Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC

[ManhattanPrjct]

Has anybody in the forum used this lens and stepped up to it from the prior generation (which doesn't have the VC)?

My older Nikon's focus system has more or less died and this is an ideal replacement.

I don't usually shoot indoors or no/low-light conditions, so I am not inclined to think I'd need the VC, but I also use a tripod about 10% of the time, so there's an argument for the VC. The other differences between the two seem to be anecdotal (one feels "sturdier" than the other, etc).

If anybody's used both, any impressions? Or anybody who has used either can chime in too.

 

[gødspeed]

I'm going to pick one of these up as soon as I can afford it. I've heard it's the best walk-around lens for most people at that price point.

 

[Designer Dale]

It's on my upgrade list, too. Will get it and a 100 macro from Canon.

Here is a link to a review of the 17-50. The lens reviewed doesn't have the VC, though. I have the Tamron 28-300 VC lens and it works fine.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review

Dale

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

There's a difference in price of about $150 (or 30%), so that's why I'm trying to see if one is that much better than the other (aside from the VC).

 

[compuwar]

There's a difference in price of about $150 (or 30%), so that's why I'm trying to see if one is that much better than the other (aside from the VC).

Looks like they changed the optical formula- generally that's a sign of improvement. Looks like they're claiming improvements:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090107tamron17mm50mm.asp

Can I have your now manual focus lens?

Paul

 

[VirtualRain]

I was considering this lens, but at least one review I came across of the VC variation of this lens indicated it was very soft at f2.8 somewhat negating the whole benefit of it. This is in stark contrast to the reviews of the non-VC versions which seem fairly highly regarded.

Hence, I opted for the Canon 17-55 f2.8 even though it was a few hundred more... I wanted a lens I could shoot wide-open at f2.8 that would produce nice sharp images even when hand-held.

 

[toxic]

I was considering this lens, but at least one review I came across of the VC variation of this lens indicated it was very soft at f2.8 somewhat negating the whole benefit of it. This is in stark contrast to the reviews of the non-VC versions which seem fairly highly regarded.

the VC version is softer. that does not mean it's "soft," especially since the original was either matched or was close to matching the 17-55's resolution figures.

and while we're talking about "soft," if you look at the 17-55 crops from the same site, it's criticized for being soft at close focus distances (yielding a not-so-impressive ISO12233 chart).

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

Has anybody used it for outdoor/landscape/walk-around purposes (i.e. as a replacement for the 16-85 or similar focal range) as opposed to an indoor/low-light lens?

 

[Phrasikleia]

The most extensive review published so far of the new VC version of the Tamron lens is probably this one from Photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=2

That's the summary page, where they give the lens a very poor score for optical quality. Very disappointing considering that the non-VC version is so very good.

It should also be noted that Sigma has just announced a competing lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022014sigma17mm50mm.asp

No reviews of that one yet, since it hasn't been released, but it may be worth waiting for if the Canon 17-55 is out of your budget.

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

No reviews of that one yet, since it hasn't been released, but it may be worth waiting for if the Canon 17-55 is out of your budget.

I'm on the Nikon system...

 

[Phrasikleia]

I'm on the Nikon system...

Oops. Missed that bit. Well, then you're stuck with either the Tamron or the Sigma. I've never understood why Nikon has left VR off of its 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Don't let anybody tell you that stabilization doesn't help at those focal lengths. It does. If you're shooting static subjects in low light and can't use a tripod, having stabilization helps a great deal. I just had to get that in there before the inevitable "you don't need IS/VC/VR" post comes along.

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

Don't let anybody tell you that stabilization doesn't help at those focal lengths. It does. If you're shooting static subjects in low light and can't use a tripod, having stabilization helps a great deal. I just had to get that in there before the inevitable "you don't need IS/VC/VR" post comes along.

I agree with you to some extent, but while I don't use tripod, I am almost always either outdoors or someplace where there's halfway decent light - that's why I was questioning if the optical formula or anything noticeable had changed between the previous release and the new one with VC.

 

[wheelhot]

Oops. Missed that bit. Well, then you're stuck with either the Tamron or the Sigma. I've never understood why Nikon has left VR off of its 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Don't let anybody tell you that stabilization doesn't help at those focal lengths. It does. If you're shooting static subjects in low light and can't use a tripod, having stabilization helps a great deal. I just had to get that in there before the inevitable "you don't need IS/VC/VR" post comes along.

Yup, guess someone in the Nikon department received that memo cause the new ultrawide from Nikon has it, 16-35 f/4 VR. So I'm guessing Nikon might update its 17-55 with VR and eventually updates it 14-24 + 24-70 with VR eventually.

 

[toxic]

Yup, guess someone in the Nikon department received that memo cause the new ultrawide from Nikon has it, 16-35 f/4 VR. So I'm guessing Nikon might update its 17-55 with VR and eventually updates it 14-24 + 24-70 with VR eventually.

the 16-35 is an ultra-wide. The 17-55 is a standard zoom. VR on a standard zoom is very different from VR on an ultra-wide.

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

I figured that since I posed this question I ought to give you the resolution.

I ended up picking up the VC version of this lens today. Despite the fact that I have a camera (D90) that has a screw-drive, I figured I'd splurge and see if the VC was worth it. Verdict? Tough to really say, honestly. The VC sounds interesting (it sort of sounds like Darth Vader inhaling) and the viewfinder shakes as you press the release. I guess it's hard to really know the value of something like VC until you try to capture an image without it and ask "why didn't I get the VC version of this lens?"

However, since I started photography having been bequeathed/gifted a couple of much older lenses/primes (one of which gave out, necessitating this purchase), this is my first zoom with a 2.8 constant and it is really amazing to be able to go indoors and just jam it down sub f4 and enjoy the added flexibility.

Anyway, I am not sure I had a situation today where the 2.8 + VC was really tested/challenged (I was mostly outdoors), but I am sure I will in the future. I'd say if you're on the fence about this lens, take the plunge. At US$625 it's built solid and materially cheaper than the Nikon equivalent.

 

[Designer Dale]

I had been wondering if the VC on my 28-300 was defective or something. It does indeed sound like Darth Vader breathing!

I wound up flinching on the 17-55 VC simply because I have a working IS lens in that range (kit lens). I bought the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 along with an L series macro. I'm done lensing for a while...

Enjoy your lens

Dale