I have a Tamron 10-24 wide angle and a Tamron 28-300 for my D90. Both have served me well. My wife and I travel a good bit. Should I consider adding a 17-50 lens to my gear as a walking around lens and, if so, VC or non-VC version? Thanks in advance for your replies Ithaca
I have a Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and find it quite capable for walking around. The constant 2.8 can be nice to have at times. If I'm going outside during the day, though, I'm more inclined to take the Nikkor 18-70 and the 70-300 as my lens kit. Inside, though, I would certainly want to use the 17-50 if I thought I needed a zoom. It's definitely a nice size. I don't do the sort of photography that would necessitate the VC feature. The D90's high-iso ability usually does the heavy lifting in the low light shooting I do.
I see an 18-55 listed in your profile. How much do you use it? If the answer is not much, the question is what leads you to believe that a 17-50 would see more use? If you use the 18-55 a lot, then a 17-50 might become a favourite.
On the VC question, I've become a fan of stabilized lenses. On DX bodies, you really should be aiming for shutter speed = 2x focal length to guarantee decent sharpness with an unstabilized lens (so 1/100s for a 50mm lens, for example). Adding VC allows you to go slower, which helps a lot when the light drops. It doesn't really matter at the wide end, but it does make a difference at the long end, even when "long" is only 50mm.
Thank you, Gary. Your comment about the 18-55 that came with the D50 I bought several years ago set me to thinking. Have been working with that the last few days and find it quite suitable for my upcoming needs, so will stay with that. Thanks for reminding me that I had my answer all along. Ithaca
I have the Tamron 17-50, first edition. According to Thom Hogan, this one should be quite some sharper than the newer version.
To VC or not, I guess it depends on what you're shooting; usually I have humans or pets in my low light shots, so VC dont help me much, as they often manage to move around within the open shutter. Also, I'm still on a D80, so when light is that low, I get grainy pics.
But 2,8 got another advantage, namely a thinner DOF, allowing one to have for instance one person sharp, and the other in the background unsharp. This opens up a new arrayof creativity.
I have the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. As much as I love that lens for a general walk around lens I often use the Nikon 16-85mm, its smaller, lighter and has more zoom range (and lower cost). Its highly regarded, you may want to give it a look for all around snap shooting (when f2.8 is not a must).