Tamron 17-50mm NON VC or vs 17-50mm VC?

I have a Nikon D90 and want to buy a tamron 17-50mm lens. So i'm confused which one should i go for Tamron 17-50mm NON VC or vs 17-50mm VC

I had the non VC version and do not think the VC version is worth the higher price.

In my opinion, the 17-50mm non-VC is the way to go.
VC isn't really necessarily at this focal length and the non-VC is a bit sharper:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=679&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I own one Tamron lens and I won't have another. It has focus and aberration issues and is not what it's cracked up to be. Then again it is about half the price of my favorite lens my Canon 28-200.

I had the same decision for my D300 and went with the non VC. I've read on several forums that the NonVC is actually sharper than the VC version.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx
http://forums.dpreview.com/...mm+vc&qf=m

As it is, I found the older model without the BIM (built-in motor) as it's quieter and focuses plenty fast on my D300.

Here's some shots, mostly taken with the older Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
http://www.sportspagemagazine.com/content/bb/mp-bb/gal-mp-bb/nba-sacramento-kings-97-v-oklahoma-city-thunder-99.shtml?45495

Don't listen to Jim he is right about many things but he is wrong about this one.

The Tamron SP 17-50 is really a great little lens. See the SP mark, what he owned must have been one of their cheaper lenses. Well. If you buy the cheapest car you don't get air-conditioning.

Right so far the stories go from most user experiences the non VC wins out. Less parts you see.
At 17-50mm VC also is not as needed don't get me wrong a Vibration Reduction on a lens is fun but 17-50 is still pretty wide in effect. And with F2, 8 on offer you know where we're going.

You can buy it with the VC or without if it is worth the extra money… That is up to you.

And to Jim, ah yes you have once bought one of the cheapest lenses Tamron makes, ever tried a cheap Canon? Those are not nice either are they!

For the price and quality = Non VC.

VC for this lense is just another marketing strategy for them to make some extra money. For the range of 50mm, you really don't need it plus the 2.8 feature helps the lens enough.

Agree with Jim, there are issues aberration issues with Tamron lenses, some of them. I would really go for the Nikon lens.

The Tamron SP 17-50 is really a great little lens. See the SP mark, what he owned must have been one of their cheaper lenses. Well. If you buy the cheapest car you don't get air-conditioning. At 17-50mm VC also is not as needed don't get me wrong a Vibration Reduction on a lens is fun but 17-50 is still pretty wide in effect. And with F2, 8 on offer you know where we're going.