The 11-27.5mm lens has no image stabilization &amp; neither does the camera. Has this been much of problem for getting sharp/in focus pictures?
1329411
I bought this camera (and kit) as a present for my sister, but have used it on various occasions. The images are sharp, with beautiful saturated color. Unless the shutter speed drops below 1/60 I see no reason for problems with "camera shake". I'm a professional photographer and found this camera to be an excellent performer. Good luck.
1151739
Hi, thanks question. This lens does not have image stabilization. Those use the lens for Olympus compact digital camera would be lens. Thanks in advance.
1106124
I am lucky not to have this oil problem. I have tenth of thousands of shots and the only issue I have is from a cheap lenses I purchased (the old Nikon F1.8D which I traded in for $50, I know low price). On my last convention of 4 days, 3 nights, I just snapped through more than 6000 shots with a Tamron 24-70mm, F2.8 lenses.
1753356
No, this lens does not offer image stabilization. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030313panasonic7-14mm.asp
2137905
No, with the dx format(40mm x 1.5) it is equivalent to a 60mm (35mm film format); which is considered a normal focal length lens.The special thing about this is lens is that you can get real close up. It is super sharp and takes great close up portraits as well as allowing you to take close ups of flowers jewelry and the usual stuff you might like to look at up close.No image stabilization :( but a bright f2.8
871931
Sorry, I haven't had this problem. I think I remember it's best to focus from a normal angle to assure good focus zooming in. I presume you are also careful to center the image on the subject you want sharp. Ther might also be a setting to tell the camera how to handle close up shots. There may be levels orb types if selectivity possible. Depth of field is more critical in telephoto so it doesn't take much to throw it off. Sorry I don't have the camera or manual handy.
767374
Hi. I am in the exact same conundrum. I have been trying both and haven't really noticed a significant difference in performance. I felt like the Panasonic IS was very slightly better but I didn't test it very thoroughly. In the end, I use the in-built Olympus stabilizer simply because I often switch between this lens and the pancake. I guess you could try taking some shots in a low light setting both ways and then zoom in to compare the blurriness.
435055
I wouldn't be so worried about the image stabilization as I would about the overall auto focusing capabilities of this lens. For a new photographer and first time DSLR user, you might find that it's hard to take focused images, especially indoors. I am an experienced photographer and bought this lens to have an 'all-in-one' option for traveling, for times I didn't want to bring my entire gear bag out. The focus was so horrible I sold the lens to a pawn shop. I would highly recommend spending a bit more money and purchasing the Canon equivalent.
1619183
I found the auto focus of the X-S1 to be very unreliable, especially in video mode. I also found the image stabilization to be virtually non-existent. Both of there will result in blurry pics.
217288
Personally, I haven't had a problem with minor movement or taking a picture on the move, briefly stopping for the pic, and moving again. We just completed a trip to Europe, and the photos were fantastic. Sharp and clear. But I think it's up to you and how steady you think your hands are. Most new cameras today, like Sony, have image stabilization. But there is a point where stabilization and shaky become two different things.
1864050
I have not had any problems with the camera not taking the picture at all, however, focusing sometimes takes a relatively long time, especially when using the zoom. If I use the zoom in less than bright conditions, it sometimes takes a very long time to focus and shoot.
1481700
this lens does not have image stabilization. however, the canon 100mm f2.8l (make sure you're looking at the "L" series one) has great image stabilization. however, it's $1,000.00. :-(
662611
I have not had exposure issues but I have had focus issues. Not really issues, as much as just not being happy with the focal range at all, or the autofocus system. If you are shooting auto I can see you having problems as the auto systems just do not seem to be up to par compared to other platforms
479374
There are a number of things that could be happening. . . . is it blurry image, or camera shake. . . have you shot anything that is sharp. . . this is a very heavy lens and requires a bit of expertise to handle. . . . let's eliminate the obvious before jumping to conclusions about the lens. . . . my email address is bobglicksmith@me.com. . . send me an email and I'll be glad to setup a time to talk with you . . . . bgs.
163537
Yes. Focus is pretty good but I would recommend stabilizing it on a tripod & with manual focus for the sharpest possible images.
1406770
This lens is "UN-stabilized" if your camera does not have a built in stabilizer,you cannot use the lens and hold in it your hands too. Your camera must be mounted on a tripod and you must use remote switch or the timer button in order to take a shot. If you fail to do any of the above, all of your shots will be burred. I have one of these lenses and it totally sucks!
2240578
I have had the 17-85 for a couple months and i already want to upgrade.. i want to sell it. i want the 17-40 f4 really bad. i would say unless dont mind about pictures that lack somewhat sharpness i would go with the 17-40. the 17-85 is hard to use i think.. of course unless you want mine ide sell it to you :)