Tamron 17-50 with/without VC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 30033
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 30033

Guest
Am I correct in that I have heard the 17-50 without the VC gives a better quality picture?

If so, then why would they produce a VC version?
 
I'm super happy with my non vc version. Never used the vc version and quite frankly im glad that I saved a few bob getting the non vc as I haven't needed it.
 
I have the none VC version and love it... It is a great alternative to the kit lens. I have not had any need for VC so far.
 
I have the VC version, and I like it very much.
 
This seems to be a difficult question to answer - there are a variety of opinions and few people seem to have had both lenses for an adequate period of time.

I was looking at the question in detail and in the end went for the non-VC as it has very good reviews by most owners; further, I don't really see the need for VC at such short focal lengths.

When I need to be wide open in a low-light area, I use my 35mm 1.8 or 50 1.8.
 
I bought the non VC version for the missus and the results are incredible.
I think the only real question is can you forsee a need for VC? If so get a VC version! If not then go non!
Don't simply get a VC one because its a cool gadget. :-D
 
adamdavi3s said:
I bought the non VC version for the missus and the results are incredible.
I think the only real question is can you forsee a need for VC? If so get a VC version! If not then go non!
Don't simply get a VC one because its a cool gadget. :-D
Click to expand...

The point is that the VC version is supposedly softer and not quite as good for image quality as the non-VC, hence so much debate around IQ v.s. VC. If it were just a matter of the same optics + VC then it would just be a matter of whether or not you need vibration control.
 
Ksanti said:
The point is that the VC version is supposedly softer and not quite as good for image quality as the non-VC...
Click to expand...

As photozone.de says:

photozone.de said:
When considering all aspects the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC only makes sense if both speed and stabilization are required in a single lens. If VC is not high on your priority list, the still available non-VC variant gives better results at a lower price.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the conclusion of many reviewers. It's worth noting however that many of these results are in the labs rather than in real-life where differences will be minuscule.
 
Last edited:
I've heard a lot of people say the VC version is softer, but it's hard to say how much is actual experience, and how much is people repeating what they've read on the internet. Also, a lot more people seem to have the non-vc one, so you hear more about it!

Personally I was really happy with my non-vc, and don't really see the benefit at this focal length. I've never used the vc version though, so can't compare the two.

Chris
 
Last edited:
The VC is supposedly better when shooting video, handheld, but when it comes to image quality I think most people agree the non-VC is better.
 
Last edited:
Reviews often say the VC model is softer - and frankly, I think it rings true.

Even when Canon came out with the 70-200 2.8 L IS, it was softer than the non-IS model at the time. Sure they've solved it now, but it's a 1.7k lens...
 
I've been very happy with my VC version, but then I've never used the non VC. In the end it's all about expectations . Some of the rumoured softness of the VC version has been put down to getting used to how and when the VC kicks in
 
Both of them are good, only the guys which are reading photos pixel-by-pixel are fighting which one is better. So it depends on price offer :)
 
Picked up mine from one stop digital for a very reasonable price with a hoya filter (about £300 I think all in). No regrets in ordering from there
 
I havent seen any recent reviews, most review ive seen was of the first batches of this lens, where you would expect most errors in construction. I would have thought by now the photos are indistinguisable.
 
I read all the reviews that I could find of the new VC version, before opting to buy the older non-VC instead. The magazines/websites who were reviewing the newer lens had mostly reviewed the older one at some point, hence they were able to offer a rough "A/B" perspective.

As explained elsewhere, the two lenses have different optical designs and so it's logical that the performance will differ somewhat :|.

Anyway, I will add my appreciation of the non-VC version to those above, if I may :). I would go as far as to describe the IQ as 'professional' quality, even if the plastic body of the lens suggests otherwise.
 
Thanks so much for all the replies. I am thinking to opt for the non-VC mainly because of the price and there doesn't seem to be a problem with the older version.

BUT I have now also seen the Sigma 17-70 :bang:, what would this be like in comparison? I am looking for a walkabout lens, but want the best picture quality (that I can afford). This lens has a wider range but will it compromise picture quality?
 
