How badly is 'vibration control' needed?

I'm soon buying a Canon or Nikon full frame. I like the Canon & Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses, but they have no vibration control. Tamron's similar lens does have 'VR', but glass is said to be not as good, and image quality is important to me.
I do mostly candid, hand held shots, have a 'steady' hand, but need advice. Would it be smart to invest in a Canon or Nikon lens for my purpose, or would hand held be risky out at 70mm zoom?
Thanks

Most if not all lens manufacturers provide some lenses with vibration dampening abilities but they might call it different things. Canon lenses with image stabilization are designated IS. I believe Nikon tags theirs VR. Whether or not you need image stabilization depends on your steadiness, the lens focal length, and your shutter speed among other things. Image stabilization does come in handy with a long lens and makes a difference when shooting handheld. Manufacturers are now adding image stabilization to wide angel lenses so you may see fewer and fewer lenses without some form of lens stabilization in the future.

It is important if you are wanting to use a shutter speed so slow that your image would have camera shake. If you are doing candids (so moving people) you aren't likely to want a shutter speed that slow. If you are doing still photography it can be very badly needed. At 70mm, with a steady hand even 1/100 (which is going to have some subject movement if they aren't trying to be still) is fast enough to make IS unnecessary.

That's my opinion on the matter. I have one IS lens and it's what came in the 70D kit and I've found it only useful when doing hand held video.

Providing that your shutter speed is high enough, camera shake shouldn't be a problem. For example, a shutter speed of 1/30th sec or higher would be ok at 24mm, but you might have to aim for 1/80th sec or higher at 70mm to avoid any shake. Some people can handhold a camera at very low shutter speeds & still get good clear shots.

You'll be fine in almost all applications with a 24-70 f2.8 on current full-frame. If you do end up taking photos in darker environments, you might be better off with a prime in those instances.

You don't need Image Stabilisation, it's good to have, but you don't need it.

'Need' is relative. I have proven in the past on POTN with photos that even with a very wide angle like 17mm on APS-C, it is possible to hand hold as slow as about 1/6 without visible degredation due to camera shake. So IS/VC is not merely 'for telephoto'!
Unfortunately the AMASS Search tool does not yield results for posts created in the prior incarnation of POTN, so I cannot find the prior link.

Here is the illustration that was previously used. One row of shots is without IS, the other row is with IS. At the left is 1/25, then 1/12, then 1/6, lastly on the right is 1/3 shutter speed

I feel a bit foolish here, for I just realized I can try my Canon 2.8, 17-55, and F4 L series 70-200, with IS off, and see how I do!
After reading the advice, I'd probably buy the brand lens anyway because of better glass.
Thanks

Also, with a FF, you can crank the ISOs up without fear of bad noise and achieve higher shutter speeds that way

If I'm taking a very low light pic of something still, I will use a tripod.

If I'm taking a pic of a live subject I will need a relatively fast SS anyway.

The last two lenses I've bought (sigma 35A and tokina 16-28) don't have IS/VC and frankly wasn't even a consideration in my purchase. I need a 50 prime and feel the same with it. Ditto my 85.

I do really like it with the 70-200 though. I'm often at 150-200mm and 1/125-1/200 SS. While that is technically okay, I'm certain many shots have been saved because of IS.

I'm sure that image stabilization has 'saved' more than a few pictures for me.

However, at this point I have a high-ISO capable camera with little noise and 3 of my 4 lenses (all Canon Ls) do not have IS. So, I've learned to shoot with higher shutter speeds in low light, but more to 'stop action' of the church choir, or various individuals at church events.

Yes, I'd like to have IS on all my lenses, as I've learned growing old (I'm Medicare age), my hands aren't as steady as they were in the film-shooting days of my 20s and 30s. I regularly lean against the wall or use a monopod for extra camera stability when I need to shoot with a shutter speed slower than 1/160th.

trailguy wrote in post #17361157
I feel a bit foolish here, for I just realized I can try my Canon 2.8, 17-55, and F4 L series 70-200, with IS off, and see how I do!
After reading the advice, I'd probably buy the brand lens anyway because of better glass.
Thanks

This one is an urban legend / wrong believing !
Just to compare the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 here (mouse over the picture to see the Tamron) >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

And this Tamron has by far, very-very far, better glasses than your Canon 2.8 17-55 when i am looking here >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Just my 2 cents

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17361763
This one is an urban legend / wrong believing !
And this Tamron has by far, very-very far, better glasses than your Canon 2.8 17-55 when i am looking here >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Just my 2 cents

You do realise this comparison has a 50D with the EF-S 17-55 lens and a 1DS III with the Tamron? Might be more useful comparing the Canon 24-70 f/2.8II instead on the same camera format, link.

TerminalCity wrote in post #17361775
You do realise this comparison has a 50D with the EF-S 17-55 lens and a 1DS III with the Tamron? Might be more useful comparing the Canon 24-70 f/2.8II instead on the same camera format, link.

The sensor have nothing to do here specially with this big difference of quality !
just stop down the test by 2 stop (like f/5.6) and you will see the quality of the picture increasing, becoming more sharp and equaling the other lens in the center, so it come from the lens not from the sensor !

Interesting also how you forget to mention that the 1st test is made with the D3x for the Nikkor ... where the Tamron, again, is better ...

Now comparing with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, my bad, in fact i was giving my 2 cents, ( so now it will be 3 cents ... )
And Tamron looks better at wide angle, less on telephoto ... a duce in quality ? but Tamron is half priced and have stabilization >
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17361805
The sensor have nothing to do here specially with this big difference of quality !

Unfortunately this statement is untrue. The same lens on FF and APS-C, both with 15MPixel sensors, will result in greater total lines of detail in the image with the larger sensor. Photozone.de has tests results of Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens that shows this!