New Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC Lens...Why?

Started Sep 2, 2009 | Discussions thread
dumbo Veteran Member • Posts: 3,965
Re: New Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC Lens...Why?

Du you mean that this image is an example of you good one ca manage w/o VR/VC?

1/800 f/3.2, ISO360, that's pretty darn bright.

With the 18-55VR I can manage to get resonably sharp photos with a pretty high keeper ratio down to 1 second at 18mm. W/o VR I can manage 1/5 with the same quality/keeper ratio. With no VR I would have had to use an aperture of f/0.65. Well... The slection of lenses with such apertures are indeed very limited. Also pretty much nothing would have been within DOF.

There is always a limit for how high you can set the ISO or how wide an aperture you can use/select and there is always a limit for how slow shutter speeds you can handhold and VR pushes that limt.

With my shooting style I don't use VR very much, in fact I don't normally have any VR lenses in my camera bag (my girlfriend uses the 18-55VR most of the time, even if I own it), but there are indeed situations where the VR is/would be of help.

Just because YOU see no need with YOUR shooting style that doesn't mean that no one else have the need or find it useful.

hflavo wrote:

I have had no problem catching waning light using my plain old Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and if that isn't sufficient there is always the 35/1.8 or 50/1.4.

Again, I question the need for VR, especially on a short focal length, reasonably fast lens, and especially now that we have cameras with good high iso performance.
69 years and lovin it!

A couple of NIkon bodies | All the glass I need| Manfrotto pods and clamp system| Enough software to still be only half-way up the learning curve

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow