Another Tamron 17-50 thread

I've decided to sell my kit 18-55 IS lens and get a Tamron 17-50.

I've read a lot of comparisons between the VC and non-VC versions but still have some questions.

1) is the AF on the VC version any quieter than the non-VC?
2) I know the non-VC version is the sharpest of the bunch but would the VC version still be an upgrade and sharper than the kit lens?
3) a local camera store has the VC version on sale for the same price as the non-VC version. Would you still go for the non-VC version?

1) They are the same AF system.
2) It's definetly an upgrade. I tried both the VC and non VC and i seriously couldn't tell the difference wiht the test shots i took. If you find the VC to be not as sharp you can turn the VC off.
3) For the same price id get the VC model.

1) I read a review in a magazine that said the VC focus is quieter than the non-VC version.

I'm in the same boat. I'd say go for the VC version.

I have had both and looking at past photos, I cannot tell the difference in image quality. I happen to really like the VC model and it does make a difference at slow shutter speeds. Go for the VC version.

Treaks

shane_c wrote in post #11478513
1) is the AF on the VC version any quieter than the non-VC?
2) I know the non-VC version is the sharpest of the bunch but would the VC version still be an upgrade and sharper than the kit lens?
3) a local camera store has the VC version on sale for the same price as the non-VC version. Would you still go for the non-VC version?

1) Yes, it is quite a bit quieter. I've used both extensively. No question. Speed is slightly quicker too.
2) I did not find that the non-VC was sharper. The VC units I used recently were right there with my 17-55 IS, or very close at least.
3) Not even close. Get the VC.

I have the non-VC version and have taken pics at 1/8 to 1/4 handheld and have yet to see a blurred picture. So, it all depends on you!

What about Sigma's 17-50 2.8 OS? I hear as far as having an IS, Sigma's lens is phenomenal. Again though, this is just hearsay.

the Sigma $200-$300 more in Canada so i chose the Tamron and am very very happy wiht the lens

I tried both the VC and non VC version and the sigma... i loved the sigma a lot.. but it was about $300 more than the tamron. the VC tamron was about $200 more than the non VC Tamron. I chose the non VC version as it was in my price range... and i'm more than happy.

what i liked about the sigma was the zoom ring turns standard like canons,and i thought the colors looked great on it. The non VC optically looked right along side the sigma, and like i said, thankfully a good deal cheaper.

so to answer the ops question:
1. AF is the same noise level.. but both are quite fast, the sound makes them seem slower i think.
2. I noticed some softness with VC on, but only noticeable if you pixel peek.
3. depends on what your going to shoot.. indoors, low light, then yeah get the VC version for the same price, unless you use a monopod often like i do.. then you can get away with out it.

cheers

For the same price , get the VC model .

CountryBoy wrote in post #11479623
For the same price , get the VC model .

VC is more expensive than the non-VC!

nepali wrote in post #11479657
VC is more expensive than the non-VC!

Did you not read the first post ?

Thanks for the replies!

The sale is over and now the VC model is $180 more.
If it doesn't go on sale again soon I will go with the non-VC model.

With your camera, you may discover you might need to calibrate the camera with the lens, as it doesn't do focus micro-adjust. My non-VC Tamron was front-focusing, I sent it to Tamron, they told me it's within their specs, so I'm trying now to calibrate the camera (and also my 135L, which is back-focusing).