# Need advice on gear



## JoeKerslake (Nov 13, 2015)

Hi, I have some money to spend on gear, however not enough! So i need some advice on which bits of kit should take preference.

I have two options:

Canon 17-40 f/4 - This will cover a large hole in my focal length range, and is a very affordable stellar lens.

Or

105mm Polariser with adapter ring and extra filter holder + Little Stopper or similar.

Both come in around the same price, although I don't have money for both. What do you guys think?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2015)

Do not get the 17-40, save some more money and get the 16-35 f4 IS, it is dramatically better.


----------



## Click (Nov 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Do not get the 17-40, save some more money and get the 16-35 f4 IS, it is dramatically better.



+1


----------



## JoeKerslake (Nov 13, 2015)

Whilst that is the desirable solution, it puts the filters on my wish list even further out of the picture.


----------



## Tanispyre (Nov 13, 2015)

Why do you need such a large Polarizer? I find polarizers are often difficult to use on such wide angle lenses. Because of the wide perspective, the polarizer makes for very uneven skies. I actually prefer a graduated neutral density filter when I am shooting wide angle landscapes and want more detail in the sky. About the only time I use a polarizer, is for water shots on cloudy days to reduce reflections on the water.

Personally I would save up for the lens. The 16-35 F4 IS is a significantly sharper lens wide open than the 17-40, especially in the corners. Stopped down however, there isn't nearly as much difference, but if you can save a little more for the 16-35, it would say it is worth it.

If you really want those filters, you might look at getting the Rokinon 14mm as a cheap alternative to experiment with wide angle photography.


----------



## JoeKerslake (Nov 13, 2015)

The polariser is to fit on a filter kit (Lee/hitech/nisi). The majority of the landscapes I shoot are mainly around water, and rocky beaches which have ugly reflections on them.


----------



## sunnyVan (Nov 13, 2015)

Assuming that you don't have an ultrawide lens in your kit, the 17-40 is a great value lens. There is going to be a steep learning curve. Once you are comfortable with an ultrawide then upgrade to 16-35 f4. 

Polarizer is nice to have at some point, but i think having an ultrawide will expand your creativity more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> Assuming that you don't have an ultrawide lens in your kit, the 17-40 is a great value lens. There is going to be a steep learning curve. Once you are comfortable with an ultrawide then upgrade to 16-35 f4.
> 
> Polarizer is nice to have at some point, but i think having an ultrawide will expand your creativity more.



I disagree, you can 'learn' just as easily with the 16-35 as the 17-40 and save yourself the trouble and expense of trying to sell it to upgrade.


----------



## Halfrack (Nov 13, 2015)

Do you already have a filter kit of choice? How wide can you go with your current kit?

Honestly, don't purchase a 105mm CP just because - get it because a lens requires it. What in your bag will require a 105mm and will you ever need it away from the filter kit? May be better off doing a 4x4 Circular or Linear polarizer, as it won't require that 105mm adapter.


----------



## JoeKerslake (Nov 13, 2015)

I'm shooting on an APS-C body, using the 10-20mm as my widest lens. I get very minimal vignette at 16mm with the Lee kit.


----------



## Halfrack (Nov 13, 2015)

Where is the hole in your kit? Are you looking at the 17-40 to go wider than your current setup, or do you need a mid-range walk about lens?


----------



## JoeKerslake (Nov 13, 2015)

At the moment I have:

10-20mm Sigma (16-32mm)
50mm 1.8 (80mm)
70-200mm f/2.8 (112-320mm)

I see the gap between the sigma and nifty fifty as the biggest, particularly as an upgrade to FF one day will leave me with nothing below 50mm


----------



## Halfrack (Nov 13, 2015)

Easy answer - for now grab a used 17-55 2.8. If you want something that'll move to the FF, the 24-70/105 options are wide open, but as a crop body lens, there is nothing else like the 17-55. You'll want a better wide lens than the 17-40, and the 16-35s aren't giving the thing they're great at.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 13, 2015)

Halfrack said:


> Easy answer - for now grab a used 17-55 2.8. If you want something that'll move to the FF, the 24-70/105 options are wide open, but as a crop body lens, there is nothing else like the 17-55. You'll want a better wide lens than the 17-40, and the 16-35s aren't giving the thing they're great at.



+1, not a bad idea at all and the 17-55 is a stellar lens


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 13, 2015)

Get the 17-40L it's a fine lens for landscape photography. 
It's good to have a wide angle. You shots will be more interesting.
Yes the 16-35 F4 is better but not that much better that you'd notice dramatically.
It's a robust lens. 
People have a habit of running down particular lens here.
I know great photographers who take amazing photographs with kit lens because they are great photographers.
Poor photographers blame equipment too often.


----------

