Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC vs non-VC: is stabilization worth it, and are they upgrades over an 18-55mm kit lens?
Asked 12/4/2011
5 views
2 answers
0
I'm considering the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in both the stabilized (VC) and non-stabilized versions as an upgrade from an 18-55mm IS kit lens. Reviews suggest the non-VC version may be a little sharper and possibly more consistent, while the VC version adds stabilization for slower handheld shutter speeds.
How do the VC and non-VC versions compare in real use? Is the VC premium worth any optical trade-off?
Also, compared with a typical Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS kit lens, are either of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 versions worthwhile upgrades in image quality and usability?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
4
I have the VC version (Nikon mount). I have tested it alongside my 50mm prime and found it to be just as sharp at f/3.2. It is very slightly softer at f/2.8, but only when looking at an artificial test pattern. That's one person's opinion based on a sample of one.
I have tested other non-professional zoom lenses (Nikon and Sigma) and the Tamron is far, far sharper than any of them. Unbelievably so.
A camera shop owner I know recommended the non-VC version as being very sharp and reliable (and inexpensive). He didn't say it was worth buying the non-VC version over the VC version. He just recommended it highly as a fantastic value. He did say he'd also sold a lot of the VC version and hadn't noticed any quality control issues.
Because the lens is sharp wide open, VC isn't really vital except in low light. I would say the VC is probably not worth the premium unless you intend to shoot a lot of low-light or indoors work without flash.
Can't help with the comparison to the Canon 18-55mm. I would imagine from what I've found compared to other Nikon equivalents that the Tamron will be noticeably sharper, especially wide open. You can use it at 2.8 or 3.2, whereas the Canon probably needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 to be at its sharpest.
Originally by user4191. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4191
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Based on the community feedback, both Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 versions are generally regarded as strong upgrades over a typical 18-55mm kit lens, mainly because you get a constant f/2.8 aperture and very good sharpness.
Between the two Tamrons, the non-VC version is commonly considered a little sharper, especially in chart-style comparisons, while the VC version may be slightly softer wide open. In real shooting, though, the difference seems small. Several users still found the VC version very sharp, including at wider apertures.
The real decision is whether stabilization matters more to you than the small optical edge of the non-VC lens. VC helps for handheld shooting at slower shutter speeds, which can make shots possible that you might otherwise miss. If you often shoot static subjects in low light, VC can be very useful. If you prioritize maximum sharpness/value and don’t need stabilization as much, the non-VC version is the safer pick.
On quality control, the provided answers don’t show clear evidence of a major VC problem—just mixed reports.
So: non-VC for best sharpness/value; VC if you need handheld low-shutter-speed flexibility.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Which is sharper: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC?
Is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 a worthwhile upgrade from an 18-55mm kit lens?
How much more light does a constant f/2.8 zoom give compared with an 18-55mm kit lens?
Canon EF-S 15-85mm plus 50mm f/1.8 vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for a 550D
Tamron vs Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 stabilized zoom for Nikon D7100: key differences?