo just so you can tell me that in your opinion its acceptably sharp and for me to argue otherwise. Pointless.

Enjoy whatever lens you buy, if you buy a VC Tamron then you ARE taking a gamble, fact. Sorry, bad copies exist its the way it is.

Regards

Danny

Edit: and "looking back over this thread there are several happy VC owners"....dude I count 3 including you. Thats hardly a lot
Click to expand...

I agree with you that that lens prices move for different reasons, market competition being one.

I was interested in seeing a shot purely to see the extent of the overall softness as you had said it was the softest lens you had ever used and to see whether it could be explained away by any other factors....

I assume you promptly returned it to the shop you bought it from and got a refund?

I had said that I know that soft copies of a lens do exist; also mismatches between camera and lenses can occur, but they normally can be re-calibrated.

I was reading the other day a review about customer satisfaction:

  1. A good customer experience is told to 8 other people
  2. A bad customer experience is told to 22 other people
  3. It takes 10 good experiences to make up for one bad one

It does seem to be true.

Regards

Roy
 
No I left it too long before I used it so couldn't return it, I sold it immediately after using it at a loss (I paid the initial high price) when I went to sell it the bloody rrp had dropped dramatically lol. But still,I'm impatient so didn't want the hassle of sending it to Tamron. Maybe they could have improved it, I don't know.

I know what you mean, I shout particularly loudly about how much I disliked this lens, but seriously, there are so many reviews out there that compliment the non VC lens over the VC version. Most people that have posted on this thread are saying the same as me, it is somewhat universally understood, deservedly or not, that the non VC lens sucks.

The non VC has a better reputation, its cheaper, and at that focal length and fast aperture the benefits of VC are not all that obvious compared to a Tele.

This isn't an agree or disagree scenario, our opinions of the lens are based on our own experiences which differ, and I'm genuinely pleased that you got a good sample and didn't have the hassle I did :)
 
I'am happy with my VC one its quite sharp stopped down a little. Wide open its a little soft but so is the canon 17-55.

A freind has just brought a VC one too and again its sharp too.

Maybe the non vc is a little sharper looking at most reviews they say the IQ of the non VC it a little better. I guess a lot depends how you are going to use it. In low light the VC helps hand holding as long as the subject is not moving.
 
wibbly said:
Thanks Pat, I understand that... Yeah, now you see I think I can live with that... however I've always lived with the fact that the VC is there just to help out regardless of shutter speed.

Perhaps that's where I'm going wrong!
Click to expand...

VC / VR / IS ... once the shutter speeds go up past 1/250 I would suggest that it serves no purpose on that focal length lens, other than to juggle the elements around.

There is suggestion that past 1/500 (I think) on any lens it has no effect, and can start to degrade the image.

Personally I think it is a gimmick, only two of my lenses have it, and it is turned off on both, with good technique it is not required. However I started using SLR's in the early 70's and had to learn to cope without Auto Focus or VR :D

At the end of the day if VC / VR / IS is a benefit to you, that is all that matters, if it helps it is one less element of getting a good shot that you need to worry about :thumbs:
 
wibbly said:
I wonder if there's other lenses I should be considering.
Click to expand...

There is! The Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS (same as VC)

I have the Tamron 17-50mm non VC and I am Mr Shaky hands and so far it has been brilliant, really sharp and nice to use.
 
AndyWest said:
There is! The Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS (same as VC)

I have the Tamron 17-50mm non VC and I am Mr Shaky hands and so far it has been brilliant, really sharp and nice to use.
Click to expand...

Thanks Andy, I had considered this but everyone seems to favour the Tamron.

I'm a bit shaky hands too, so that's good to hear...

I'm after a Canon fitment, but thanks for the advices.
 
Mine arrived today and very happy with it so far, gonna be looking forward to testing out properly though.

I ended up buying it from dzone2 on ebay, brand new for £225 delivered, ordered it late friday afternoon and recieved it this morning, cant beat that for service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top