Tamron 17-50/f2.8 .... to VC or not????

[mom2rtk]

I have been considering replacing my Canon kit lens with a 2.8 of some sort in this range. I've noted here that a number of you have been happy with the Tamron.

I also see that Tamron now has a VC version of this lens available. However, I have seen some early reports that it was softer than the non-VC. Has anyone here had experience with it?

Am I likely to notice enough difference from my IS kit lens (especially if I go with the non-VC version of the Tamron?) to justify the price?

 

[Frantasmic]

Although I don't own this lens, I seriously considered it before purchasing a wide angle Tokina. I was going to go with the non-VC, mainly for the price difference (about $130), but also because I'd heard the same report that you did about the VC version not really giving that much oomph in picture quality over the non-VC version.

The samples I've seen would indicate that yes, you will get much better results from either of these lens than your kit lens.

 

[C&B Young]

I just picked up the non-VC version, and am very happy with it. The lack of VC hasn't been an issue for me thus far. Although the first time you use the auto-focus the loud noise might throw you a little!

 

[bob100]

I have been considering replacing my Canon kit lens with a 2.8 of some sort in this range. I've noted here that a number of you have been happy with the Tamron.

I also see that Tamron now has a VC version of this lens available. However, I have seen some early reports that it was softer than the non-VC. Has anyone here had experience with it?

Am I likely to notice enough difference from my IS kit lens (especially if I go with the non-VC version of the Tamron?) to justify the price?

try turning off the "IS" on your 18-55IS kit lens. If you don't see a difference at low shutter speeds then the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is a good choice

 

[Evad]

I have the non VC version as well. To be honest I really have never seen a need for VC at this focal length. I have been very happy with this lens though it can be soft in some situations. You need to play around with the aperture to find it's sweet spot, but once you do this lens is great.

 

[mom2rtk]

I just picked up the non-VC version, and am very happy with it. The lack of VC hasn't been an issue for me thus far. Although the first time you use the auto-focus the loud noise might throw you a little!

Does anyone else have issues with the loud focusing motor? I have run into this comment several times.

try turning off the "IS" on your 18-55IS kit lens. If you don't see a difference at low shutter speeds then the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc is a good choice

That sounds like a great idea! I need to pin that down, because I tend to have relatively unsteady hands.

 

[Shutterbug]

I have the non vc version and I really like it except I had the same problem with it last week that many other owners have as well, the infamous loose filter ring.

I ended up finding a youtube video on how to fix it myself without having to send it in.

Other than it takes nice sharp pics, the two cons that I dont like but can live with is that it hunts in low light and the focusing motor is kind of noisy..not really but noisy.

Though for the price and the sharpness the pro's outweigh the cons

 

[disneyboy2003]

I, personally, can't comment on the Tamron lens, but I do have the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens (link to B&H). If that's an option for you, I'd totally recommend it. The image quality from this lens is outstanding, and many reviews compare this lens favorably to Canon's "L" lenses (ie. the Canon 17-55mm lens should have been considered an "L" lens).

I do use the image stabilization all the time, even though it's a wide-to-normal lens. Much of my shooting is during lower-light situations, so I find image stabilization extremely helpful, especially during slower shutter speeds.

Certainly, if you're using faster shutter speeds, then image stabilization might not be as important.

 

[Icemann]

I have the VC version for Nikon and I like.I to have an unsteady hand and I'm trying some low light shooting and the VC comes in handy.I have the 18mm-270mm VC and I use that as my walk around lens at WDW. As for it being noisey no one around me has asked me not to use it because of the noise.I shot alot of pictures in my church and noise has never been an issue.Hope this helps

 

[C&B Young]

Here's a Youtube video that gives an idea of the autofocus noise. It's not horrible by any means, just different from what my Canon lenses sound like.

 

[DizzyV6P]

I have the non-vc Canon version of the 17-50 f/2.8. I hardly notice the noise even at a recent church wedding. It's not as quiet at Canon lenses, but its hardly a huge noise maker. I have experienced the low-light hunting on a few occasions. I'm currently debating on selling the non-vc version to get the vc version. The only thing stopping me is the ~$200 price difference between selling my non-vc for the vc version.

I would get the 17-55 f/2.8 but for the $$$$450 difference. The Tamron VC version currently has a $25 rebate on it as well. There's also a Sigma version coming out in May so you might want to consider waiting to see the reviews of that lens as well.

 

[Code]

I love stabilization on my Tamron 17-50 and find it very useful, but I admit that I'm biased because it didn't cost me extra with body-IS. I still think it would be worth the extra $ assuming the optical quality doesn't suffer as you read it might.

 

[Uncle Greg]

I have the non-VC version and love it but now that the VC version is out, if I was buying again I'd go that route for sure.

For taking static shots that VC is going to net you an extra 2 or even 3 stops. Imagine being able to go into a museum and shoot at f/5.6 if you want greater depth of field instead of f/2.8 or at 200 ISO instead of 1600, nevermind the option of being able to shoot handheld shots on the wide at ridiculously slow speeds.

My vote is to always buy a fast f/2.8 lens over a slower stabilized option..but when you have the option to get both in one lens...yes please!

 

[mom2rtk]

Here's a Youtube video that gives an idea of the autofocus noise. It's not horrible by any means, just different from what my Canon lenses sound like.

Thanks! I never would have thought to look on YouTube for something like that! It was really helpful to know what to expect if I go that route.

Anyone else have experience with IQ on the non-VC vs the VC model of this?

 

[Code]

Anyone else have experience with IQ on the non-VC vs the VC model of this?

No personal experience but I found a comparison on the photozone.de review of the lens:

However, it falls somewhat short of the high expectations especially when considering the excellent performance of its non-VC variant. The biggest weakness of the lens is the rather soft corner/border performance at large aperture settings. The quality increases when stopping down and it's certainly possible to achieve very high quality results. The level of distortions and vignetting is about average for a lens in this class. The good news is the unusually low degree of lateral CAs which increases the subjective quality perception at the image borders quite a bit. The quality of the bokeh is generally decent for a lens in this class.