w0m wrote in post #15435202
Oooh.. I didn't know that, I'll have to look into it. The Tokina *is* my favorite lens; and I was dreading losing f/2.8 on the wide end (wonderful @ museums and the like) but I like the added versatility. I'd consider a 17-40L or 16-35L; but the corner comparison to the Nikon 12-24 (and Canons long rumored 12-24 f/2.8) have me waiting before a big purchase...
You would still lose the f/2.8, the 1.4X adds a stop (it will be an f/4.0). Though on a full frame the f/4.0 will still almost seem like an f/2.8.
Moments Media wrote in post #15435317
I would consider selling/trading your 11-16 for a 17-40L. Phenomenal lens..especially when it comes to bang for buck.
I agree for a full frame the 17-40L is an awesome bang for a buck and a better lens on a FF camera than the 11-16+1.4X - that is why I got it. My suggestion is sort of as a temporary fix until a better (for FF) can be purchased.
I say "sort of" because that is what I was going to do. Get a 16-35L or 17-40L, then get rid of my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. When I got the 17-40L, I realized that sometimes shoot with two cameras and one is a crop, so I decided to keep the 10-20. But there was more.
Keep in mind on a FF with a 1.4Xit is a 14-28mm. The 14-16mm range is noticeably much wider than my 17-40L. I don't shoot that wide that often, so for right now it suffices for me. It also still auto-focuses. It has a little bit if vignetting at the native 10-11(12?)mm settings but I think it could be fixed post. I just pick a composition that minimizes the need to worry about cleaning it up.
For the OP the 11-16 with a 1.4X will still be wider than even a 16-35L as 15-22mm. And even though that is only 1mm, at that wide of an end 1mm makes a difference.
It also is worth saying that the effective focal length (I prefer the wording FOV) of my 10-20 with the 1.4X on FF (14-28mm) is wider than the effective FOV on the 10-20 alone on a crop (16-32mm).
Just some "food for thought."