Any tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC user here?
- Thread starter HLLEE
- Start date
Better and sharper.. i hope you understand this kind of thing can be very subjective.. There will sure be someone saying its good..some would say its bad. So its really pointless to argue back or what not. Which can be seen in post #4 and 5 already.
Overall ill say its a good lens at a reasonable price. There are tons of good reviews on the net.. Best if you can try the lens yourself. If you like it. Can afford. Want it. Then Get it. Its that simple.
Overall ill say its a good lens at a reasonable price. There are tons of good reviews on the net.. Best if you can try the lens yourself. If you like it. Can afford. Want it. Then Get it. Its that simple.
I would like to bring this back to the start....Why do you think a beginner need this lens? I assume you own a kit lens that came with the body (I'm assuming 18-55 in this case), What is it that it is lacking that you think the 17-50 can give you?
If you can elaborate on the stuffs that 18-55 is lacking, we probably can chip in more opinions.
good point. what will you be shooting and how does the 18-55 not deliver (besides being too all rounded lol. i never did quite feel very satisfied with kit lens)
i know of people who have used and achieved much on the 18-55 even as a seasoned photographer, simply because it's very generic.
oh but to answer your question? VC is fine, but do you really need it versus a simpler non-compromised non-vc?
I have used both and find that the IQ is the same. Maybe emotionally many think the non-VC is better because it is much cheaper, ard $300 diff. However, when I used the VC one, I can 95% good clean sharp shots. However, in room condition and hand held, the non VC one I get 50-60% good shots. Maybe without VC and dim light, unless you use a tripod most time to achieve 95% good.
Cannot compare with the canon 18-55mm. The colour of the tamron is much better, contrast is much better also. Can see the diff in a 3" screen immediately.
I'm using the tamron 17-50 vc.
IQ is soso. Non-VC is definitely sharper at centre at f2.8. My VC gets reasonably sharp at center f4.0. But if you are a facebook shooter, it doesn't matter.
AF is reasonably accurate.
Only complain is the noise level, and the slow AF. AF is about 2x slower than the kit lens. You can youtube for this.
VC would help if you use auto ISO. For my body (550D), auto ISO minimum shutter is implicitly set at 1/30 (nothing I can do about it). Obviously if you are shooting at 50mm, it might cause blur especially if the body is not leaning against your face to take some weird angle shots.
Night time I usually use flash, so it doesn't matter whether VC or not since shutter at minimum 1/60. For cases where flash can't be used (landscape or some places like museum, underwater world etc) and you don't want to carry a tripod around, VC is a lifesaver.
IQ is soso. Non-VC is definitely sharper at centre at f2.8. My VC gets reasonably sharp at center f4.0. But if you are a facebook shooter, it doesn't matter.
AF is reasonably accurate.
Only complain is the noise level, and the slow AF. AF is about 2x slower than the kit lens. You can youtube for this.
VC would help if you use auto ISO. For my body (550D), auto ISO minimum shutter is implicitly set at 1/30 (nothing I can do about it). Obviously if you are shooting at 50mm, it might cause blur especially if the body is not leaning against your face to take some weird angle shots.
Night time I usually use flash, so it doesn't matter whether VC or not since shutter at minimum 1/60. For cases where flash can't be used (landscape or some places like museum, underwater world etc) and you don't want to carry a tripod around, VC is a lifesaver.
Last edited:
hmm, i would actually think that TS should consider not just Tamron 17-50 VC. Sigma's equivalent has better bang for the buck in my opinion, esp the HSM motor...
Similar threads
