IS vs sharpness.

["Matthew"]

Ok sry for having two threads, I could not figure out how to delete the other one. Admins ples feel free to delete it.

Ok I have decided to get a new lens. That lens it the tamron 17-50 2.8. Question. Should I get the VC version or not?

VC MTF charts

NON - VC MTF charts.

Side by side comp.

I will be shooting at 2.8 a fair bit of the time. and as you can see the corner performance at 2.8 and 50mm is HORRID.(on the VC)

What do you guys think, My current lens(17-85 f/4-5.6) has IS and I use it a lot. Will the 2.8 on the tammey be enough or should I sacrifice the significant improvement in sharpness for the VC?

Thanx
I need to order this tomorrow and you guys are usually fast


Note: my photography: mostly landscapes, urban landscapes and still life. Sometimes people and animals.

[Gaurav Prabhu]

If you're into landscapes then why worry much about 50mm @ f/2.8? Most of the time, you'll be shooting the lens stopped down.
Don't ponder much over these charts, in the end its your image which will shine & not the lens with which you made it.

[ddr]

like above said, if you're shooting landscapes, you won't be shooting it wide open. i'll add to that and say you'll be shooting far more at 17mm for landscapes than 50mm. The tammy is a wonderful lens with a constant wide aperture, at a budget price. you can't have it all. if you are willing to pay a bit more, you can consider the sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, but you'd be gambling with their QC; which is okay if your body has micro-adjust.

you should be turning IS off when you are on a tripod anyways. i wouldn't sacrifice sharpness for anything. it won't help with moving subjects anyways.