# Using the 24-70 II for documentary wedding photography - my review



## Mark Carey (Sep 28, 2012)

I have been using this lens for a few weeks now and I have published some of my thoughts here - not very technical but will show my hands-on experiences shooting an entire documentary wedding with it are: 
http://www.markcareyphotography.com/2012/jo-and-karim-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-usm-l-review/

Thank you for reading.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 29, 2012)

Love the BW exposures... Kudos!


----------



## PavelR (Sep 29, 2012)

24-70 at 70 @ 2.8 is better than 85/1.8 @ 2.8?
BTW: nice review and pictures ;-)


----------



## brianleighty (Sep 29, 2012)

Nice pics. You mentioned that you use the 35 2.0 as a travel lens. I thought that was interesting. I currently have the 35 2.0 and have been contemplating if I should sell it or my 50 1.8 to buy the 40 2.8. I would think if you were looking for a real compact travel lens that would be a better option.


----------



## sleepnever (Sep 29, 2012)

403 forbidden for anyone else?


----------



## jVillaPhoto (Sep 29, 2012)

Same, forbidden :/


----------



## DanoPhoto (Sep 29, 2012)

Just got the same message...verboten!


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 29, 2012)

I just sent Mark a PM about the web site's error message. I'm eager to read his review.


----------



## Tammy (Sep 29, 2012)

maybe it can't handle all the traffic from those of us interested in this lens! 

B&H is shipping mine on Sunday!


----------



## robbymack (Sep 29, 2012)

Rented one myself this weekend for use on the 5diii. First few hours I can say I'm impressed. Nothing but family shots planned this weekend, which I would generally just stick to something light like a 50 1.8 or 35 f2, so far I have to say I like it. I've never been a fan of any of the upgrades from the nifty 50 as neither then 1.4 or 1.2L blow me away. Additionally i never thought I'd get enough use out of a 35 L, or 24 L so as a replacement to a couple of serious L primes it may in fact be cost reasonable. I can say the bokeh is very creamy at 2.8, and at least my current copy seems tack sharp. My computer is stuck at the apple store for repairs so it maybe be a few days before I can see full sized shots, but I can honestly say I'm seriously debating this lens as a my next purchase.


----------



## Tammy (Sep 29, 2012)

robbymack said:


> Rented one myself this weekend for use on the 5diii. First few hours I can say I'm impressed. Nothing but family shots planned this weekend, which I would generally just stick to something light like a 50 1.8 or 35 f2, so far I have to say I like it. I've never been a fan of any of the upgrades from the nifty 50 as neither then 1.4 or 1.2L blow me away. Additionally i never thought I'd get enough use out of a 35 L, or 24 L so as a replacement to a couple of serious L primes it may in fact be cost reasonable. I can say the bokeh is very creamy at 2.8, and at least my current copy seems tack sharp. My computer is stuck at the apple store for repairs so it maybe be a few days before I can see full sized shots, but I can honestly say I'm seriously debating this lens as a my next purchase.



If you have any, you should shoot on an SD card and stick it into an HDTV to view!


----------



## robbymack (Sep 29, 2012)

Good point I should go dig out my av cable


----------



## AprilForever (Sep 29, 2012)

Still 403. Please fix. Thanks!  I look forward to the review!


----------



## Promature (Sep 29, 2012)

I was able to view the link earlier, really nice pictures. Getting the 403 error now though.

To be honest though, I think there are too many B&W photos for my taste. One or two is good, but >50% is a little much, but that's just a personal preference. The B&W also accentuates the blown highlights.


----------



## stringfellow1946 (Sep 29, 2012)

?????


----------



## Mark Carey (Sep 29, 2012)

Hello everyone. Im off to shoot a wedding today but got an email to tell me my server has gone down as they see such a spike in traffic. I'm hopping it will be up and running later today!

best wishes

Mark


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 29, 2012)

Mark Carey said:


> I have been using this lens for a few weeks now and I have published some of my thoughts here - not very technical but will show my hands-on experiences shooting an entire documentary wedding with it are:
> http://www.markcareyphotography.com/2012/jo-and-karim-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-usm-l-review/
> 
> Thank you for reading.



Nice black and whites. Whatever you use it looks fab.


----------



## Mark Carey (Sep 29, 2012)

The site is back up and running again now!


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 29, 2012)

Great! Thank you for the review! Very interesting to read your review of this lens as I have much the same needs from it. Very good point about "appropriate" depth of field too.


----------



## Mark Carey (Oct 3, 2012)

Thanks Zlatko, glad you got though in the end. I hope you get to use this on a wedding. When things are happening fast and furious, this is the lend you need. It was a long time coming this lens. Nikon have had such a brilliant 24-70 out there for so long, Canon really needed to catch up and now I think it has.


cheers

Mark


----------



## drjlo (Oct 5, 2012)

"What Id really like though is a 24-85mm F1.4 that weighs less and has image stabilisation — I wont hold my breath though."

Couldn't agree more


----------



## brianleighty (Oct 5, 2012)

drjlo said:


> "What Id really like though is a 24-85mm F1.4 that weighs less and has image stabilisation — I wont hold my breath though."
> 
> Couldn't agree more


Well theoretically, I think that might be possible, but you forgot one thing in there that makes it impossible. Image quality. The greater the aperture the more you need extra elements to deal with all the issues caused by it. Plus bigger aperture requires bigger glass. Thus bigger elements * More elements = Greater weight. In this case (24-85 1.4) I don't even know if it's possible but if it was it would so heavy you couldn't carry it. Now if you said, forget image quality we'll just have say 4-6 big glass elements to meet the aperture objective and not worry about correcting for anything. But hey it's a 24-85 1.4. Who else has one of those? Yet nobody would buy it. Oh and even though it might be advertised as 1.4 aperture it's T-stop would probably be more like t3.8 or something since in order to save on cost they wouldn't coat the elements to prevent light loss in each element. Wanna buy one? I always see signs at a auto repair shops that say you can only have two cheap, fast, high quality. In photography I think you could say light, cheap, and big aperture. I'm not sure if cheap and big aperture so well but you get the point. Bigger aperture means more money. There's no getting around that.


----------