If you are not looking for an f2.8 lens the canon 15-85 gets good reviews, but it comes at a price.

The Tamron 17-50 is great value.... I have VC model and I'm happy with it. The Sigma 17-50 os also looks like a nice lens, good IQ and well built.

I fancy a canon 24-105 f4 as I'm finding the 17-50 can lack a bit of range for the type of pics I take.
 
I would ideally like the 24-105 instead, but can't quite go up to the price for that one.

I am wanting to replace my kit lens so I was hoping the 17-70 would be sufficient as I would love to get more into street photography. Then I would only need 2 lenses as this could be for landscape and general use (putting a 70-200 on the wish list for the 2nd lens).
 
weebleswobble said:
Thanks so much for all the replies. I am thinking to opt for the non-VC mainly because of the price and there doesn't seem to be a problem with the older version.

BUT I have now also seen the Sigma 17-70 :bang:, what would this be like in comparison? I am looking for a walkabout lens, but want the best picture quality (that I can afford). This lens has a wider range but will it compromise picture quality?
Click to expand...

See the Tamron vs Sigma here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=713&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You can also compare other lenses with each other.

I would also vote for the 15-85. Whilst it isn't f2.8 (it's 3.5->5.6) it is sharper than either of the two you are considering (have a look on the comparison charts). For real world pictures of the 15-85 vs other canon EF-S zooms, see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx
 
I was meant to be choosing by elimination, not adding to this :lol:

But I am now seriously considering the 15-85. As you say, the reviews are good and as I don't then need a dedicated landscape lens, I feel I could put the extra towards this lens.

The replies have been fantastic and very helpful, and you have hit the nail on the head advising me that the quality of this lens is better than the two I was looking at.

Now, I'm on the hunt to see if I can get a 2nd hand one first...
 
weebleswobble said:
Now, I'm on the hunt to see if I can get a 2nd hand one first...
Click to expand...
You may be looking for a while as they are relatively new... PM kerso on here if you don't mind a grey import (with UK warranty). I bought mine from him a month ago and it was about 10% cheaper than any UK one available.
 
non vc is sharper... do some research, bunch of info's, pro reviews are everywhere.
 
As CameraWorld now have the non-VC version for £260 (plus delivery if needed), I think it is a great price and well worth the investment.

Kevin
 
Think i'm gonna buy this now, been reading too much about it I just want it on my body
 
camera body that is, I've not got a weird fetish for plastic and glass or anything.
 
Quoth said:
As CameraWorld now have the non-VC version for £260 (plus delivery if needed), I think it is a great price and well worth the investment.

Kevin
Click to expand...

Price has gone up to £299.99 now which is a shame
 
I finally decided and bought the Canon 15-85 on ebay. Arrived today, so have been testing it out. So far, so good! :)
 
If this helps at all I back to back tested the 17-70 OS (2.8-4) vs the Tamron 17-50 VC and throughout the range the Sigma 17-70 was better in terms of IQ, build and the OS/VC system - i HATED the "jump" the Tamron gives - some might like it, but personally i thought it felt cheap!

However I havent been 100% happy with the 17-70 OS, it is very good from say 17mm-50mm, especially when stopped down to F8 (ive found this to be its optimum aperture) but from 50mm upwards it gets worse almost to the point of not bothering to use that range!
I was shocked when I saw my girlfriends P&S camera produced a sharper more contrasty picture at max zoom than my 40D+17-70 at 70mm F7.1 did!! However at 35mm I am consistantly impressed by its performance...

However I am considering swapping it for a Tammy 17-50 non VC purely for the constant 2.8....just not sure if Id benefit because I have a few primes which go lower and cover the same range

Overall the Sigma 17-70 is definitely an improvement over the 18-55IS kit lens (i tested this also) at any range/aperture.... but its 50mm+ performance isnt the best and I would quickly choose my 55-250mm for anything over 50mm.

It is also VERY heavy... which might or might not be a problem.

OS works really well and it certainly looks/feels very good on the camera
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 VC - I'm happy with it as a lens, and have compared it with the results of a colleague who has the non vc version and there seemed to be very little difference between the results. We were shooting the same things in the same light, so it was a fair test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top