Tamron 17-50 f2.8... to VC or not VC that is the Q

frappuccino · Mar 10, 2013

Hello,

My first post and in need of some advice please!!

I'm a total experimental photo beginner and have only just began dabbling with a DSLR Canon 20D.

On a tight budget of under £300 - need a lens for low-light and general/landscape photography.

Looking at the tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC or the NON VC lens. Is this a compatible lens with the aforementioned camera? Need help deciding for petite/small hands please!! Concerned about camera shake but sharpness is also a priority.

Huge biggest thanks for your help and time,

tanya :thumbup:

pixmedic · Mar 10, 2013

have had the non VC version for years. love it. never felt i needed VC with that short of focal length. if you can afford the VC version, cant hurt to have it. you can always turn it off when you dont need it.
i have heard the non vc version is sharper, but have not personally seen side by side comparisons

Bo4key · Mar 10, 2013

I have the non VC model and quite honestly, I haven't missed having the Vibration control. And to be honest, if you are shooting landscapes you should probably be tripod mounted any ways so the VC isn't going to help there. Just make sure your shutter speed is equal to or greater than your focal length and you should be good to go handheld (generally).

It's a really nice lens for the price and has rarely been off my camera since I bought it a year ago.

frappuccino · Mar 10, 2013

very swayed towards the non-VC!! thanks!!! there's a £63 diff between the two at the mo and if not a huge diff in quality that settles it then =)

thanks so much!!

m3incorp · Apr 14, 2013

As long as you have steady hands, you will be just fine with the non-VC version. Many people say that the non-VC is slightly sharper than the VC version. I have a very slight hand shake from time, thus the VC version for me.....funny, I never have any problem with camera shake with my non-is/non-VC lenses.

Pallycow · Apr 15, 2013

I opted for the non VC. I never understood the need for VC on wide focal ranges. On a 300...sure it helps. 17-50 range, really not needed.

I know of many who don't get sharp images with it, mostly because they are impatient and don't wait for the VC to fully engage before they take the shot.

I'd say save the few extra bucks and get the Non VC version. I did and I'm very happy with it.

People have been shooting without vibration control for years, before it was implemented in lenses, and....I hope I don't offend...but to me, it's a lazy man's device. Learn how to hold your camera properly...and you won't need it.

TCampbell · Apr 15, 2013

There is a formula that calculates the minimum shutter speed for taking a photograph while hand-holding a camera (and this assumes you're using good posture and actually _trying_ to be steady -- look up how to hold the camera if you're unsure.) This is a "guideline" and not a rule. Some people are able to be a bit more steady than others, but the formula works for most people.

The formula is: 1 / (focal length) X (crop factor)

The crop factor on a Canon 20D (which has an APS-C size image sensor) is 1.6. That's the crop-factor for YOUR camera. It is based on the size of your sensor, so it never changes... even if you change lenses, etc.

With that in mind, let's suppose you have a 300mm lens on the camera (or a zoom that goes to 300mm). That would be 1 / (300 X 1.6) = 1/480 (you'd round that to 1/500th of a second shutter speed since you cannot set your camera to exactly 1/480th). If you don't have a lot of light, and your meter is telling you that even at wide open, you need to dial the shutter speed back to, say 1/60th... you'd be in trouble because there's no way you could "hand hold" the camera steady enough to take a shot at 1/60th while using a 300mm lens... hand-held. You'd need a steady tripod.

Now lets do the same using the 17mm wide angle. That would be 1 / (17 X 1.6) = 1 / 27 (you could round that to 1/25th sec.) You can see how the wide-lens easily can shoot hand-held at fairly slow shutter speeds. That's why image stabilization isn't nearly as important at short focal lengths (aka wide-angle lenses).