tamron 17-50

[bootsy]

i'm looking to buy a tamron 17-50 lens.anyone know if the 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC is worth the extra money over the SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II VC Lens.i know that XR is a Special Glass for Better Performance as i've look on the tamron web site. but in the real world does it make much differences

 

[mastertrinity]

both are excellent lenses and the VC doesn't add much better IQ its just the old one with VC added, if it was me i would get the normal non VC version for much cheaper.

 

[evilonion]

well you have the normal one and the xr vc...
I would have thought the xr and vc would be worth the extra £70?

Unsure though, depends if you really need vc?
I guess if your planning on doing a lot of low light handheld work then the vc could come in useful... otherwise id save the £70 as the lens being 2.8 should be ample to keep the shutter speed high enough when using it in daylight or with a flash etc.

 

[Cuchulainn]

Can't say anything about the VC version as it's not made in Pentax mount, but the standard version is an excellent lens and, as people have pointed out, the f2.8 and a higer iso will mean that in this focal length range, you shouldn't need the VC too often.

 

[Dr_O]

The non-VC is much better- unless of course Tamron have sorted all the issues they incurred in creating the VC version.

 

[bootsy]

anyone used these lens with a 7D.What were the issues with the VC version