TAMRON 17-50 VC / NON VC

T

TonyNI

Suspended / Banned
Messages
864
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys


Just looking to know is it sensible to avoid the VC model of this in terms of performance relative to the non-VC model?

I can't seem to get a hold of the non VC model at jessops however they seem to have the VC version in all of their stores. The guy behind the counter claimed the VC version is better as it just added stabilisation to the older model


thanks for any help
 
I have heard that the non-VC model is better image quality wise.

Also my opinion is that you don't need image stabilisation on a lens of a short focal length of 17-50.

You would save a lot of money if you went for a used non-vc. I bought one for £190.
 
The general consensus is that the VC isn't as sharp.

Never automatically trust the guy behind the counter at jessops. Some of them really don't know much.
 
squishy said:
The general consensus is that the VC isn't as sharp.

Never automatically trust the guy behind the counter at jessops. Some of them really don't know much.
Click to expand...

Sadly I have to agree... I feel quite let down sometimes when I go and ask some of them something and they look blankly and say 'don't fink so.' or 'dunno'
 
agree, Jessops will tell you anything to get you to buy from them!

As mentioned already, the non-VC version is rated higher than the VC version.
 
I believe that's also factually incorrect - the VC model uses a different optical design.
 
Also depends which camera you are using it with. I bought the VC originally with my D7000, but the focussing was wrong yet not consistently in the same place so AF-tune couldnt fix it.

Jessops MK tried it with another copy and exactly the same results. Then they tried each copy of the lens with another D7000 body and again exactly the same results. It seems to me like they are in compatible.

They ordered me in a copy of the non-VC to try and it was perfect, optically much better very obvious even when disregarding the wrong focal point. It is one of my favourite lenses now.
 
Some say that you don't really need VC at those focal lengths. I have the 17-50 non VC and am coping with it just fine as it is a fast lens.

Try Park Cameras as they have them in stock and the VC version is just a little more than the non VC version.
 
The non-VC is slightly sharper. But if you need VC because you have a physical reason (tremors in your hand or something like that) then it's better to get that.
 
lazer chikkin said:
The non-VC is slightly sharper. But if you need VC because you have a physical reason (tremors in your hand or something like that) then it's better to get that.
Click to expand...

And there is also the part of hand held slow shutter speeds for certain shots.

However having experienced the image quality between the two, there is just no reason what so ever to get the VC version, and if there is the incompatibility then it is a problem regardless.
 
travellingcello said:
What is factually incorrect? I'm sure the VC does have a different design.
Click to expand...

That the VC model is just stabilization added to the old model, when it's not.
 
hi guys. i've recently got the non VC version of this lens in Nikon mount for my D2Xs & after first use i'm a little bit underwhelmed with it tbh :|
seems a bit soft & some images seem underexposed :suspect:
i know (mostly) everybody likes this lens which is obviously the main reason i bought one but based on first impressions i'm not loving it :shake:

i'll give it another few outings before i make any decisions & i'll try it on my D200 as well & see if its any better on that body i guess
i want to like it as it covers a nice walkabout range so fingers crossed i get some better results next time out :)
 
Underexposure would have nothing to do with the piece of glass in front of the camera?! As for softness, are you 100% sure you've picked the exact focus point correctly? Even a slight deviation can cause a soft photo.
 
??? It is for APS-C sensors, so that is the first point. Dont use it with the D2x

It could be that you have a duff lens, but you wont tell unless you use it for its intended purpose.
 
dejongj said:
??? It is for APS-C sensors, so that is the first point. Dont use it with the D2x
Click to expand...

The D2x(s) may be a top end pro body, but it was nevertheless a DX/APS-C camera.
 
freecom2 said:
The D2x(s) may be a top end pro body, but it was nevertheless a DX/APS-C camera.
Click to expand...

Oh gosh my bad, and how odd I even googled to make certain as I don't have one but thought it was fx :thumbs:

Well yes in that case I'd look into af tuning if it is soft as it shouldn't be. Or return it for another one.
 
I do find this argument a bit of an urban myth. I've got a non-VC version.

I bought a VC version - I could see no difference in IQ between the lenses.

The VC version is considerably larger. I returned it.
 
davek said:
I do find this argument a bit of an urban myth. I've got a non-VC version.

I bought a VC version - I could see no difference in IQ between the lenses.

The VC version is considerably larger. I returned it.
Click to expand...

I had both side by side, on a D7000 body. Two VC copies and two D7000 bodies and they all focussed wrong, subtle but wrong and does make it look like soft. If they focussed correctly the sharpness would have been just fine. But a wrong focus at f2.8 has a habit of causing that effect.
 
Lenses can cause underexposer. My Sigma 12-24 needs +1 EC or more to get the correct exposure. No idea why, but it does.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Lenses can cause underexposer. My Sigma 12-24 needs +1 EC or more to get the correct exposure. No idea why, but it does.
Click to expand...

