Choice between Tamron 17-50 VC or nob-VC

<p>I have read reviews that say the VC version of this lens is less sharp than the previous VC version. Any opinions on either lens and whether VC is worth it?<br>

I have a Canon 50D</p>

<p>Thanks, </p>

<p>Save yourself some money and extra weight. Get the non VC version. VC/IS is not so important at those focal lengths. Some people think the VC on that lens is clunky. <br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/17-50mm-f28-vc.htm</p>

 

<p>Thanks.<br>

Tamron or Canon? I can't see that the Canon is that much better at twice the price. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC), I love the lens. I use it professionally (weddings and portraits). It works fine, and is sharp. Only advantage the Canon has is the Auto focus speed (USM motor). But honestly I also have the Canon 15-85mm USM, yes the autofocus is smoother and quieter, but I'm not sure it's that much faster. The Tamron can keep up at a wedding... I have no regrets saving the extra $500-600, and putting that towards another lens ... and/or even a flash</p>

<p>Just to add to your quagmire ;-) I strongly suggest you also consider also the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS lens. I have seen a number of reviews that place it just about equal to the Canon 17-55 lens, optically. It also has Optical Stabilisation (hence the OS designation).</p>

<p>Food for thought...</p>

<p>Another big fan of the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC). I have the Nikon version, and it pretty much stays on my D300 most of the time. Lightweight, and I was pleasantly surprised at its image quality.</p>

<p> Even though there is a bit of improved <em>absolute</em> IQ from the non-VC version, whether or not you'll realize that upper limit (or even ever notice the difference) is largely dependent on a) what/how/where you shoot, and b) what your output is.</p>

<p>If you only ever upload pics to the web, you'll never see the difference in IQ, but you'll sure notice when your pics are blurry (vs. the less blurry ones from a VC lens)<br>

If you spend a lot of time in dark/limited light situations shooting handheld and of static subjects, you certainly will appreciate the VC version.</p>

<p>OTOH, if you plan on printing full size pictures (larger than 8x10) you'll probably see the difference marginally between the two, and want the non-VC unit.</p>

<p>Paul, though I have neither of these lenses nor have I worked with one, I do admit that I am also looking at what's out there... Here's part of what photozone.de has to say: ...<em>"However, when considering all aspects the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC only makes sense if both speed and stabilization are required in a single lens. If VC is not high on your priority list, the still available non-VC variant gives better results at a lower price."</em>...<br>

Worth a thought.</p>

 

<p>Paul,<br>

I have the non-VC version myself, and I tend to agree that the VC is not so important on focal length's less than 50mm for most.<br>

So save the weight and a few dollars!<br>

Best wishes in your decision!<br>

Jim j.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>VC/IS is not so important at those focal lengths</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I respectfully disagree. I have the 17-55/2.8 IS for about 5 years and at times, <a href="00U0Ug">IS enabled me to make shots which would be impossible without IS</a>. BTW, the 17-55/2.8 IS is nothing short of superb. YGWYPF. </p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p> </p>