[aleras]

Hey Klaus, thanks; to be clear: I am referring to same lighting conditions, same shutter speeds etc, but one pic taken with VC enabled, one with VC disabled. Purposefully I did some hand held sample shots a while ago, under "field conditions" without any tripod, two shots in a row, one with VC disabled, one with VC enabled, have a look if you have a spare minute.

 

The "ohneVC" have VC disabled, the "mitVC" have VC enabled. I'm not a pixel peeper, but at 100% it seems the "ohneVC" shots are a bit sharper, with more contrast. E.g. look at the black fluff/dirt on the knob to the most right on the Lego brick - it is more contrasty/sharper without VC. I also noticed the same with any other shot e.g. portraits outside - they seem to be that little bit sharper once VC is disabled.

 

Now that I probably have amused the general public talking about fluff on my Lego brick ... I am thinking that VC might add a slight unsharpness into the mix due to it's very nature of operation? I know that the non-VC version of the lens is generally considered having a better sharpness, so it would be interesting to see how this (or any Tamron VC lens) compares with VC disabled vs their non-VC variants?

 

(The pics are control JPGs out of my Canon, slightly reduced in size so I could upload them here)

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]