Might be to do with the physicality of the lens itself, like when you need to bump up exposure when shooting with extension tubes because the longer it is the less light that can reach the sensor etc etc.
 
freecom2 said:
Underexposure would have nothing to do with the piece of glass in front of the camera?! As for softness, are you 100% sure you've picked the exact focus point correctly? Even a slight deviation can cause a soft photo.
Click to expand...

after a quick search it appears there are quite a few users of this lens who think that it underexposes a bit. the general consensus of opinion is that the aperture control isn't too accurate & it may be closing down slightly more than is asked for when stopping down, as even those who reported the darker images all said it was fine & bright when wide open :shrug:

i'll try & get out with it again this weekend with hopefully better results :)
 
freecom2 said:
Underexposure would have nothing to do with the piece of glass in front of the camera?! As for softness, are you 100% sure you've picked the exact focus point correctly? Even a slight deviation can cause a soft photo.
Click to expand...

Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions, there is lots of evidence that certain lenses cause underexposure.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions, there is lots of evidence that certain lenses cause underexposure.
Click to expand...

Feeling a bit bitter from the 50mm f/1.4 thread are we? :thumbs: just pullin' your leg.

I'm not writing my statement off though, as a million other things can affect it before fingers start getting pointed at the lens. Even the newest, shiniest camera metering can still be fooled relatively easily by certain scenes. A selection of a focus point slightly awry from the actual intended point of focus can throw an exposure calculation. There seems to be rarely any hard findings past anecdotal evidence. I'd only be sure about it if it was checked against a calibrated proper light meter, grey card, that sort of thing. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and after all these do fall into the 3rd party lenses category.
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
Feeling a bit bitter from the 50mm f/1.4 thread are we? :thumbs: just pullin' your leg.

I'm not writing my statement off though, as a million other things can affect it before fingers start getting pointed at the lens. Even the newest, shiniest camera metering can still be fooled relatively easily by certain scenes. A selection of a focus point slightly awry from the actual intended point of focus can throw an exposure calculation. There seems to be rarely any hard findings past anecdotal evidence. I'd only be sure about it if it was checked against a calibrated proper light meter, grey card, that sort of thing. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and after all these do fall into the 3rd party lenses category.
Click to expand...

Dont like bitter, Im more of a Weissbier chilled out kinda guy! :love:

Mmm. Erdinger
 
well i emptied my fridge of wine & cider last night & i'm not feeling too chipper this morning :gag:

i'm off toy car racing at slough today so i'll leave this lens on the camera & see what kinda results i get (once my hands stop shaking of course :bang:)

just saw the weather report on the telly WTF it was lovely yesterday :shrug:
 
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (A16NII)
 
I have the motorised non VC one which is the one you linked to.

There is an older version that does not have a motor which apparently is even better to get as it focuses faster than the motorised one (on cameras with motor obviously like your D300).

Out of curiosity and sorry if I missed something why are you after the Tamron as you have the Nikkor 17-55?
 
TonyNI said:
Hi guys


Just looking to know is it sensible to avoid the VC model of this in terms of performance relative to the non-VC model?

I can't seem to get a hold of the non VC model at jessops however they seem to have the VC version in all of their stores. The guy behind the counter claimed the VC version is better as it just added stabilisation to the older model


thanks for any help
Click to expand...

There are is one non VCs non motored on here at the moment in the classifieds and SRS still stocks the non VC model motorised version for 299 (good store btw)
 
Last edited:
vrapan said:
I have the motorised non VC one which is the one you linked to.

There is an older version that does not have a motor which apparently is even better to get as it focuses faster than the motorised one (on cameras with motor obviously like your D300).

Out of curiosity and sorry if I missed something why are you after the Tamron as you have the Nikkor 17-55?
Click to expand...

I just sold the 17-55mm today actually. It was very heavy and a bit big as my wife uses it too. I will also be selling the D300 as I have just bought a D7000.

Is this the best one then?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250828914279&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
 
This apparently is the version to get with a motorised Nikon. However at the time Tamron had a fair amount of QC issues and some of them were having focusing problems so I'd attempt to either get from a reputable store where you can return it.

The motorised version did not have the same problems AFAIK but it does focus slower than the non motorised version and is a bit noisier.

Alternatively there is always the 18-50 2.8 Sigma OS.... but I have no personal experience with the lens.
 
Last edited:
vrapan said:
This apparently is the version to get with a motorised Nikon. However at the time Tamron had a fair amount of QC issues and some of them were having focusing problems so I'd attempt to either get from a reputable store where you can return it.

The motorised version did not have the same problems AFAIK but it does focus slower than the non motorised version and is a bit noisier.

Alternatively there is always the 18-50 2.8 Sigma OS.... but I have no personal experience with the lens.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I had the 18-50mm Sigma non OS before the 17-55mm Nikon.. Prob should of never of sold it..

Also is this the same model of lens?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180676830865&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
 
Last edited:
I believe that one is the motorised version but they look pretty much identical and it is even hard to tell from the name, i am only saying it is motorised cause of the box looks exactly like mine and mine is motorised cause I needed it for my D40
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top