Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have seen many threads about these lenses being loud. On every one there is always one or more guys who claim their copy is silent. I have been through two copies now and both show similar noises and neither would I consider anything close to silent. So either all these people with silent copies are partially deaf, or Zeiss quality control is really bad.

In comparison, my Sony 24-105 f4 exhibits no such noises when subjected to the same test.

So please tell me, how do I determine if my copies are normal?

And if they are both normal, why does Sony put out a lens that is so loud that it cannot function in video mode without leaving audible noises behind?

Thank you!

Video begins at f22, makes passes with both AF-C and manually pressing the AF button, then switches to f1.8 and repeats the process. The noise is present at both apertures. (If you can't hear it you probably need headphones or better speakers.) Sorry for the background noise, this was the quietest place I could find that maximizes the noise.

Here is a better real world example, shot in better light. The whole thing is at 1.8. You can still clearly hear the lens focusing after each pan.

 

Edited by cds333
add stuff
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Try setting the AF drive speed to slow. Tab 2 video settings, page 2. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...