Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or non VC? at DVinfo.net

Fergus Anderson · April 5th, 2010, 05:28 AM

Hi all

I cant really justify the expense of the EF-S 17-55 2.8 so I have been looking at the Tamron options. The reviews thus far seem to indicate that the non VC is actually sharper than the VC version. Given that it is also cheaper I was thinking of going for it.

Can anyone give me a steer as to how important VC is for video (I undertsand the benefit for stills)? I have the kit lens and even at 55mm I couldnt see much benefit with IS on - although I have to say I havent done much testing!

Any thoughts welcome.

Cheers
Fergus

Kenneth Tong · April 5th, 2010, 06:44 AM

I have been considering the same thing before I finally purchased the VC version. As I do some family and holiday trip video. I find the VC is very useful as I cannot always use a tripod to stablize my shots while shooting. I already have a 24mm 2.8f Canon lens and I have to be very steady while shooting video and I really miss the stablization on my GL2 videocam!

The footage from the Tamron VC lens is free of any flicker and wobble and I do not have to hold my breath while shooting!

I tried the non-VC at the shop and it is not sharper!

Fergus Anderson · April 5th, 2010, 06:50 AM

Thanks Kenneth - interesting stuff.

How do you find the focus wheel - is it as bad as people say (loose/hard to focus)?

Kenneth Tong · April 5th, 2010, 07:00 AM

The focusing wheel is good for manual focusing. I don't think it is too loose or tight. The diameter of the lens is bigger than my 24mm 2.8f and I think it is quite easy to focus.

To be honest, I don't do a lot of manual focusing while shooting.

Leonard Levy · April 5th, 2010, 09:19 AM

I haven't compared the VC to non VC but I saw the intial review that said non VC was sharper then did more web searching and found lots of people who said they were the same or the opposite so I chalked it of to inidividual lens variations.

I have the VC and so far don't think its quite as sharp as the Canons but haven't finished evaluating yet.

Mark Ross · April 5th, 2010, 10:19 AM

That's a great lens for the money. Of course you should know that it is only for cropped sensor cameras like the T2i, so if you even move up to a full frame sensor, you'll want to sell it, but I think it's a great lens to pair with the T2i for budget shooting.

Kenneth Tong · April 13th, 2010, 09:39 PM

I fully agree that the VC version is a great lens. The focusing ring is smooth; much better than the Tamron 18-270.

The sharpness of the lens is already very good for HD video. I only check with my naked eyes in the shop and found that there is no big difference in sharpness between the VC and non-VC version. I would hope that it can be a little bit wide angle and telephoto in actual shooting environment!

Leonard Levy · April 15th, 2010, 11:01 AM

Well, I am returning 2 Tamron 17-50 VC lenses to B&H today. Maybe my standards are too high, but I felt they were not as sharp as the Canon's and it was something I could see just looking at the screen through my hoodman w/ magnifier. I disagree that when you shoot video you can't tell the difference and I tested to confirm it. Also I bought 2 just to make sure I didn't have a lemon. In fact I have an old Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.6-2.8 Nikon lens That I think was sharper.
Also I didn't like how it focused. It was accurate on live view focusing but very slow. More serious was that if you leave it in auto its hard to override because the servo is engaging the lens- not true on the Canon's. Even in full manual the focus throw is so short that it is dicey to get accurate focus quickly.
It's not a terrible lens but felt kind of plasticy and just didn't have that tack sharpness I hoped for. I am wondering if a non VC will be any better. I actually am lusting for the 24-105 because I love the long end but am concerned about losing a stop. Would like a cheap 17-50 non VC maybe for speed and wider shot.

Kenneth Tong · April 17th, 2010, 07:35 AM

I don't think there is manual override in auto focus mode in the Tamron lens.

Leonard Levy · April 17th, 2010, 09:21 PM

well you can turn the focus ring to override after doing an autofocus but you have resistance from the servo.

Kenneth Tong · April 21st, 2010, 11:17 PM

I have recently tried Canon 17-40 f4L and found that it is better than the Tamron 17-50 and the only drawback (at least to me) is that the Canon lacks image stablization. Auto focus is silent and fast! The auto focus in Tamron is too noisy!! The focus ring is very smooth and you can have all time manual override during auto focus mode. Even my 12 year old daughter can tell the difference in the image quality between them if I compare them side by side.

