Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) vs. Tamron 17-50 2.8 (VC)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) vs. Tamron 17-50 2.8 (VC)
Jul 10, 2012
I'm thinking of purchasing the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) or the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC as an upgrade to my Canon 18-55 IS. Some reviews have suggested that the vibration control on the VC version isn't very good and that the IQ on the non-VC version is better. Does anyone have any experience using both lenses? Also given that the Tamron is faster across the focal range and two stops faster at the long end will I miss the lack of IS (VC) compared to my Canon 18-55 IS?
I'd like to know this as well. Anyone to share the experience ?
How is the Tamron 17-50 (VC or non-VC) compared to Tamron 28-75 or the Sigma 17-50 ?
It's hard to say which one is better. The non-VC is sharper but the VC is very good for indoor shooting. If you are used to the IS of your old lens, you should buy the VC verson.
I have the VC version and am very happy with it. The VC is very useful as well as the constant 2.8 for low light. I can't compare to the non-VC, I imagine at such short focal lengths the non-VC will be easily hand held. It is not pin sharp at 50mm and wide open but stop down a bit and it is great. The sigma had not been released when I bought mine, but it is more expensive.
I had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) on my D300 for some years and changed to the (VC). The non-VC is sharper for details at 2.8 but for my purposes (weddings & concerts) the VC combined with high ISO gives the ability to take pictures even at 1/15 2.8 in churches or clubs without flash. Anyway at ISO above 1000 some pp has to be done, so there sharpness can be added. It's the lens that is on my camera for everyday use since I bought it.
I've spent a last few days reading a lot of reviews and feedbacks about those lenses. As you mentioned, it seems that the consensus is the non-VC is slightly sharper.
Now, my consideration is rather: Tamron 17-50 non-VC vs Sigma 17-70 OS . Those two lenses have similar price. Which one do you think it's a better lens ?
The Sigma 17-50 is too expensive.
The main complaint about the VC version, other than being slightly less sharp, appears to be that the VC takes a second or two to engage before focusing, and that moment may result in missed shots. Have you noticed if the VC is slow to engage? Thanks
I would point out SLIGHTLY sharper (under same conditions and compared side by side, mainly the corners) for the non-vc, but still very sharp in real life conditions for the vc-version - see exapmple at ISO 1600 and 1/25 here (click into the picture to enlarge) http://www.ralphbraunfoto.com/unique-moments/details/h3c7a7bb8#h3da68452
Without vc, the picture simply would not exist... Most pictures under 50mm in this gallerie were made with the vc-version.
But yes you hear the vc working (I cannot really say "it takes extra time" - it might be) but I haven't done tests if there is a difference regarding AF-speed & sharpness wether the vc is turned on or off. On a tripod I switch it off, as VR on the Nikons.
If you shoot mostly static things in good light with enough time to concentrate or use a tripod you might benefit of the non-vc sharpness otherwise for me, the 100€ more for vc are a good investment.
It seems that there are 3 versions of Tamron 17-50
1. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] -with internal motor driven
2. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] - without an internal motor
3. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Lens - which has an internal motor and the vibration compensation.
The consensus is that the non-VC is better than the VC version (#3), but do we refer to the #1 (BIM) or #2 (non-BIM) ?
I've seen a guy saying this: non-VC, non-BIM > VC > non-VC, BIM.
Is it true ?
It could be instructive to look at the DxOMark comparison:
http://bit.ly/OiW0DG (VC and non-VC tested on a Canon 7D)
Resolution score 51 for non-VC, 50 for VC. Hardly miles apart...
...but real-world results are more important, and your YMMV with other mounts and cameras.
Well, my friend is just testing my several years old Tamron, and she is very excited. She urges me to sell the lens to her, and buy new version
So - I am right now reading some reviews, trying to decide, if I should buy VC or non-VC version. My recent Tamron does not have VC, but it is true, that I shoot concerts too. But - I am also used to the sharpness of my recent Tamron. Reading following review I am not sure, if I would trade eventual softness with VC?
I had a lot of test comparisons before I gave my son the non VC and bought the VC version.
I would say that the VC version is equal or better than the non VC.
When it came out I think the VC version had worse corner sharpness, But some where I guess Tamron did a quality improvement job?? In first tests it is also complained about the VC noise, but at least in my copy, bought aug 2012 it is very, very silent.
For me the Micro Autofocus adjustment of the EOS 50D has improved all my lens sharpneses at brighter appertures. This assumes of course that the zoom lens doesn´t have back focus in one end and front focus in the other end like my non VC version... I had to send it in for adjustment supplying info samples. (Warranty) It came back after one week with best possible accuracy!
Now the VC version requires -5 in micro adjustment. Even then I can see a little focus deviation, but still fully acceptable.
The VC time delay is maybe a half second or not even that? (It feels like about 1/10 sec longer then the autofocus or similar to autofocus delay?)
Earlier I almost never used the 2,8 apperture, now I like to shot portraits of people only using the 50mmm 2,8 setting. The autofocus seems to hit except in really rare occations and the faces are surprisingly sharp. (Thanks to my -5 mico focus setting!)
When ever you experience front or back focus, adjust in body settings or send in the lens!
I've had both of this lens when shooting with APS-C, and I'd recommend getting the non VC version for two reasons
1. the corner sharpness is better in the non VC.
2. the VC sometimes induces blurriness / shake. It's not that often, something like 5 out of 100 times shooting, and it usually just on the first time it boot up after not being used for a while (say an hour). But it still ruin some of my shot, and I'm not particularly fond of it.
Just read MatsK's comment, and want to clarify on sharpness issue, my 17-50mm vc was bought about a few month after it's released, so you can say it's the earlier ones.
If the corner sharpness does improve and now the vc is on par with non vc, that's a great news. Wasn't happy with my vc, way softer than the older non vc
pardon me, this is very old thread and I came across it after doing search on tamron 17-50 lens, can some expert advise me about the shutter speed for non-vc version of this lens that if i want to use it for indoor photography like wedding..how much should be the shutter speed to cancel the effect of Image Stablization? I also use flash gun but i have seen indoor photos not very focused.. so kindly advise me what i need to do with tamron 17-50 non-vc lens in order to get good sharp indoor photos ?
Save the headaches and get the VC version. The shutter speed will get too low and there just isn't anough difference to notice in the newer versions of the VC. Its sharper and faster than the Sigma 17-70
Love my VC version
So it that means non-VC can only be used for outdoor landscape photography... Okay I will sell it and get VC version!
Suggest you test the specific type of usage (regarding available light) before assuming you can get what you desire as a result of the VC. These both are 2:8 lens and I personally would NOT depend on either for Weddings -- instead, I would use a good External Flash.
I have the non VC that I bought several years ago before there was a VC model. It took a lot of testing, exchanging a few times for another copy, and finally I got a good working lens. However, I will repeat again -- I would not use it for available light Wedding Photography. There is a VERY shallow depth of field at 2:8 and many times will not cover the subjects to all be in focus.