Tamron 17-50 VC vs Non VC

[rachel09985]

Help please!!

I just bought the Tamron 17-50 with VC but after reading several reviews they said the image quality is less sharp with the VC than the non VC.

The whole point of buying this lens is to get sharper image quality in dark light. It would save me about $100 to cancel to the non VC version.

I am an amateur and will I even notice a difference in quality with the two lens?

What should I do?? I don't use my DSLR for videos now but I will be in the future when I upgrade to a camera that has 1080 HD.

Thanks in advance!

 

[havoc315]

I've read several reviews that the non-VC is sharper. I use the same lens on Sony, where there is no VC , as it's built into the camera.
Here is the advantage of VC-- it will let you shoot at significantly faster shutter speeds. Let's say you zoom in to 50mm.... With the non-VC lens, you would need to keep your shutter speed to about 1/50 or faster. With VC, you may be able to slow it down to 1/12 or so. I get some sharp pictures at 1/8. So you can certainly get less motion blur with the VC lens.

So the non-VC lens may be a bit sharper under identical circumstances... but the VC lens can also help you avoid motion blur.

Guess this isn't helping... lol.

 

[rachel09985]

I've read several reviews that the non-VC is sharper. I use the same lens on Sony, where there is no VC , as it's built into the camera.
Here is the advantage of VC-- it will let you shoot at significantly faster shutter speeds. Let's say you zoom in to 50mm.... With the non-VC lens, you would need to keep your shutter speed to about 1/50 or faster. With VC, you may be able to slow it down to 1/12 or so. I get some sharp pictures at 1/8. So you can certainly get less motion blur with the VC lens.

So the non-VC lens may be a bit sharper under identical circumstances... but the VC lens can also help you avoid motion blur.

Guess this isn't helping... lol.

No that does help! Do you think I will notice a difference in the image quality? Will i, being a relative beginner, even notice it?

 

[Pixel Dust]

Have you considered the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 with OS (same thing as VC, IS, VR)? Aparently it is sharper than the Tamron with VC, wide open.

Here's a review.
http://fstoppers.com/camera-deal-sigmas-17-50-2-8-with-image-stabilization-drops-below-600
"However, without doing any sort of scientific tests, I have found that the Tamron is just a little soft wide open for my tastes. The Sigma 17-50 does an excellent job of providing me with both stabilization for video and a sharp 2.8 image for general photography.."

 

[havoc315]

No that does help! Do you think I will notice a difference in the image quality? Will i, being a relative beginner, even notice it?

That I can't answer. Need to ask someone with handson experience between the 2 lenses.

I will say that VC is less important on shorter focal lengths. It isn't that hard to keep your shutter speed at over 1/50. On the other hand, with a telephoto lens, it can be hard to keep your shutter speed over 1/200.

Personally, something I love about my Sony is that every lens becomes image stabilized. I just started playing around with a Macro lens. Without IS, I would totally need a tripod or some other stabilization for a lot of shots. But with my in-camera IS, I can get some keepers as slow as 1/8th.

 

[Visitante]

One thing to mention is that the shutter speed need to be 1/focal length * (camera crop sensor)

In the case of canons (rebel, 7D, 60D): 1/50*1.6 = 1/80

In the case of nikon DX: 1/50 * 1.5 = 1/75

There is no problem to use non VC/IS/VR/OS lens if you don´t use video.
The VC is useful on low light (with static objects), video and for focal length over 100mm.

 

[mom2rtk]

I really struggled with this very issue in looking for a better lens for my Canon. I was looking for a sharper lens, so why give up some of that sharpness moving to the VC version.

One other thing I urge you to do in evaluating this lens is to find a youtube video on it and listen to the focus motor. Once I heard it, it was out. It was very loud for my taste. Some hear it and don't think a thing about it. For me, it was my jumping off point. I caved at the point and spent double the cost to get the Canon version with IS and haven't looked back. I realize that is not an option for everyone. But I will say this.......the most expensive lens is one you buy twice. Meaning that if you buy the wrong one and have to go shopping again, then you likely would have been better off getting the more expensive one from the get go.

One of my justifications for the extra cost is that my hands are very unsteady. With IS I can go much slower with handheld shots. I have even gotten away with using the 2.8 lens at high ISO on Disney dark rides and gotten some sharp keepers. I'm constantly surprised at how slow I can go on the shutter speed with the IS.

Do you have any camera shops near you that keep both in stock? I'd suggest taking your camera and a memory card and going on a fact finding mission. Listen to the lenses. Take some sample shots with both then compare on your computer at home greatly magnified.

If you don't have a camera shop close by, then maybe order from someone with a great reputation and a good return policy. Maybe order both and return the one you decide against.

Just keep in mind that good glass is a long term investment, meant to live through many different camera bodies.

Let us know what you decided!

 

[havoc315]

Agreeing with mom2rtk.... It's not a quiet lens. But most of my lenses are not quiet. The noise makes it a less than ideal video lens. Silent motors add a lot of cost to a lens. They can be worth it, if the silence is important to you, especially if you want to shoot a lot of auto-focus video. It's all a personal weighing of the pros and cons.

 

[mom2rtk]

Agreeing with mom2rtk.... It's not a quiet lens. But most of my lenses are not quiet. The noise makes it a less than ideal video lens. Silent motors add a lot of cost to a lens. They can be worth it, if the silence is important to you, especially if you want to shoot a lot of auto-focus video. It's all a personal weighing of the pros and cons.

My issue was the need to occasionally sneak up on my camera shy teenager...... The sound was a complete non-starter for me.

