Do i really need VC/OS/VR?

R

rowey2507

Suspended / Banned
Messages
48
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been on the hunt just recently for a low light short zoom lens. I was comparing the Sigma and Tamron 17-50 2.8's with VC. I did also read the several threads regarding the non VC tamron being sharper but understand this could have been an issue with early models and this now sorted?

Anyway, where i am right now. Having had a quick go with the tamron and the sigma, i prefer the tamron. I just wish it wasn't so noisy!

Anyway, the dilemma! More and more second hand nikon 17-55's are coming up around the £500 mark. Even second hand stores have them for £600-£680.

2 questions really. Is the nikon worth double the cost of the Tamron (based on the nikon being second hand) and, do i really need VC hence making the decision an easier one.
 
At that focal length there is absolutely no need for stabilisation of any kind. If you can get the Nikon at decent money it's a superb lens although the Tamron is no slouch at the end of the day if cost was not a consideration the Nikon wins hand down every time.
 
Soda Farl said:
At that focal length there is absolutely no need for stabilisation of any kind. If you can get the Nikon at decent money it's a superb lens although the Tamron is no slouch.
Click to expand...

Having seen several examples of what the tamron is capable of, I fully agree with you. I guess I'm also asking if the Nikon is worth the extra?

I've been very tempted to say sod it and just go with the Nikon but want to be sure it's worth the pennies.

Edit: just saw your ninja edit, Nikon is the way forward then at the right price?!
 
One of the reasons for me looking at a constant 2.8 would be the low light performance but I didn't know how critical the VR would be.
 
At that focal length I would not be too fussed about VR. However I did have a 70-200 with it and missed it when I went to a 80-200 without
 
its like comparing a Mercedes v's a Renault..
Both are fine to start with but the Renault will break more & be worth less....
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Image stabilisation is useful if shooting at night / low light without a tripod, something I have used my 16-35VR for. If you're not doing that kind of thing, then it probably isn't worth paying extra for.
Click to expand...

+1

VR can be very useful when shooting video, even if its just the odd times one uses it.
 
At this focal length IS / VR etc isn't crucial and van add unwanted expense to a lens - eg the Tamron. But it also depends on how steady you can hold the camera ! My FIL struggles to hold a very steady shot nowadays so for him IS / VR would be needed more frequently than I would for example, but I'd still like to have it ...

Personally I'd opt for the Nikon - I'd save up some and buy the one you seem to really want, rather than maybe something that will do ???

The same debate goes on with the Canon 17-55 IS lens and is it worth the extra over the Tamron

Hope this is of some help
 
Thanks for all the advise. I can't see me using the camera for video as I have a camcorder for that, but even so I wouldn't base a lens choice on that.

It seems the concencous is I could do without it and that the nikon would be the better purchase taking the financials away from it.

I think I will find one in stock somewhere and take a look.
 
Both the Tamron and the Nikkor will produce excellent results. The Nikkor will focus faster (much faster ime) and quieter. But it is also much bigger and heavier. The Nikkor is also built like the proverbial tank too (hence why it is heavy I guess). I tried both when I had my D7000 and went for the Nikkor as it just felt better to use (despite the weight).
 
I've just bought a Tamron 17-50 VC from here last week, brand new and I paid less than 2/3rds of the new price. Its UK model with a 5 year warranty too.

The VC is definately noisier than my experience the Nikon VR lenses and it gives a little judder / shake when it focuses so its probably not the best if you need to snap a quick shot.

That said ( and I've only taken a handful of test shots ), its damn sharp - every bit as good as my Nikon 35mm f1.8 i think
 
As people are saying, at that focal length it's probably not an issue. I shoot a lot of live music and I find it's not about how steady I can hold the camera it's how much the performer moves about that's the issue.
 
damianmkv said:
I've just bought a Tamron 17-50 VC from here last week, brand new and I paid less than 2/3rds of the new price. Its UK model with a 5 year warranty too.

The VC is definately noisier than my experience the Nikon VR lenses and it gives a little judder / shake when it focuses so its probably not the best if you need to snap a quick shot.

That said ( and I've only taken a handful of test shots ), its damn sharp - every bit as good as my Nikon 35mm f1.8 i think
Click to expand...

Thats the v.c kicking in
 
KC Leblanc said:
As people are saying, at that focal length it's probably not an issue. I shoot a lot of live music and I find it's not about how steady I can hold the camera it's how much the performer moves about that's the issue.
Click to expand...

You need to turn stabilisation of for anything that moves.
 
Stabilisation counters photographer movement, not image movement.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top