Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 NON-VC , worth buying?

[nathfromslg]

Hi,
I was thinking on buying one,NON VC version.

Is it worth investing, will use it mainly for taking portraits,wedding.

how is the sharpness at 2.8 throughout the focal length?

 

[Braineack]

My 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC both are still pretty darn sharp at 2.8. That's about all I can tell you.

 

[nathfromslg]

any comment regarding this video?

 

[pixmedic]

I have the tamron 17-50, 28-75, and 70-200 all non-VC and every one of them has been a great performing lens.
they are all very sharp, and i have not had any issues at all with any of them.

 

[Braineack]

any comment regarding this video?

the slowest he shot at was 1/200, VC allows for hand holding 3-4 extra stops. So really he should have kept going slower until the VC was still sharp at a particular shutter speed and the non-VC couldn't keep up.

 

[jaomul]

I have 17-50 on Nikon and am happy. I had same Lens for Canon and also was happy with it

 

[nathfromslg]

any comment regarding this video?

the slowest he shot at was 1/200, VC allows for hand holding 3-4 extra stops. So really he should have kept going slower until the VC was still sharp at a particular shutter speed and the non-VC couldn't keep up.

Still I cant afford VC version,maybe dont need it.

I have the tamron 17-50, 28-75, and 70-200 all non-VC and every one of them has been a great performing lens.
they are all very sharp, and i have not had any issues at all with any of them.

Thanks for youre reply,any pointer while buying this lens? how to check its sharpness and other factors?will be buying without bill and warranty

I have 17-50 on Nikon and am happy. I had same Lens for Canon and also was happy with it

Wish I also will have same experience with it.

 

[Derrel]

The 17-50 is often said to be a better lens optically than the newer VC model. Roger at Lensrentals.com lists getting rid of all their 17-50 NON-VC lenses as one of the biggest mistakes he's ever made there...