Tamron 17-50 vc vs. non VC . Big difference?

i'd like some input on this too... is vc needed or have we decided for video we don't want that now?
 
Well my issue wasn't the VC cus that's always good. I have the VC version because this was my first lens and didn't shoot with hdslr's before. Most had advised VC. However after shooting for some time with my manual primes (50mm and 28), my 50 manual prime being more telephoto as a its full frame so cropped in the 7d essentially giving 80mm field of view as opposed to 50 on the tamron, iv found I don't need VC under about 100mm. Some people need it though, not me.

The issue is that the non VC version is much sharper. So I was thinking about trying to sell this lens and pick up the non VC version...but being that its video I was wondering if one can see the sharpness difference since video doesn't resolve as much as stills.
 
I don't know the answer to your question but I do think maybe your question should be: Am I satisfied with the Tamron 17-50VC?

Not sure if thinking of your 50mm prime "being more telephoto" is helpful. You may wish to compare 50mm on the Tamron to it.

Are you satisfied with the results of shooting with the Tamron without VC? Based on what Barry has said about the kit lenses and their use in video, I'd hazard the guess that only stills would show a difference in sharpness between the VC and non-VC versions. And hey, you may find yourself in a situation that calls for VC.

Or you can come take a vacation in Israel and we'll trade lenses for a week or so. :)
 
The answer to your question about higher sharpness for non VC version making a difference in video relative to VC version of the Tamron 17-50mm is; there is no discernable difference. I owned the non vc version and upgraded to the VC version. The extreme corners are a little softer with VC version, but only when viewing still images at 100 % in lightroom. For video, the VC version works very well. In fact I am very happy with it for 18mega pixel stills also.
Rick
 
I have the non vc.

Greatfor stills but...

For video, stabilized lenses are worth its weight in gold.

I'll be happy to trade a little sharpness for a steady image.

For that reason I didn't get rid of my stabilzed kit zoom lens.

My tripod broke during a wedding shoot... grabbed the kit lense instead of my 50mm zeiss... and am I glad. Video came out great.

While my Zeiss might be a little sharper, the micro jitters from my hands would have cancelled out that advantage. Be happy with vc.
 
berylium said:
For video, stabilized lenses are worth its weight in gold.

I'll be happy to trade a little sharpness for a steady image.
Click to expand...

+1 to that.

Cause we're not always on sticks, and even if we are it might be gusty, etc. etc. Jitter and jello can ruin a shot just as nicely as being out of focus.
 
really it worth?
i thought VC version is worst for panning and scrolling on video. Some peoplay says to turn it off for video in order to get more smooth motion.


My only dubt is about photo. Really it works on this short focal distance in some situation.
Somebody makes any test with VC on and off in critical situation? (low light, night.. etc)
 
jambredz said:
I know the non VC version is pretty sharper than the VC version, but does this matter for video??
Click to expand...

I went for the sharper non VC. Between the weight of the lens and the 60D it's twice as smooth as the lighter 550D and 18-55 with IS. You should figure out a way to keep your camera steady without VC or IS.
The principle of mass one key factor. Try adding a small amount of weight to the camera as an experiment to see what the effect is. Added weight will automatically smooth out your camera movements. It's the law of physics working for you.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

Also try adding something with length to the camera like a tabletop tripod or monopod as a handle which will restrict micro movements by increasing the size to leverage ratio. Simple principles like this will help you understand why the camera shakes in the first place and how to correct it.
When I have nothing else I use the camera hanging on the neck strap and push it with a little pressure away from me at low, medium, or high angles. This strap has 2 connections to the body, right and left which restrict horizontal movements allowing you to hold your horizon level. This is the first principle of a steadycam, keeping a level horizon. That strap stabilizer is always on the camera ready to work with nothing else. Don't laugh until you've worked it for a while, it's a good technique for the DSLR form factor.
Lens stabilization does work in some situations, but will not necessarily be a great shot or camera move.
Tai-chi masters would have very smooth camera moves. Don't fight with your camera, move with it.
 

Attachments

  • tai_chi_pose.jpg
    tai_chi_pose.jpg
    84 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I'm also in the position of switching my kit lens with a new one and I've decided for this tamron. It's clear that the VC version is not as sharp, especially at 50mm (from the tests i saw) the difference is big! But some people on forums also mentioned that it could be a bad stock cause someone said that the VC version was as sharp as the non-VC, is this true or the new version is just worse?
The main reason for me to choose the VC is the 4-stop compensation that could help A LOT for pictures, not to mention for handheld video. But the sharpness of the non-VC is tempting as well, plus lower price :( I really don't know what to do.
 
cr*p. Why did they have to do this? If this lens was like the old one but with VC it would be amazing :S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top