CommanderMAD

jonikon: I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.

Mark Forman: http://www.ceehere.com/Airplanes/Warbirds/Oshkosh2008HD2Star/5865310_MBXRcR#364226306_uEX2o

I shot this in 2008 for EAA Warbirds magazine.

Aviation Photography is not shot with a basic set of rules except when it comes to safety.
For instance getting a sharp image at high shutter speeds is more important than blurring the prop.
Enjoy my galleries.
Mark Forman
Mark Forman Productions, Corp.
http://www.screeningroom.com
http://www.ceehere.com

kelav: Nice article, thanks for that.
I can see the photograph of L-39 Albatros in the article. This Czech origin aircraft has typical Czech camouflage, but there's something more, a Russian five-pointed star on tail and wings. It's so funny. This aircraft has never been used in the Russian army. It looks like the aircraft has been bought by some rich American... and he's thinking that the Czech Republic is a part of "Russian Empire". It's like I say... USA is a part of Mexico, or even part of Canada :-) The same stupidity like Czech L-39 with Russian stars :-)