Tamron 17-50 VC vs Non VC

[bob100]

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!

I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc as my "walk around" lens. You can get them used for around $250.

Canon XSi (450D)
Tamron 17-50 2.8
at f2.8
ISO 1600

 

[rachel09985]

Thanks everyone!

I did buy the Tamron VC version and so far I really like it!

I definitely hear the VC kick in. It is loudest when it turns on and turns off. It sounds like white noise when it is on, or the noise when you listen to inside of a shell. It is kind of weird but I won't mind it. No one will be able to hear it besides the photographer.

There are still a lot of things I need to practice before my trip but I definitely see a difference in low light.

 

[havoc315]

Why I love Sony --- Image stabilization on every lens, including 25 year-old Minolta lenses.
Primes and Macros often don't have image stabilization built in. Shorter zoom lenses, such as the Tamron 17-50 -- often don't include stabilization, or people pass on the stabilization.

I took this shot at the Museum of Natural History at night, with the Tamron 17-50. Since it is Sony, it was the non-stabilized lens, but the camera added image stabilization.
Typically, to avoid motion blur with a 50mm shot, you would want to shoot at 1/50th of a second or faster.


museumnight-63.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

While there is a bit of softness on the bottom part of the image, it is all reasonably sharp with no noticeable motion blur. And it was shot at 1/10 of a second. Aperture was already wide open at 2.8, and ISO was already pushed to 1600. In other words, to get the same shot without image stabilization on another dSLR, I'd probably have to crank up the ISO to 6400 or higher, introducing a significant amount of noise. While the Sony does not perform as well as the Nikon in noise performance overall, it's not a 2-stop difference.

One more example:


museumnight-44.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Taken at 1/8th of a second and ISO of 3200 -- The shot simply would not have been possible without image stabilization. (Would have had to go up to ISO 16,000 on cameras that even support it).

 

[HPS3]

Like Adam (Havoc 315) said, it's sooo nice to have stabilization built in. I shoot with a Nex also and love primesbut hate that it has no stabilization.

 

[havoc315]

Like Adam (Havoc 315) said, it's sooo nice to have stabilization built in. I shoot with a Nex also and love primesbut hate that it has no stabilization.

I have very unsteady hands... don't know how I'd ever get a macro shot without a tripod or image stabilization. It may be the biggest thing that stops me from changing over to Nex.