Thanks for yr "Dpreview standard" opinion... think i need to catch some sleep already.:sweatsm:..
Comparison Tamron 17-50 Vs Tamron 17-50 VC New
- Thread starter HaimE
- Start date
Thanks for yr "Dpreview standard" opinion... think i need to catch some sleep already.:sweatsm:..
Shen siung
Senior Member
I am totally agree with you.
I start wondering why TS need to hand held.
What I think is, TS could mount on tripod, and off the VC, (if there is a concern of VC on tripod actually will make photo blur ??), then the photos could be more informative in terms of sharpness.
Anyway, a good initiative. Hope to do more test to enlighten other CSer
The manual for the 17-50 VC clearly states that VC should be switched off when used with a tripod, otherwise the lens will induce "errors".
The photos show it in my opinion... do i need to explain like what DPreview??
To be honest, u r wrong here. The test is flawed if its a lens sharpness test. Its only useful as a test to show the advantages of vc vs non vc. Hand held shots introduced too much margins of error to be a good test of sharpness, especially on a non vc lens.
Ts imo to truely do a lens sharpness test, u hv to use tripod (remember to off vc), and to ensure that every other conditions between the 2 lenses must be as close as possible.
With proper testing methods, the results seem to be quite different, as shown in the direct comparison here. The older version handily beats the recent VC version.
Of course, there may also be sample variation. :bsmilie:
Of course, there may also be sample variation. :bsmilie:
Last edited:
Totally agree..
But probably you need to read the small portion of my introduction there.. I was just showing example. Whether a VC on shorter focal Lenses makes any much differences.. But due to sharpness test... I totally agree a tripod is required.. But for me to do such test .. Will be a hassle though..
But still from my honest humble opinion, after much testing... and owned the older version for almost a year.. Tamron 17-50 (old) is sharp and had done much justice for me for many assignments.... But now owning this new version Tamron 17-50 (VC) I believe will give me more better results..
Hello .. I did a comparison by myself... From my own opinion, I would say both are sharp but i would prefer the new version which i tested on tripod with no VC on. And i would rate the new version is finely sharper with more details contrast of object can be seen better. Color wise, I fel like the new version is slightly more saturated. ( i dont dare to post any comparison picture.. when looking at the arguement/discussion that are going on currently )
Construction comparison, Old Tamron is using a 67mm filter but the new version with VC is using a 72mm filter.. It is more bigger in size. I heard there are more element.. but i dont bother read more about it.. What concern me is that I get a good sharp copy and Im happy with it..
Construction comparison, Old Tamron is using a 67mm filter but the new version with VC is using a 72mm filter.. It is more bigger in size. I heard there are more element.. but i dont bother read more about it.. What concern me is that I get a good sharp copy and Im happy with it..
Last edited:
well, the manufacturer might have used better optics on this new lens. while the tests on this thread may not be that scientific, it does serve as a rough gauge.
now the main issue at hand is the reliability of this lens as compared to the old one. and whether there are any issues, particularly with the older bodies.
wildcat
Senior Member
Thanks for the info. I found the shot at 1/10s very informative.
I'm sure a lot of people here can shoot at 0.5s and still get sharp shots; I'm not one of them. In fact, 1/25s is pushing it for me, so I'm one of those who appreciate a good VR system.
And that shot shows me what I need to know
I'm sure a lot of people here can shoot at 0.5s and still get sharp shots; I'm not one of them. In fact, 1/25s is pushing it for me, so I'm one of those who appreciate a good VR system.
And that shot shows me what I need to know
jeff7id
Senior Member
I am also happy for you for getting a sharp copy.
How many lenses did you try before you decided to buy this one ?
this article is a better tamron 17-50 test compared to TS' way of testing (no offence though). The guy in that article did tests at different focal length and different aperture, so its much more comprehensive and detailed compared to TS who only tested on 1 focal length, with no comparison between different apertures and handheld shots.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx
However this is his 1st test, that guy mentioned he will do a much more thorough test again.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx
However this is his 1st test, that guy mentioned he will do a much more thorough test again.
Last edited:
Same link as what I provided earlier. :bsmilie:
And the results are rather disappointing: the VC version is honestly bad.
In daylight or sufficient brightness, vc is useful for large focal length. However in low light situations, it benefits all focal length, even wide angle.
Lets say u are using 20mm f2.8 in a low light indoor scenario where flash is not allowed. U already used iso 400 yet ur shutter speed is only 1/2. In this situation do u think its more useful to increase iso to 3200 without vc, or to stay at iso 400 with vc?
Both the above will be sufficient to counter camera shake, but I'm sure iso 400 with vc will take much better picture than iso 3200 without vc.
So is vc useful at focal length 20mm?
Lets say u are using 20mm f2.8 in a low light indoor scenario where flash is not allowed. U already used iso 400 yet ur shutter speed is only 1/2. In this situation do u think its more useful to increase iso to 3200 without vc, or to stay at iso 400 with vc?
Both the above will be sufficient to counter camera shake, but I'm sure iso 400 with vc will take much better picture than iso 3200 without vc.
So is vc useful at focal length 20mm?
Last edited:
Do note that I'm only voicing out the usefulness of vc that's all. However paying extra $300 for vc is not worth it imo lol.
But then I only pay $610 for my 17-50 vc so I'm not complaining
where did u get urs from ??
Similar threads
