Bạn đang xem: Just a moment
Having using the stabilized kit lens on Canon, I appreciate the importance of ISVC for slow shutter speeds (not just low light, but also for effects). However, quite a few nhận xét seem khổng lồ suggest that the non-VC version seems lớn be better optically overall. There seem to lớn be more chất lượng control issues with the VC version as well.
My question is two fold:How do the 2 lenses compare against each other - is the premium for the VC version worthwhile for the quality trade-off?
lens zoom image-stabilization tamron optical-quality
Improve this question
edited Aquảng bá 13 "17 at 12:44
asked Dec 4 "11 at 5:32
4,47544 gold badges3535 silver badges6262 bronze badges
Add a bình luận |
5 Answers 5
Active Oldest Votes
I have the VC version (Nikon mount). I have tested it alongside my 50mm prime and found it to be just as sharp at f/3.2. It is very slightly softer at f/2.8, but only when looking at an artificial thử nghiệm pattern. That"s one person"s opinion based on a sample of one.
I have sầu tested other non-professional zoom lenses (Nikon and Sigma) & the Tamron is far, far sharper than any of them. Unbelievably so.
A camera shop owner I know recommended the non-VC version as being very sharp và reliable (and inexpensive). He didn"t say it was worth buying the non-VC version over the VC version. He just recommended it highly as a fantastic value. He did say he"d also sold a lot of the VC version and hadn"t noticed any unique control issues.
Because the lens is sharp wide open, VC isn"t really vital except in low light. I would say the VC is probably not worth the premium unless you intend lớn shoot a lot of low-light or indoors work without flash.
Can"t help with the comparison to lớn the Canon 18-55mm. I would imagine from what I"ve sầu found compared lớn other Nikon equivalents that the Tamron will be noticeably sharper, especially wide open. You can use it at 2.8 or 3.2, whereas the Canon probably needs lớn be stopped down lớn f/5.6 or f/8 lớn be at its sharpest.