Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

  1. #21

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Darknights View Post
    As mentioned, there are a few more improvements to the lens on top of the VC functionality. I'd read that the lens elements are different in the 2 version as well. I guess it all boils down to the budget of the users, if you have the dough = go for 17-55mm, not so much = 17-50mm VC, tight on budget = 17-50mm non VC. Last I saw, SLR Revolution in Funan still have stock for the NON VC version, 618 for a local stock with 3 years warrantly. =)
    I agree.
    As others had mentioned, it is less needed to have VC in 50 mm. When comes to situation, just increase ISO. Unless for anyone who willing to spend. I personally ok with non VC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman2000 View Post
    Shouldn't it be 6 years of warranty?
    6 years in US, 3 yrs for local warranty by JEL Corp

  2. #22
    Member DrSpock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Warp back to Simei
    Posts
    1,088

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shen siung View Post
    I agree.
    As others had mentioned, it is less needed to have VC in 50 mm. When comes to situation, just increase ISO. Unless for anyone who willing to spend. I personally ok with non VC.
    Well, if increase ISO sensitivity, noise level increase also so it's a trade off really between havin or not VC to shoot in low light without flash

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Why do we buy a wide angle f/2.8 lens for? To take advantages of shoot in low light condition right? & anti-shake funtion is god-send in low light condition when you try to get clear sharp photo without much sensor noise. It's all depend on we all willing to pay for the pay of these anti-shake function.
    Sony Alpha 700 hobbyist

  4. #24

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Agreed with zcf. The strength of tamron 17-50 lies in its low light photography.

    Image this situation. U r taking indoor portrait shots at 50mm, and ur settings shows 1/10 f2.8 iso 400.

    For vc lens, they can still take pictures at this shutter speed, but for the non vc, they will need to increase iso to 3200. Clearly the vc will hv nicer photo.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sembawang
    Posts
    369

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    There are occasions when you only have opportunity to take a single shot, most will snap and pray it will turn out fine and not blurred (keeping fingers X) so having VC is essential, a "must" more than a "good to have" (unless your hands are damn steady). Imho, I certainly don't want any regrets in the aftermath of the shot.
    Canon EOS 40D | EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

  6. #26

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    The only time vc is not important is when u use ur camera with a tripod.

    Any other situations I don see why vc shouldn't be preferred

  7. #27

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    VC is definitely good to have, but whether it's worth the extra, i guess you have to decide it yourself.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,753

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Quote Originally Posted by artspraken View Post
    50mm no need VC lah. VC is mainly for 200mm zoom.

    I dunno anybody who has bought VC version.

    Even the King of DX Lens, the Nikkor 17-55mm lens, got no VR/VC.
    VC is really to negate the need of a tripod la...but then again i dun tink worth paying another $300 more for VC because according to some reviews, the non-vc version is sharper. =)

  9. #29
    Member Cartman2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    1,732

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    According to some other reviews, the VC version is sharper

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sembawang
    Posts
    505

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman2000 View Post
    According to some other reviews, the VC version is sharper
    IQ - VC > non vc
    AF speed - VC > non vc
    Noise level - non vc > VC
    Low shutter speed - VC > non vc
    Build quality - VC > non vc



    Price - non vc > VC

    The only thing is the price, so you decide if its worth the 400 bucks. For me, i got mine at the low price of 830 i think, so it was a nobrainer for me
    Nikon.
    Nuff said.

  11. #31
    Member Cartman2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    1,732

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Quote Originally Posted by agentxq49 View Post
    IQ - VC > non vc
    AF speed - VC > non vc
    Noise level - non vc > VC
    Low shutter speed - VC > non vc
    Build quality - VC > non vc



    Price - non vc > VC

    The only thing is the price, so you decide if its worth the 400 bucks. For me, i got mine at the low price of 830 i think, so it was a nobrainer for me
    Pray tell where did you get it at that price

  12. #32

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    where to get that price? share leh!

    Anyone wants to buy my Tamron 28-75 f2.8? Considering to sell.
    D7100,SB910,17-50/2.8OS,105/2.8VR,85/1.8D,2xE-M1,O60/2.8,12-40/2.8,35-100/2.8,14-42,LX100

  13. #33
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman2000 View Post
    Pray tell where did you get it at that price
    Quote Originally Posted by sin77 View Post
    where to get that price? share leh!

    Anyone wants to buy my Tamron 28-75 f2.8? Considering to sell.
    I think he got the first batch with the introductory pricing. That price is not available anymore, unless you want to buy the lens in Malaysia, and is ok with 1 year warranty.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    VC is super awesome. But you don't wanna handhold at extremely low shutter speeds too(since we're using only 17-50 on crop body).
    http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615429

    i.e. Handholding with VC at 1/200 at 400mm equivalent focal length shooting a relatively slow moving object would be much more useful.

    If you want VC you might as well get the 17-55 IS USM. The Tamron 17-50mm non-vc is one fine lens.
    Last edited by sensornoise; 21st December 2009 at 02:23 PM.

  15. #35
    Member rongwei82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    151

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    so izzit more worth to get the canon 17-55 f2.8 with that price? just a few hundred more?
    <My Photography Journey> | Http://photofreak82.multiply.com

  16. #36

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    If u need faster and quiet focusing get the Canon. But bear in mind that its also bigger and heavier.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Depends on user as well,
    if ur fundamental of camera holding is wrong & u got shaky hands
    then maybe u got to pay for the VC premium..

  18. #38

    Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)

    Quote Originally Posted by akszaksz View Post
    Is it worth to pay quite alot more for the VC version?

    how does this "Vibration Compensation" helps?

    thanks~@
    I went for the non-VC last week. Think for short distances... VC not as critical.
    Life is about choices.

  19. #39

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •