Comparison Tamron 17-50 Vs Tamron 17-50 VC New

[android17]

where did u get urs from ??

im using Sony Alpha. All lenses attached to my camera becomes a VC lens :bsmilie:

So i get the Tamron 17-50 for $610 and yet still enjoys VC with it.

I even hv 50mm f1.4 VC, 24mm F2.8 VC and 100mm f2.8 1:1 Macro VC LOL.

a 50mm f1.4 with VC is really great for very low light situations btw. With this lens i can virtually stop using flash indoors.

Dont think Canon or Nikon have VC for their 24mm and 50mm primes lenses right? :bsmilie:

 

[Minglink]

Wow, i feel the pinch from android17... ;p

 

[jeff7id]

im using Sony Alpha. All lenses attached to my camera becomes a VC lens :bsmilie:

So i get the Tamron 17-50 for $610 and yet still enjoys VC with it.

I even hv 50mm f1.4 VC, 24mm F2.8 VC and 100mm f2.8 1:1 Macro VC LOL.

a 50mm f1.4 with VC is really great for very low light situations btw. With this lens i can virtually stop using flash indoors.

Dont think Canon or Nikon have VC for their 24mm and 50mm primes lenses right? :bsmilie:

I don't think steady shoot (in Sony body) and VC can work together. If you use both at the same time may inadvertently introducing blur.

And I think photographer in the last decade didn't know VC and could catch a sharp picture.

 

[android17]

I don't think steady shoot (in Sony body) and VC can work together. If you use both at the same time may inadvertently introducing blur.

And I think photographer in the last decade didn't know VC and could catch a sharp picture.

obviously steadyshot (or any in body stabilizer) and lens stabilizer cant work together. Everyone knows that.

Dont think any Sony Alpha or Pentax users will do something like using lens + body stabilizer together.

And thats why we find it silly to pay extra to get lens with build in stabilizer...

 

[snowicezz]

Dear all,

I just got an advice from the lense seller. Tamron 17-50mm VC.
If using tripod, please switch off the VC to prevent blur. THus, i think tamron 17-50 with VC and W/o VC, the effect is the same with tripod. But VC really help in hand held. from the picture posted, the 1st one without VC is blur (due to the shaking) and the VC on is sharp. In fact if the one who can hold the camera really steady it wont be blur.

 

[jeff7id]

Dear all,

I just got an advice from the lense seller. Tamron 17-50mm VC.
If using tripod, please switch off the VC to prevent blur. THus, i think tamron 17-50 with VC and W/o VC, the effect is the same with tripod. But VC really help in hand held. from the picture posted, the 1st one without VC is blur (due to the shaking) and the VC on is sharp. In fact if the one who can hold the camera really steady it wont be blur.

The camera is small so you can bring everyday everywhere. But the tripod is quite bulky. That's why VC or VR or IS lens is needed

 

[auden09]

wow its impressive. how much u got the vc version for?

 

[Shakespeare0905]

Hi all,

Want to check with you all for the VC lens, what is the focusing ring used for?? Means if i switch on the AF, i cant turn the ring right? That's what i read from the manuel. I only get it from my friend who came back from HK yesterday.

 

[nice1888]

Hi all,

Want to check with you all for the VC lens, what is the focusing ring used for?? Means if i switch on the AF, i cant turn the ring right? That's what i read from the manuel. I only get it from my friend who came back from HK yesterday.

The focusing ring is use to focus the subject where you want it to appear most sharp generally. If you switch on the AF mode (Autofocusing mode) and by half-press your shutter button of your DSLR, your lenses focusing mechanism will rotate automatically to focus on your subject. Therefore, you do not need to turn the focusing ring of your lenses manually. However, if you want to turn the focusing ring in AF mode for some reason. You still able to turn the focusing ring for most of the new lenses in the market as they got this override feature without damaging the lenses. As for 17-50 VC, please read your lens manual or patiently wait for answer from fellows Csers.

 

[Jessen]

im using Sony Alpha. All lenses attached to my camera becomes a VC lens :bsmilie:

So i get the Tamron 17-50 for $610 and yet still enjoys VC with it.

I even hv 50mm f1.4 VC, 24mm F2.8 VC and 100mm f2.8 1:1 Macro VC LOL.

a 50mm f1.4 with VC is really great for very low light situations btw. With this lens i can virtually stop using flash indoors.

Dont think Canon or Nikon have VC for their 24mm and 50mm primes lenses right? :bsmilie:

Duh..

 

[Shakespeare0905]

Thanks nice1888. Appreciate your response. Will try to play with it after my exams.

 

[deathrequiem]

the tamron 17-50 does not come with focus override, or what is more commonly known as FTM(Full Time Manual) Focusing. turning the focusing ring while af is on may damage the lens.

 

[nice1888]

the tamron 17-50 does not come with focus override, or what is more commonly known as FTM(Full Time Manual) Focusing. turning the focusing ring while af is on may damage the lens.

thank you for the info.

 

[true86]

this is not true, the sharpness and contrast has nothing to do with vc.

what vc does is reduce handshake. as for whether the vc version is INDEED sharper, you need a proper test with tripod, vc off, etc.

that said, i would say that the test is inconclusive. 1/10 can be handheld, so it is hit and miss. most tests would actually do a larger number of shots at 1/10, and compare to see if you have more keepable shots. that's how dpreview does it. i would not just happily subscribe to the result of the test being that vc is indeed useful - are we going to say that because water boiled at 99 degrees celsius once (because of slight impurities), that the boiling point is 99 degrees celsius?

night86mare, you are absolutely right.

to the TS, you cannot really compare sharpness by doing hand held tests - obviously the VC version will be sharper than the non-VC one if you induce hand-held shake to both, don't you think so?

your effort is commendable though, and maybe you can take the suggestions of the other guys here, and do some tests on a tripod.

but, night86mare, i see you are showing your tail again. your tendency to be aggressive towards newcomers rearing it's head once again. our TS here has failed to take into consideration the few variables that have an effect on the results of a "sharpness" test - obviously he isn't aware of it, or could have overlooked it in a state of excitement.

that, however, does not in any way justify the way you chose to reply to him. you could have just kept quiet or, preferably, informed him of his mistake and adviced him on how to carry out the test properly. but no, as with my initial post that you took to dislike immediately, and as with leaping to your photographs' defence so hastily, you chose in this case to overflex what there is of your writing skills and look what is the result - nothing constructive, but a spiteful verbal altercation.

Clubsnap has been, and should been a healthy, friendly place for all to learn. this friendly environment is appreciated by me, and i believe, by many others here as well. while i find your needless arrogant and aggressive behaviour bemusing, i sincerely believe it will do you good to keep that in check. i hope your shallow comments do not truely reflect your thinking. it would be pitiable if it does.

 

[daredevil123]

night86mare, you are absolutely right.

to the TS, you cannot really compare sharpness by doing hand held tests - obviously the VC version will be sharper than the non-VC one if you induce hand-held shake to both, don't you think so?

your effort is commendable though, and maybe you can take the suggestions of the other guys here, and do some tests on a tripod.

but, night86mare, i see you are showing your tail again. your tendency to be aggressive towards newcomers rearing it's head once again. our TS here has failed to take into consideration the few variables that have an effect on the results of a "sharpness" test - obviously he isn't aware of it, or could have overlooked it in a state of excitement.

that, however, does not in any way justify the way you chose to reply to him. you could have just kept quiet or, preferably, informed him of his mistake and adviced him on how to carry out the test properly. but no, as with my initial post that you took to dislike immediately, and as with leaping to your photographs' defence so hastily, you chose in this case to overflex what there is of your writing skills and look what is the result - nothing constructive, but a spiteful verbal altercation.