April 5th, 2010, 05:28 AM	#1
Fergus Anderson Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, UK Posts: 321	Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or non VC? Hi all I cant really justify the expense of the EF-S 17-55 2.8 so I have been looking at the Tamron options. The reviews thus far seem to indicate that the non VC is actually sharper than the VC version. Given that it is also cheaper I was thinking of going for it. Can anyone give me a steer as to how important VC is for video (I undertsand the benefit for stills)? I have the kit lens and even at 55mm I couldnt see much benefit with IS on - although I have to say I havent done much testing! Any thoughts welcome. Cheers Fergus

April 5th, 2010, 06:44 AM	#2
Kenneth Tong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 71	VC if you can afford I have been considering the same thing before I finally purchased the VC version. As I do some family and holiday trip video. I find the VC is very useful as I cannot always use a tripod to stablize my shots while shooting. I already have a 24mm 2.8f Canon lens and I have to be very steady while shooting video and I really miss the stablization on my GL2 videocam! The footage from the Tamron VC lens is free of any flicker and wobble and I do not have to hold my breath while shooting! I tried the non-VC at the shop and it is not sharper!

April 5th, 2010, 07:00 AM	#4
Kenneth Tong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 71	Good focusing wheel The focusing wheel is good for manual focusing. I don't think it is too loose or tight. The diameter of the lens is bigger than my 24mm 2.8f and I think it is quite easy to focus. To be honest, I don't do a lot of manual focusing while shooting.

April 13th, 2010, 09:39 PM	#7
Kenneth Tong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 71	More about the Tamron 17-50 VC I fully agree that the VC version is a great lens. The focusing ring is smooth; much better than the Tamron 18-270. The sharpness of the lens is already very good for HD video. I only check with my naked eyes in the shop and found that there is no big difference in sharpness between the VC and non-VC version. I would hope that it can be a little bit wide angle and telephoto in actual shooting environment!

April 21st, 2010, 11:17 PM	#11
Kenneth Tong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 71	Canon 17-40 f4L (HK$5,500) I have recently tried Canon 17-40 f4L and found that it is better than the Tamron 17-50 and the only drawback (at least to me) is that the Canon lacks image stablization. Auto focus is silent and fast! The auto focus in Tamron is too noisy!! The focus ring is very smooth and you can have all time manual override during auto focus mode. Even my 12 year old daughter can tell the difference in the image quality between them if I compare them side by side.

April 5th, 2010, 06:50 AM	#3
Fergus Anderson Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, UK Posts: 321	Thanks Kenneth - interesting stuff. How do you find the focus wheel - is it as bad as people say (loose/hard to focus)?

April 5th, 2010, 09:19 AM	#5
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	I haven't compared the VC to non VC but I saw the intial review that said non VC was sharper then did more web searching and found lots of people who said they were the same or the opposite so I chalked it of to inidividual lens variations. I have the VC and so far don't think its quite as sharp as the Canons but haven't finished evaluating yet.

April 5th, 2010, 10:19 AM	#6
Mark Ross Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bozeman, MT Posts: 79	That's a great lens for the money. Of course you should know that it is only for cropped sensor cameras like the T2i, so if you even move up to a full frame sensor, you'll want to sell it, but I think it's a great lens to pair with the T2i for budget shooting.

April 15th, 2010, 11:01 AM	#8
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	Well, I am returning 2 Tamron 17-50 VC lenses to B&H today. Maybe my standards are too high, but I felt they were not as sharp as the Canon's and it was something I could see just looking at the screen through my hoodman w/ magnifier. I disagree that when you shoot video you can't tell the difference and I tested to confirm it. Also I bought 2 just to make sure I didn't have a lemon. In fact I have an old Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.6-2.8 Nikon lens That I think was sharper. Also I didn't like how it focused. It was accurate on live view focusing but very slow. More serious was that if you leave it in auto its hard to override because the servo is engaging the lens- not true on the Canon's. Even in full manual the focus throw is so short that it is dicey to get accurate focus quickly. It's not a terrible lens but felt kind of plasticy and just didn't have that tack sharpness I hoped for. I am wondering if a non VC will be any better. I actually am lusting for the 24-105 because I love the long end but am concerned about losing a stop. Would like a cheap 17-50 non VC maybe for speed and wider shot.

April 17th, 2010, 07:35 AM	#9
Kenneth Tong Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 71	I don't think there is manual override in auto focus mode in the Tamron lens.

April 17th, 2010, 09:21 PM	#10
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	well you can turn the focus ring to override after doing an autofocus but you have resistance from the servo.