Tamron 17-50mm vs. VC

[AlQ]

I've read the review at The-Digital-Picture as well as a couple of other articles, re: the sharpness of the older version vs. the VC.

...So my question is, in the real world (handheld) can anyone speak to the trade-off of the benefit of the VC vs. the sharper image of the older version but prone to camera-shake?

thank you for the feedback!

[jml79]

What is your camera and planned usage?

Stabilization helps the most when you are shooting handheld at less than 1/focal length. It helps the most with slow or long lenses and shouldn't be any use if you use a tripod. Also some camera's have internal IS so buying a lens with a form of IS is usually a waste of money if you have anything other than a Canon or a Nikon.

Personally on a short fast lens like this I, if there was any image quality difference I would buy the sharper lens and not worry about the IS. JMHO. I might put more weight on IS if it were a long zoom lens.

[AlQ]

I would probably use this lens more for indoor family photos, portraits and probably as my walk around lens on the street.....

I shoot with a Canon 7D, already have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, as well as the 55-250mm kit lens, so I'm looking for something with a shorter focal length that is faster.

I've also heard that the VC copy of this lens focuses slower than the regular 17-50mm version.

[RichardTaylor]

I have the non VC lens and the auto focussing on that one is not good and is useless (IMHO) in very low light (ISO 1600/3200 territory). I tried using it for concert shooting and it was hopeless. Switched to using fast primes.

[AlQ]

Thanks....the Tamron is an affordable alternative to the Canon 17-55mm but I hate spending money if it ultimately results in disappointment.

[kirbinster]

You really don't need vibration control on a lens that is less than 50mm, you should be able to hold still at fairly low shutter speeds with a short lens.

[RichardTaylor]

It all depends on
(1) In what lighting conditions you are shooting?.
(2) Are you using a tripod?
(3) Are you shooting static subjects. (shooting any thing that is moving, even slightly, with shutter speeds you can use with VC will result in blurred subjects)
(4) What maximum aperture do you want or can use? Using VC can give you the ability to shoot so you get more DOF if need be.
(6) It also allows you to shoot hand held at slower shutter speeds for those "arty" movement pics if need be.
(5) I also feel that shooting in poor lighting conditions can result in images that are not that good technically (due to the lighting) but can be ok due to content and/or "atmospheric" feel.

I am a Canon shooter however the same principals apply

Now days I tend to move away from IS and shoot with fast (usually F2 primes) especially for the hand held low light stuff, and use high ISO + noise reduction when PPing.

However when I am on vacation I can't always carry a whole pile of primes plus my other lenses, and/or a tripod, so I find VC(IS) invaluable sometimes on my walk around lens (Canon 24-105 F4 IS L) no matter what focal length I am using.