Clubsnap has been, and should been a healthy, friendly place for all to learn. this friendly environment is appreciated by me, and i believe, by many others here as well. while i find your needless arrogant and aggressive behaviour bemusing, i sincerely believe it will do you good to keep that in check. i hope your shallow comments do not truely reflect your thinking. it would be pitiable if it does.

Please do not dig up posts almost a year old just to continue what seems to be a personal vendetta on your part.

Even if this is a fresh thread, please read everyone's post in context and at least understand what is going on. There is nothing offensive or aggressive in this particular post from dec 2009. It is the response from the recipient that the flare up began.

You may be trying to prove something... but seeing how old and dead a horse you decide to dig up and flog... makes me wonder what kind of person you are :think::dunno:

Let's all grow up and move on. If you don't like the person, just move on. Unless, of course, if you are a troll trying to antagonize and start something. :think::dunno:

 

[felix08138]

Thanks to Haime for his review. I think everyone has good intentions, but written communication is a funny thing. It often takes on a different tone or demeanor when interpreted by different people at different times and on different mood. Anyway, chill out guys! Just remember we're all here for the love of photography. Cheers !

Anyway, I am a user of the Tamron 17 50 VC. Other than being a noisy micro-motor (non USM), I'm actually quite happy with this lens. I know a lot of professional reviews rates it quite badly. Frankly not sure why. I find the lens is reasonably sharp, with good resolution and problably has a slightly faster AF than the Non-VC version. Just my honest opinion ya.
(not back by any lab test).

Whatever it is, I think it's best for those who are interested in the lens to go try it out. Borrow both versions from frens. Try it out in the shop. In the end, some may concur, but others will not.

Either way, dun forget to keep shooting...!

 

[daredevil123]

Thanks to Haime for his review. I think everyone has good intentions, but written communication is a funny thing. It often takes on a different tone or demeanor when interpreted by different people at different times and on different mood. Anyway, chill out guys! Just remember we're all here for the love of photography. Cheers !

Anyway, I am a user of the Tamron 17 50 VC. Other than being a noisy micro-motor (non USM), I'm actually quite happy with this lens. I know a lot of professional reviews rates it quite badly. Frankly not sure why. I find the lens is reasonably sharp, with good resolution and problably has a slightly faster AF than the Non-VC version. Just my honest opinion ya.
(not back by any lab test).

Whatever it is, I think it's best for those who are interested in the lens to go try it out. Borrow both versions from frens. Try it out in the shop. In the end, some may concur, but others will not.

Either way, dun forget to keep shooting...!

:thumbsup: to both red and blue parts.

If it fits your needs, it is good. That is all that matters.

Personally, the non-VC version is what I went for. But different people shoot differently, and have different needs.

 

[night86mare]

night86mare, you are absolutely right.

to the TS, you cannot really compare sharpness by doing hand held tests - obviously the VC version will be sharper than the non-VC one if you induce hand-held shake to both, don't you think so?

your effort is commendable though, and maybe you can take the suggestions of the other guys here, and do some tests on a tripod.

but, night86mare, i see you are showing your tail again. your tendency to be aggressive towards newcomers rearing it's head once again. our TS here has failed to take into consideration the few variables that have an effect on the results of a "sharpness" test - obviously he isn't aware of it, or could have overlooked it in a state of excitement.

that, however, does not in any way justify the way you chose to reply to him. you could have just kept quiet or, preferably, informed him of his mistake and adviced him on how to carry out the test properly. but no, as with my initial post that you took to dislike immediately, and as with leaping to your photographs' defence so hastily, you chose in this case to overflex what there is of your writing skills and look what is the result - nothing constructive, but a spiteful verbal altercation.

Clubsnap has been, and should been a healthy, friendly place for all to learn. this friendly environment is appreciated by me, and i believe, by many others here as well. while i find your needless arrogant and aggressive behaviour bemusing, i sincerely believe it will do you good to keep that in check. i hope your shallow comments do not truely reflect your thinking. it would be pitiable if it does.

