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


Status
Not open for further replies.

artspraken

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
1,563
0
0
#2
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.
 

Last edited:

trueno84

Deregistered
Jan 12, 2009
81
0
0
33
#3
Personally i dun see why is there a need for a VC for this lens, coz watever ur zooming into is pretty short and it's a f2.8 straight lens, which is a pretty big aperture and u would proverbly get a high shutter speed tat's unnecessarily requires the VC. It's a totally different lens compared with your Kit lens. In my case, i've never used an IS lens from the time i start to now. ^^ Just play around with your ISO to compensate your shutter speed and also not to mention the VC or IS cannot stop motion. ^^
 

trueno84

Deregistered
Jan 12, 2009
81
0
0
33
#5
If i'm not wrong the non VC would cost abt 600+ tops. ^^ tat's alot for a VC
 

DrSpock

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,088
0
0
Warp back to Simei
#7
Is it worth to pay quite alot more for the VC version?

how does this "Vibration Compensation" helps?

thanks~@
I'd not be too quick to discount the VC or IS in low range lens cos Canon must know something to put IS into their EF-S17-55mm F/2.8 IS lens. VC/IS/VR/ is designed not only meant to minimise the handshake in high zoom range but also to cater for extremely low SS usually due to dim lighting conditions, to be able to shoot handheld as low as 1/1.3sec & still get a reasonable shot without resorting to very high ISO.
 

gimumancer

New Member
Sep 15, 2009
237
0
0
#8
it's not just VC, i heard it's improved focusing, build quality and sharpness, those are worth the extra $$
 

batavia

New Member
Jan 30, 2009
131
0
0
#9
THe VC is definitely worth it..........it will definitely help shooting slower shutter speed up to 1/10 sec.....much higher chances of sharper images.... wats the point of having sharp lens but blurry images cos of handshake........whoever said dont need VC must have tripod arms..... if u dont, u need VC.
 

yun10

New Member
Nov 18, 2008
402
0
0
#10
if I were to choose, I will get the vc version. Heard there's quite a few improvement. VC is a added bonus too.
 

Sep 28, 2008
896
0
0
33
#11
i wont get the VC. later VC fail = more repair - like the famous Nikon 18-200 VC .
besides 50mm...why bother VC...just up the ISO la or open up aperture!
 

android17

New Member
Sep 27, 2009
945
0
0
#12
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is great for low light photgraphy. Getting VC will make it perform even better.

Typically a 50mm lens will require a shutter speed of 1/50. However with VC, you can go as low as 1/10. So comparing a VC and non VC version, the VC one will perform much better in very low light situations.

Of cos, Sony and Pentax and Olympus users wont even worry about such things, as their in body image stabilizer will make a non VC len work as well as a VC lens :bsmilie:
 

Last edited:

zcf

Senior Member
Apr 10, 2005
6,741
0
0
270 degree of Singapore
#14
lens or sensor base anti-shake function both work on wide and tele. Even at 17mm, under low light condition, antishake function make a lot of differences adn provide a lot of conveniences.

The sensor base anti-shake indeed show it worth in this Tamron 17-50mm, by saving more than a few hundreds dollar.
 

IsenGrim

New Member
Jan 28, 2008
789
0
0
#16
Its something good to have. i would want to have it if i can afford it.

but advice is that dont rely on it. it will help on the occasional handshake at 1/50 but dont rely on it to go beyond that. coz VC cant stop motion blur and there will most likely be motion blur 1/30 and beyond.

it might be helpful if someone kept still for you to take your picture. it is still better to learn good habits and practices of holding your camera as well as your stance. And your breathing. I can take sharp portraits at 1/13 50mm if i brace myself against something. and i have a teacher who showed his tact sharp picture of angle falls at 1sec 16mm handheld. all without vc/is/vr

thus conclusion is that its good to have. helps. but can do without. Then again. there are people shooting with teh new nikkor70-200 vr2 at 200m 1/4s and STILL get sharp pictures due to the VR. so if unless you need to take pictures of still object/people at 1/4~1/13 constantly, VC is good to have but not absolutle necessary.

my articulation is horrendous....
 

artspraken

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
1,563
0
0
#17
50mm lens also need VC sure anot...waste money imho
 

Darknights

New Member
Apr 18, 2007
24
0
0
#18
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. =)
 

#20
I've tried the tamron VC 17-50mm, its performance is much better compared to my old non vc tamron. Tamron VC has faster focusing, the motor sound smoother with less noise. The VC will defiantly help on occasion when you need to shot at slow shuttle. All I can say is you get what you pay for, buy if you can afford it. I'll defiantly buy it for my next upgrade.
so i guess its worth it for the additional 400 bucks?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom