Printable View
I'm looking to buy a tamron 17-50 lens.anyone know if the 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC is worth the extra money over the SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II Lens.i know that XR is a Special Glass for Better Performance and VC is tamrons Vibration Compensation.as I've look on the tamron web site. but in the real world does it make much differences
I once thought that IS (Image Stabilization - Canon's terminology for VC or Vibration Control) was just a gimic on lenses of this short a focal range. However, the more I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, the more I appreciate the IS assistance. The constant f/2.8 aperture combined with the IS makes this a very viable low light lens. I seldom use my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens since I purchased the 17-55mm IS.
I have pared down my travel and general photo gear to the 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. These two lenses make a great combination. Here is a shot I grabbed hand-held from the Kowloon side of Hong Kong harbor using ISO 800 (which is about as high as I wanted to go on my Canon 30D camera) at 1/20 second, f/2.8 at 55mm with IS turned on.
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...38_zS5qP-L.jpg
I don't have any experience with the Tamron VC lens but, I thought that my experience with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS might carry over to the Tamron since both these lenses are of approximately the same focal range with a constant f/2.8 aperture.
i did look at the canon.but i was thinking of the price difference between the canon and the tamron 17-55mm lens.i'm not sure the canon lens is £300 ish better than the tamron.but i am open to being set straight on that.
I was not suggestingthe Canon as an alternative to the Tamron but, that these two lenses, both with equivalent focal ranges, constant f/2.8 apertures and their version of motion compensation and are great to shoot with. I frankly don't know about the difference in quality, if any, between the Canon and Tamron versions because the Tamron was not on the market in their VC version when I purchased my Canon.
I got one for a Canon and the VC does work but you have to be sensible. 50mm is easy to use down to 1/15 which is just over 3 stops but 17mm is not easy to use at 1/3 seconds because it is a long time to not be seeing anything.
The CA is worst at 17mm but at 1.3 pixel average and easy to control, longer than 35mm CA is non existent after f5.6, but is very good everywhere else. However mine doesn't focus on AF very well, if you point it at a computer with text on it, it is positive and quick but it is totally unreliable, but that could be just my lens.
It is a very sharp lens except at extreme borders wide open at 17mm and will do just as good pics as any Canon on my 2250 LW/PH limited camera if you know how to use it; where it is sharpest ect plus you get a subjective sharpness with the low CA.
I think that is it. :) Good with lens flare.
Here you are: hand held 17mm @ f6.3 1/20
http://i38.tinypic.com/98uhpd.jpg
and this is 17mm @f6.3 1/5 also hand held
http://i38.tinypic.com/3022hkg.jpg