Tamron 17-50 non VC help

dan_yorkshire

dan_yorkshire

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,398
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

Got the chance of a 2nd hand Tamron 17-50 for my D90.(non VC)*

Could anyone with first hand experience please let me know whether I would miss the VC?

I'm thinking that with f2.8, the short focal range and the ISO capabilities of the D90 will not warrant paying the extra for a VC version.

Also read many reveiws saying getting your hands on a sharp VC version can be a little hit and miss.

Any help appretiated,

Many thanks
 
Since upgrading from the image stabilised kit lens to the Tamron I've not missed the IS much. That said, In good light it's rare that I'd need it. In bad light I tend to have a tripod or flash anyway.
 
The Matt said:
Since upgrading from the image stabilised kit lens to the Tamron I've not missed the IS much. That said, In good light it's rare that I'd need it. In bad light I tend to have a tripod or flash anyway.
Click to expand...

Cheers for your reply.

So you have the non VC version? Do you find it as sharp as every other reviewer seems to find it? Is it quick and accurate with the AF?
 
I have the non VC version too and love it. It find it pretty sharp if you step it down to around F5.6, wide open it's still acceptably sharp.

HTH
 
I have a non VC version and it's really sharp. There's a little distortion at the wide end but nothing like what I used to get with my Canon 17-85mm. The constant f2.8 comes in handy and if you are willing to up the ISO great things may be possible.

Dan, I wonder if you have a fast 50mm prime available? If you have maybe you could set it at f2.8 and see if that gives you the results you want?
 
Yes it's the non-VC I have and I like it very much. Sharp as hell compared to my kit lens. Probably not as good as my 50mm prime but it's a reasonably priced zoom so I wouldn't expect it to be. AF is fine, if a bit noisy. The focus ring turns during AF so you have to be careful your hand isn't on it. MF can be fiddly as it's full range is covered in a rather short movement, but it is still usable. For the money I'd say it's excellent.
 
.
 
At these focal lengths, stabilisation is a bit of marketing hype. Knowing about exposure is much more important.

The 17-50 non VC is a great lens. The VC version doesn't seem to share the reputation of its predecessor so why bother.
 
Cheers everyone

So all in all you'd recommend a purchase of a pin sharp, two and a half year old non VC one for £200?

Had a play with a mates VC version and loved it but new is pretty much twice the price
 
I've recently purchased the non-VC version of this lens after reading everything I could about both lens.

I don't think I ever read a negative review about the non-VC version whereas the review of the VC version were mixed at best.
 
I had the non vc version, I used it on a couple of inside low light church situations on a monopod. Brillliant lens with no complaints. Doubt you'll miss the vc.
 
I've done lots of comparisons recently between Nikon VR lenses (16-85/18-105) and my Tamron 17-50. Firstly, in my experience, the VR only really kicks in usefully at longer than 1/30 sec exposures. Then it does make a very discernable difference.
Above that shutter speed I've found that technique is far more important than VR and the keeper ratio was about the same between the stabilized and non-stabilized lenses.
 
At these focal lengths, stabilisation is a bit of marketing hype
Click to expand...

Can see your point, but when you have shaky hands, its a real help in taking sharper pics.
 
dan_yorkshire said:
So all in all you'd recommend a purchase of a pin sharp, two and a half year old non VC one for £200?
Click to expand...

YES :thumbs:

I paid £210 for mine about a year ago, when prices were lower. That's a very good price, get it now!!! :D

I don't miss the IS in the slightest from my kit lens, if I'm shooting in very dark conditions I use a fast prime (stage productions) or use a tripod (landscapes).
 
my thinking is with 3rd party lenses, the less fancy technology the less there is to go wrong. With that focal length i'm not sure you'll need VR anyway, except at the 50mm end but even then...
 
VR will always help when needed. People might say with that focal lentgh, you don't need VR, but when you shoot the inside of a church for example, it will help. People say you can always use a tripod, but you can't always bring one. So VR will help.
 
Cheers everyone.

I went ahead and bought the lens from the sales section on this forum, it's like new!!

Plonked it on my D90 last night and the difference in sharpness to my 18-105 kit lens is night and day do it looks like I've got myself a bargain.

I've no doubt the VC would be handy in certain situations but it won't have stopped photographers producing great shots before the VC/IS/VR versions ever came out.

Dan
 
Glad you're enjoying the lens, Dan. I look after my stuff, and I'm sure you will too. It really is the best bang-for-buck in the Nikon shooter's add-on catalogue; the nearest competitor, the Nikkor 17-55, costs an eye-watering amount.. and you don't see the additional benefits easily.

This is probably the most compelling reason to go with a screw-drive Nikon body, IMHO; this non-motor lens really does have it all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top