tamron 17-50 with or without vc?

[cristian_a]

<p>I was thinking of buying the tamron 17-50 and i was browsing reviews and i'm kinda confused, is there any difference in the optics quality between the old lens and the new one that has VC, and is it really necessary for the vc at this focal range?<br>

And also i would like to know can i get something better in this focal range but at around the same price?<br>

(If it helps, i have a d90)</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>I would go with the new Sigma. I have used the Tamron on my A700 for around 2 years (I think, maybe more) and it's good bang for buck for I would recommend it with hesitation. Build quality is not good and it's a poor choice for skin tones. I've taken many photos that I'm proud of with it, I use it often for landscapes, but if I were doing it again I'd go with Sigma.</p>

[drjoder]

<p>I have no experience with the old lens or the Sigma, so I can't address any of that, but I really like the Tamron with VC and the IQ seems pretty good to me. Lately it has turned into my trusty walk-around lens on my D90. Before I bought it, I did some on-line research and it is generally regarded as a pretty sharp lens at a good price. Check out this web site: <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/">http://www.imaging-resource.com/</a> On the left side of the page, scroll down to the lens reviews. There are other sites as well.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Like Daniel before I can speak only for the VC version. It is my walk around lens on my D5000 and I am happy with it. Yes, VC is very helpful for shooting on streets and particularly this stabilisation system from Tamron works very well. The IQ of the lens is great, some people complains that the corners are soft wide open... well, I'm shooting mostly people so I don't care about that... also when I shoot landscapes I do not use it wide open. For those who wonder if VC is necessary for this focal range I ask why Nikon introduced VR in the new 16-35mm f4 lens?</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i belong to the school where VC is not really a must in that focal range. but i see that it's nice to have on a long hike or bike ride that you will be catching your breath when an opportunity to shoot comes.</p>

<p>i own the old, non-motorized 17-50mm. i have compared it with a friend's VC version and i don't see the difference in an 8 x 10 print.</p>

<p>i also don't see any difference with the sigma 18-50mm that i use now more than the tamron.<br /> i just prefer the sigma because to me it is a little faster than the tamron (my old version) and the finish to my liking better. i am a cosmetic person :-)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the optical formula didnt change. there are minor differences--the old one is maybe a little better at 2.8 and in the corners. the new one is heavier and longer. whether you need VC depends on your shooting style. if you are going to take low-light handheld pics, VC will help you get lower shutter speeds. but the VC's micromotor is slower than the old screw-drive. i havent tried the sigma 18-50, but HSM is faster than a micromotor to AF.</p>

[justthings]

<p>according to this review the non-VC is optically a better performer:<br>

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The kind of difference indicated in that review would very likely be sample variation, especially as the problem seems to be related to decentering.</p>

<p> I really think, just on abstract principles, that image stabilization of some kind is a very desirable feature, especially where the upper end of the lens range is up in the short telephoto focal lengths, as this one is.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as the slr review states:</p>

<p>"Sharpness results seem to be a little poorer than the original non-VC version of the lens; stopped down, it retains its excellent performance."<br>

"In a nutshell, while the new lens provides vibration control functionality, the old lens provided better results for sharpness, resistance to chromatic aberration and corner shading; distortion is noticeably improved."</p>

<p>so it kind of comes down to VC or no VC.</p>

<p>agree with JDM that having VC is good, especially because the $1400 nikon 17-55 doesnt have this, but unfortunately it comes at the expense of Af speed and a bit of sharpness at wider apertures. that shouldnt be a deal breaker unless you shoot a lot of low-light action.</p>

<p> </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I shoot lower light concerts with the VC version and find it be plenty fast, good clean shots, and for me the VC is very useful. I also use a Sigma 50-150 and wish it had vibration control/optical stabilization/vibration reduction.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Interesting that some don't think 'VR' is very useful in this range. I've found my stabalized 17-50 Tamron very useful indeed, I do a lot of handheld photography. Same goes for the other lenses in that range, like my 50/1.4 and 28mm ~f2.8. I think when you have the choice, stabalization is always useful.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>Without VR and BIM the AF will be a lot faster with the screw driver.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>With Tamron lenses, the hard part is getting a good copy. You have a far higher chance of getting a bad copy than with Nikon lenses.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'm seriously considering this lens, too, and it sounds like the screwdriver-focus is the way to go!</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The view that IS is not useful in this focal range comes, I think, from the film days when focal lengths below 50mm were used mostly for landscapes. But on APS-C, 17-50 becomes a short telephoto and useful for portraits (you would rarely use f2.8 forlandscapes). So yes, IS would be useful for this lens.<br />On the flip side, cameras with good high-ISO performance may reduce the need for IS even in low light.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i dont think its an issue of IS/VC not being useful so much as the fact you lose AF speed compared to the screwdriver version. if you have a d90 or d300, the low-light performance is such that VC is not essential, especially for action shots where you need a 1/80 shutter minimum to prevent motion blur from the subject; VC helps at much lower shutter speeds, where you can achieve, say, 1/15 instead of 1/60. on a d5000, you still get the same low-light performance as a D90/300 (except for the d300's nifty AF system), but you need a built-in motor.</p>

<p>if i was buying new now, i'd have to seriously consider the VC version, but i've had the screw-drive version for 3+ years and didnt miss it. i think VC would be great stills and for low-life portraits where the subjects arent moving. but there's no question a micromotor is slower than a screw-drive. a screw-drive on a d300 is pretty fast, almost as fast as AF-S/HSM.</p>