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.
6 years in US, 3 yrs for local warranty by JEL Corp
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (VC vs Non-VC)
- Thread starter akszaksz
- Start date
- Status
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.
6 years in US, 3 yrs for local warranty by JEL Corp
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
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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. =)
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 :bsmilie::bsmilie:
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.
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.
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:
If u need faster and quiet focusing get the Canon. But bear in mind that its also bigger and heavier.
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..
if ur fundamental of camera holding is wrong & u got shaky hands
then maybe u got to pay for the VC premium..
I went for the non-VC last week. Think for short distances... VC not as critical.
- Status
Similar threads
