Need night shooting advise. Do I take back Tamron 17-50 for IS?

[AberyClark]

I love the Tamron. I got it new for $409.00 (on sale). Great sharpness....good with low light. But...when I hand shoot some pics seems a bit on the blurry side...especially at night. Tripod is excllent sharpness. Maybe I'm just too shaky. We went to Washington Monument and I tried to get a decent night shot......either too blurry...or image was too dark. I played with exposures, ISO's etc. I really do not want to depend on IS if I don't have to. But...is this something I can fix with settings or technique? I'm sure many people can get this lens to make great night shots with no tripods. I have a rebel XTi. Now, there are a couple of options out there as well......I could go get the 17-55 with IS. I could keep the Tamron and go get the 17-85 with IS to supplement (which may be too redundant). I'm not impressed with what I've heard with about the 17-85.The 17-55 is a big step up in price. Please help!!

[poah]

use a tripod

[AberyClark]

No offense.......but that is sooo obvious. I wonder if IS would make that big of a difference at night?

[Mr. Clean]

If you're shooting still shots? Yes. Moving subjects? No. :D

[crn3371]

I have the 17-85 as my walkabout lens, and for static night shots, you can't beat IS. Easily good for 3 stops. The 17-55 would be my choice. Fast at 2.8, plus IS.

[Permagrin]

My son just bought the 17-50. I was so skeptical until I used it. It's a very nice sharp lens. However, IS can be instrumental in trickly lighting. Only you can know if it'll be worth it in the end. The 17-50 is an exceptional lens for it's price.

[poah]

I find hand holding, even with IS, to be faily difficult for longer than 2s

[hngu7721]

I was in the exact situation as you not too long ago; difficult time handholding even a fast lens to capture static objects. I've since traded for my Canon 17-85 IS USM and the ratio of keepers has increased substantially; once you go IS you never go back! Contrary to what has been posted about this lens, i've discovered the sharpness and contrast with the lens stepped down rivals that of my friends 17-40L (normal viewing of 8x10 prints). The added benefit of the very useable range also sealed the deal for me.

However, I've discovered that I do not capture static objects as often as moving/candid shots and now looking to switch back. I guess it pretty much comes down to what type of photos you take more often. In your case, I'd say go for the IS lens, it's going to fit your needs precisely