Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens vs the same with VC

zonaman

I have a question regarding the Tamron lenses. I read thru your articles and noticed an article talking about the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 wide angle lens and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. You recommended both of them, but I noticed there is also a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens with VC. Is this lens worth spending an extra $120.00 in order to get the Vibration Compensation with it? I also noticed there is a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM zoom lens out there also.

I want to purchase a real good lens for taking pictures at night along with with landscape type pictures in the evenings along with pictures at night at Vegas. I am not sure one lens can do all this. Please help me!

I did go to Africa last summer and purchased a Canon EF 70-300mm 4-5.6 L IS USM lens which took some incredible pictures of animals.

Shermanator

I just bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non VC version (on recommendation from this site) and am waiting for it to get delivered. When it came to choosing the VC over the non VC version, there is much talk about the picture quality of the VC version not being up to standard of the non VC Version. Hence the reason why I chose the non VC version. If you are only taking photos and not filming movies then I recommend going with the non VC Version as I have. Having said that even getting the non VC version for filming seems to be a let down. I have seen youtube video recordings where the focus motor is really loud and sound gets picked up on the built-in microphone. This wouldn't be a problem if you edit the clip and put your sound in afterwards.

Now the Canon equivalent (Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM) which I also looked at is apparently a fantastic lens, but it is extremely expensive for what it is. If you can afford it then this is apparently the lens to have. Unfortunately, I couldn't justify spending and (couldn't afford) this amount of money. So the next best thing is the non VC version of the Tamron which stacks up pretty darn close to it so I am led to believe, and being a very affordable price. This is the main reason why it has become a very extremely popular lens to get a hold of.

Having said that, my opinion is if your a going to do video recording also, then I would skip the VC version of the Tamron altogether and go for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM even though it is truly expensive piece of glass. I also would like to see what Moose has to say.

Moose

Howdy @zonaman - Honestly, it sounds like you're in the market for a good wide-angle lens. In that case, the need for a bright maximum aperture near f/2.8 isn't really necessary. For landscapes and cityscapes, you generally want to shoot between f/8 to f/16. This lengthens the depth of field, putting more of the scene into focus.

For these types of shots, I would take a look at the Tamron 10-24mm (see here) or Sigma 10-20mm (see here). These lenses will give you a much larger field of view compared to all of the lenses you mentioned, allowing you to take in more sky and super wide views.

These lenses aren't ideal for portraits or isolating subjects against blurry backgrounds. Their primary focus is geared towards landscapes, cityscapes, starry nights, etc...

As for vibration compensation (VC)...it can help when you have subjects that remain still throughout the shot, however, if you're trying to capture moving subjects in low light, it really won't do anything for you. In those situations you'll need to rely on faster shutter speeds. Happy shooting! :)