Tamron 17-50 F2.8: VC vs. non-VC

El ComatEl Comat Registered Users Posts: 51 Big grins
edited November 8, 2010 in Cameras
Good morning D-Grinners,

Does anyone have any experience comparing these two lenses? From what I've read on The Digital Picture, the non-VC version is better in almost every way other than distortion, but on the B&H site there are lots of folks that praise the VC version for being so sharp. Ideally I'd just buy the canon 17-55, but the savings to go with a Tamron are hard to ignore.

Any input appreciated!

Thanks,
Adam

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,127 moderator
    edited November 8, 2010
    Yes, I believe that the non-stabilized version is optically better. That does not mean that it is a better choice for your particular application. If you must have stabilization then the VC version is still the better choice. The VC version is still a very good lens.

    I do believe that the original is best for most people if they follow the simple rule of using electronic flash and an appropriate modifier in indoor and dark conditions. A tripod is also much preferable to any sort of lens or camera based stabilization.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.