Tamron 17-50mm lens w/o VC

<p>I just ordered a Tamron 17-50mm lens for my Canon 30D. I wasn't sure to get the vibration compensation or not... I ended up going with not because I wanted a nice lens but didn't have too much money to spend. I figured I would save a little by buying the one without vibration compensation. The guy that I spoke with at Calumet, where I bought the lens said it shouldn't be too big of a deal to not have it, as long as I'm not shaky, which I'm not... Now that i'm home thinking about it, I hope I didn't make a bad decision by opting to get the non-vc lens. Any opinions on how much that matters? Is it really that big of a deal? I will be using it on a daily basis to photograph newborns, and I will be shooting a wedding soon (my second). Thanks!</p>

<p>It really is (by all accounts) a great lens - the version w/ VC supposedly is not quite as sharp, so no worries -- VC (IS) is a big deal if you are consistently shooting with very low shutter speeds, and little subject movement, and, depending on the circumstances, you may benefit from that feature, of course my 24-70/2.8 doesn't have IS either, and it seems to work just fine ;-)</p>

<p>But the biggest defecit in that lens is the AF, which is ridiculously slow compared to proper USM - plus it doesn't have FTM focus -- assuming you can handle those shortcomings, it's a great lens!</p>

<p>Natalie - I have been using the non-VC for about the last year now and have been very happy with the performance. There has been the odd time when it searches for auto focus however that is most likely my own fault or the cameras. The Non-VC issue rests totally with how you shoot. I tend to be able to keep the shutter speed up so I haven't had any issues. A darker venue for a wedding in your case may prove a bit more of a challenge.</p>

<p>Overall, great bang for your buck, sharp and now sits on my 40D for about 75% of the time (walk around). Hope you enjoy it.</p>

<p>I don't have the 17-50, but I have the Tamron SP 28-75mm which doesn't have VC and I love it. I also have the new Tamron SP 70-300mm With VC and I love it too. If your 17-50mm performs as good as the 28-75mm I have, you will be very happy.</p>

 

<p>VC/IS is really usually worth the $, but people shot terrific pictures long before the feature was invented for "35mm" type lenses. </p>

<p>This is especially true since 17-50mm is in a range where the stabilization is less important than for longer lenses.<br>

Most people can do fine with a 50mm lens and even more can do swell with a 17mm lens for steadiness. In this range (wide angle to mild telephoto) you should be OK.</p>

<p>If you are shooting sports or fast moving subjects, stabilization helps only to steady your end of the lens, of course, but it and fast focus are important aids. If you are shooting family and flowers, on the other hand, even the slowest of AF should work well for you. Just be deliberate and don't "swish" the camera around madly like the jerk in the Nikon TV ads*. ;)</p>

<p>______<br>

* It no longer seems to be true, but for a long time, a Google™ for "jerk in the Nikon ads" would bring up Ashton Kutcher as one of the top hits.</p>

<p>Hi Natalie, I wouldn't sweat it at all! I have this version on my Nikon D90 80% of the time. Great well respected lens. IMHO the fact that it is fast glass to begin with and it isn't close to being telephoto...... and you still have the option of cranking up the ISO on your camera you should easily be able to keep shutter speeds appropriate to prevent blur.<br>

Like someone else posted, fabulous photos have been made for years and years without VC. Keep practicing your technique for shooting at lower shutter speeds and you will be just fine.<br>

Enjoy your new lens!<br>

Mark</p>

Natalie, I've used that lens for a couple of years and shot tons of street photography and street portraiture.

It's essentially the only lens I used on my crop body camera. You made a great decision - it's a superb

lens.

 

If I had to do it all over again, I would not get the VC version...

<p>Thanks for all the input guys! I appreciate it!</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 without IS as well, and it is a great lens. Sure, FTM focus would have been nice, but I do not find the autofocus particular slow (it is a bit noisy though). From 17 to approx 24 mm, there is noticeable barrel distortion, but programs like Lightroom 3 will sort that out nicely. </p>

<p>VC is greatly overrated for this focal length range, in my opinion. I think you did the right thing.</p>

<p>I've had this lens for almost 3 years, it is excellent. The VC version doesn't test anywhere even close to the quality of the non VC version and my opinion is at this focal length you don't need it. I never had an issue with the lens and would buy it again in an instant. Put it on your camera and don't look back!</p>