 

[Shutterbug]

Have you considered the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 with OS (same thing as VC, IS, VR)? Aparently it is sharper than the Tamron with VC, wide open.

My experience was the opposite. The Tamron I tried at the store was super sharp. Both Sigma's I tried suffered from either front/back focusing.

 

[mom2rtk]

My experience was the opposite. The Tamron I tried at the store was super sharp. Both Sigma's I tried suffered from either front/back focusing.

That's certainly the reputation Sigma has in general. And I actually had always heard the Tamron was sharper than the Sigma in that model, but that doesn't mean the performance is different wide open.

 

[photo_chick]

One thing to mention is that the shutter speed need to be 1/focal length * (camera crop sensor)

In the case of canons (rebel, 7D, 60D): 1/50*1.6 = 1/80

In the case of nikon DX: 1/50 * 1.5 = 1/75

There is no problem to use non VC/IS/VR/OS lens if you don´t use video.
The VC is useful on low light (with static objects), video and for focal length over 100mm.

Not entirely true. 1/focal length is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. The crop factor doesn't come into play as much for shorter focal lengths as it does for longer ones for most people, and a lot depends on how steady you are and how good the lens's IS is. Some people gain several stops with IS, some people don't see much difference. And some of us can hold lightweight lenses steadier than heavier ones, gaining a few stops based on weight alone. Just how slow a photographer can get away with varies a bit from person to person, camera to camera and lens to lens.

Agreeing with mom2rtk.... It's not a quiet lens. But most of my lenses are not quiet. The noise makes it a less than ideal video lens. Silent motors add a lot of cost to a lens. They can be worth it, if the silence is important to you, especially if you want to shoot a lot of auto-focus video. It's all a personal weighing of the pros and cons.

and this brings up a question... If noise and AF during video is a consideration then what camera is the OP using? Some DSLR's will not auto focus when shooting video or require certain lenses (like Canon's STM designation) so that may be a moot point.

 

[rachel09985]

Not entirely true. 1/focal length is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. The crop factor doesn't come into play as much for shorter focal lengths as it does for longer ones for most people, and a lot depends on how steady you are and how good the lens's IS is. Some people gain several stops with IS, some people don't see much difference. And some of us can hold lightweight lenses steadier than heavier ones, gaining a few stops based on weight alone. Just how slow a photographer can get away with varies a bit from person to person, camera to camera and lens to lens.




and this brings up a question... If noise and AF during video is a consideration then what camera is the OP using? Some DSLR's will not auto focus when shooting video or require certain lenses (like Canon's STM designation) so that may be a moot point.

I have a T3 but I wouldn't be using it for video. I would upgrade and sell my video camera before i use it for video.

 

[havoc315]

and this brings up a question... If noise and AF during video is a consideration then what camera is the OP using? Some DSLR's will not auto focus when shooting video or require certain lenses (like Canon's STM designation) so that may be a moot point.

Fair point. I'm spoiled by good video autofocus, though I still seldom use it.

 

[photo_chick]

I have a T3 but I wouldn't be using it for video. I would upgrade and sell my video camera before i use it for video.

With the Canon line you won't ever be using the auto focus with this lens for video anyway, which was really my point. Canon has already gone proprietary with their STM lenses as far as auto focusing during video goes (and so far the T4i is the only DSLR that can use the feature). If you have to focus manually then you're not going to hear the loud AF motor.

 

[HPS3]

I would buy the VC version. I think if you buy the non-VC version you will regret it. I shoot with a Pentax K-5II and love having stabilization built into the body because every lens is stabilized even my short primes. If you're not a pixel peeper, you probably won't notice any difference in IQ.

 

[mom2rtk]

I would buy the VC version. I think if you buy the non-VC version you will regret it. I shoot with a Pentax K-5II and love having stabilization built into the body because every lens is stabilized even my short primes. If you're not a pixel peeper, you probably won't notice any difference in IQ.

This is the single reason that has me considering a change in camera brands from time to time.

 

[2Tiggies]

My issue was the need to occasionally sneak up on my camera shy teenager...... The sound was a complete non-starter for me.

So the VC was equivalent to having a bell round your neck? Lol

Do you think I will notice a difference in the image quality? Will i, being a relative beginner, even notice it?

I haven't tried the 2 lenses so I couldn't comment, but what I can say is that when you buy a lens, it's not the kind of purchase you buy just for the meantime, unless you buy it for a specific purpose with intent to sell it right after. What you may not notice now, you probably will a year from now and to me, buying a lens that you are going to outgrow or that won't fit your purposes in a relatively short space of time goes back to what mom2rtk said about buying a lens twice. When purchasing a new lens, I expect it to stay with me longer than my current camera body. That said, I am relatively new to photography so my knowledge and experience is somewhat limited

 

[mom2rtk]

So the VC was equivalent to having a bell round your neck? Lol

That about sums it up!

 

[HPS3]

This is the single reason that has me considering a change in camera brands from time to time.

Most people don't think about having stabilization built in as a huge asset. Its definitely overlooked when comparing brands. I love that my K-5 stabilizes every lens and it generally gives me about 3-4 stops. It also means that I can buy some tele zooms cheaper because they are minus the stabilization.

I think Pentax and Sony are overlooked too often because most of us are pushed to Canon or Nikon by big bix stores when purchasing our first DSLR. I have shot with cameras from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony and now Pentax. I find them all good cameras but the two standouts for me are the Sony Nex cameras and Pentax K-5II.

The K-5II is just awesome. The ergonomics are fantastic and it has loads of features like lots of external controls, weathersealing, IBIS, 100% Pentaprism VF and much more. Its one DSLR that should not be overlooked.