:bsmilie:

your post is VERY constructive, and is A LOT more than a spiteful verbal altercation. :bsmilie:

btw, suggest you dig up other posts, will be better representation of what you want.. that post you quoted no go la... help you out a bit. want to troll also fail so badly to the point of making yourself look silly and spiteful. :bsmilie:

what an amusing little troll you are... think i won't report you just yet. please continue, you are providing me with some late night entertainment. too bad, you are not very good at trolling (pretty clumsy at it too), so i suspect you will just self-pwn and disappear quite soon if you persist in doing this.

go back, try again next time, better luck!!!! :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[Override2Zion]

I have to agree that it is good effort by the TS to setup the simple test and provide findings for the benefit of other members. :thumbsup:

However, I do agree with bro night86mare about the consistency of the findings and what is meant by "sharpness" of a lens. Sharpness test results can be affected during the test by multiple factors such as
- Choice of apertures for the test (wide open or set to the sweet spot thats usually 2 stops down from the largest aperture?)
- Front/Back focusing problems?

VR/IS/OS/VC is a mechanism that gives you a better chance of getting photos worth keeping while shooting at low shutter speeds. This is not the sole factor that affects the sharpness of the images captured.

In summary, I would say that the test is a test for the capability of the VC, not really for sharpness. The findings can also be improved with a larger collection of samples.

 

[true86]

dear daredevil,

please, do not be too quick to jump to the usage of the word "troll". is this a similar tendency on your part? i certainly do not hope so.

of course, this particular thread has to be brought to the surface near the top of the list, before i would find it, wouldn't i? and indeed it had been, for someone had recently posted on this "old thread", thus i saw it on the first page on the forum. the dates on the post before mine show it all, and proves in all ways that i do not go about "digging for old posts" hahaha. what a funny idea that is. pardon me if i do not realise that the first post was a year ago. however, i'd reckon that there is nothing wrong in making a comment on any post, old or new, as long as there is something amiss. are you going to tell me otherwise?

in addition, over here the poor, innocent TS has had to endure an insulting reply by night86mare for no rhyme or reason. who is the real "troll" here, may i ask? that sort of behaviour is totally atrocious in a friendly place such as here! do all newbies have no right to make mistakes? what does it say of one who criticizes people as unconstructively as himself? in all ways of looking at it, i am standing up passively for those who are bullied. i am not even aggressive.:bsmilie:

since you appear to be blindly supportive of this particular pattern of behaviour, may i call you a troll-in-arms then?:bsmilie: just kidding!

please, daredevil, do not be blindly overly-protective of a friend, no matter how highly you regard him, to the extent that you fail to see the larger picture. it disappoints me that you have done so. as for your attempt at analysing what kind of person I am, my advice would not be to do that too frequently to the different people that you meet, for you certainly do not have a knack for it. i say this not in offense, but in sincerity, for your immense inaccuracy might cause you much undue worry!;p

take a good long read at my post, daredevil - every single word i have said is factual, and there is no personal attack whatsoever(unlike night86mareon the TS's). that night86mare says that i am failing as a troll - this is because i am but bringing out astute observations with no belligerance - definitely not a feature of a troll, would you not agree? if you fail to see the picture i am painting and attack me needlessly, you are encouraging me to view you as THE troll you love to talk about instead. i do not wish to do so, definitely. in any case, night86mare's persistent attacking on anyone that earns his disfancy wins him the accolade of a troll more than you, not to worry.

dear me dear me, i am saying the word troll so many times, just like the two of you now!!

to show you an example of your shortsightness, here is a result from a simple search under the term "night86mare" - not because i am "digging up old posts", but i because am merely intrigued by a charactor as colourfully flawed as his.

http://sgcafe.com/complaints/52711-truth-currypokman-unveiled-revealed.html

would a decent peron invoke such a response, no matter what the situation is? go on, analyse that as you have tried to figure out what sort of person i am. who is the troll again, may i ask you?

sigh, devil. sigh.


dear night86mare,

havingreadyourlatestchildishreplyyouhaveconvincedmethatyouarenotworthreplyinganyfurthertobye.