Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR DI II - VC or no VC?

[ed_h.1]

<p>Hi Guys<br /> It took me awhile to decide how to categorize my question since it's also very related to lens quality, Wedding photography and lens technology. I lastly decided to categorize it on based on my status in photography - beginner.</p>

<p><strong>The Question</strong><br /> For those who hate reading long questions these are the main ones :)<br /> 1. Does experience and skill eliminate the need for image stabilizing technology assuming one is willing to devote time to practice?<br /> 2. Is it the difference between the 2 Tamron Lenses enough to pick 1 out of the 2 for better image quality? Or just go for VC since its always a plus and the difference in quality is not visible to the naked eye.</p>

<p><strong>Details</strong><br>

So here goes - My wife's a wedding planner. So I took on the habit of helping her take photo records of the wedding events she help manage. Are my photography requirements related to Weddings - yes, always. My skills - I'm sure you can image.<br /> I'm trying to decide which lens to suite me more, out of 2 from Tamron:<br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1">Tamron 17-5mm F2.8 DI II</a><br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=1">Tamron 17-5mm F2.8 DI II VC</a><br /> other reviews I reference to include <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=679&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">The-Digital-Picture</a> for ISO12233 crops</p>

<p>Firstly I picked Tamron because its a 'lesser' version of the more ideal (to me) Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens and therefore more affordable. Secondly, it may be the lesser competitor but it ain't bad either according the many reviews I've read through. Thirdly, I feel its a waste for someone like me without enough skill to use nice and expensive lenses. Hopefully I'll be worthy of using even better lenses someday.</p>

<p>Here's the catch, after comparing the VC and NON-VC version of them sets from Tamron, it appears clear to me the NON-VC really does have better optical quality than the VC one - but VC is VC. Here are the major factors that concern me:<br /> 1. Huge difference in terms of Sharpness between Center and Border for the VC version across all Focal Lengths. I.E. It's center sharpness even beats canon's at many focal length and/or apertures (according to data from <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=1">photozone</a> but its ALL border and extreme is worse than the cheaper NON-VC and we can forget about Canon.<br /> 2. ISO12233 crops show generally softer results on the VC, Chromatic Abberation is also more obvious<br /> 3. Less Vignetting in the NON-VC than the VC.</p>

<p>Hence what I mean by better optical quality of the NON-VC over the newer VC lens. Some of you probably have an even better idea of why its better (or not?).</p>

<p><strong>Current Gear and Workspace</strong><br /> I have a free-shaky Takara tripod and a Canon 550D/Rebel T2i casual DSLR w/ Kit lens and a Canon 50mm f1.8 plastic lens. Not planning on buying a new tripod - yet. But what I do plan to buy together with a new lens is a E8 battery grip, I take people often and portraits always my first choice. Finally a 430EX II flash. Still wondering about what kind of bouncer/diffuser.</p>

<p>I'm very very pick in terms of composition so even if I'm not doing a real wedding photographer's job, I always try my best to take good pictures with creative compositions, following principles and such...it's a serious hobby for me and yes I know my gears are real beginner-toys but for me it's a start :P</p>

<p>I always need to walk around, rarely have time to setup tripods and prefer people-doing-what-they-do pictures, I don't often take look-here-and-smile ones, to me it's not natural enough. I always try to stay out of the way of the hired photography guys with the real big <strong>L </strong>guns (gosh they always make me feel puny). Hence you can image what time of situations I often face when taking pictures. Does experience and skill eliminate the need for image stabilizing technology assuming one is willing to devote time to practice? Is it the difference between the 2 Tamron Lenses enough to pick 1 out of the 2 for better image quality? Or just go for VC since its always a plus and the difference in quality is not visible to the naked eye.</p>

<p>It's a pain, to consciously make inexperienced decisions. I need some opinion guys - HELP~!</p>

<p> </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>1. Does experience and skill eliminate the need for image stabilizing technology assuming one is willing to devote time to practice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Technique and practice help, but I've known some very experienced and talented photographers who were not able to make their hands steady.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>2. Is it the difference between the 2 Tamron Lenses enough to pick 1 out of the 2 for better image quality? Or just go for VC since its always a plus and the difference in quality is not visible to the naked eye.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have to decide. Remember that VC doesn't help with subject movement. If you will be shooting moving subjects, so that you will need relatively high shutter speeds anyway, or if you will often be shooting with a tripod, the non-VC version makes more sense. (It's cheaper.) If you will always be shooting hand-held, get the VC version. BTW, I am quite happy with the non-VC version, purchased before the VC version came out.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>If you have the 18-55IS try turning off the IS and see if it makes a difference. It didn't for me at that focal range and low shutter speeds so I went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc - it's a very sharp lens at f2.8, you can get them $300 - $350 used</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_j2]

<p>I have IS on a couple of lenses that are both 100mm or over. I wouldn't have them any other way!</p>

<p>But, when I purchased my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 the VC version was not yet in production. I purchased it used and haven't looked back! I'm extremely happy with it.</p>

<p>In my opinion, IS is a valuable attribute on longer focal length lenses when hand holding, but not so much on fast, shorter lenses where good holding technique and adequate shutter speeds can easily be obtained.</p>

<p>I"d say get the non VC version, . . . I don't think you'll miss anything!</p>

[ed_h.1]

<p>@Hector<br>

Thanks! Your comment clears up a lot of my doubts. I've been wondering if super steady hands were a must have for non IS users who don't use tripods, since plenty of L lenses there aren't for telephoto don't come with IS - I mean, they MUST need to move around with it some time, so somehow they managed</p>

<p>@Brett<br>

Yup I've also thought about that you said about how within such a focal range that IS wouldn't be that much of a big difference anways, nice of you to confirm this, thanks!</p>

<p>@James<br>

Alrighty, non VC is it then. I can understand how it ultimately ends up with personal techniques then preferences, plus there's always a first step in trying, this will be mine<br>

I'll just need to work on a steady set of hands. saying of which I'm hoping the extra weight from the battery grip not only ease my portrait taking but also add to the stablility of the body when i press the shutter during handheld shots - much like a heavier mouse for a gamer who needs accuracy and doesn't have a set of fingers with ninja touch agility....I wonder this thought makes any sense?</p>