full frame lens equal to tokina 11-16?

im looking to purchase the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for my t2i in the next couple of months. but thought of the question, what if i want to upgrade to full frame in the next couple of years. is there a lens equivalent to the tokina in full frame, around the same price range? i looked but could not find, or did i just miss it.

The nearest thing would seem to be Tokina's 16-28/2.8. The nearest Canon equivalent is the 16-35/2.8L, but that's quite a bit more expensive.

First thing that comes to mind is the 16-35 f/2.8L II. The problem with that is obviously the price.

my problem is, i deffinatly want a better wide angle then the kit lens and its not 100 positive im going to go full frame. so i will probably stick with the 11-16 and hey the 7d aint that bad lol

I switched from an 11-16 on 40D to a 17-40 on a 5D. Didn't miss anything in that really.

Canon11385 wrote in post #15154224
im looking to purchase the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for my t2i in the next couple of months. but thought of the question, what if i want to upgrade to full frame in the next couple of years. is there a lens equivalent to the tokina in full frame, around the same price range? i looked but could not find, or did i just miss it.

the 11-16 will still actually work on a full frame camera, but you'll see the lens in the corners of the shot at anything under 16mm. at 16mm it will look fine.

Forget about compromising on a purchase now because someday, maybe, you might get a full frame camera. If and when that ever happens, you can sell the crop lens and replace it with a FF compatible ultrawide. Trying to get an UWA now that will serve on both crop and - maybe, some day, perhaps - a full frame camera will cost you a lot more, plus it will be bigger, heavier and either won't go nearly as wide or will compromise a bit on image qualities.

So I'd suggest you just get the ultraside lens you need for the camera you have now and start enjoying it. The Tokina 11-16/2.8 you're considering is a decent lens, but is just one of a bunch of possible UWA choices. Have you looked at them all?

The 11-16 is the only f2.8 lens among the ultrawide offerings, but the trade-off to get the bigger aperture is a very narrow range of focal lengths, higher price than some other lenses and more susceptibility to flare (which is more likely to be an issue with an ultrawide than other lenses). In truth, it's actually pretty rare for most people to need f2.8 on an ultrawide. You won't find it very useful for shallow depth of field purposes... It's hard to get very much background blur with an ultrawide. Most of the time we do just the opposite and actually end up stopping UWA lenses down for more depth of field.

The Toki 11-16 is sharp and a well made lens. And it's cheaper than the Canon (which doesn't feel as well built). But you might also want to consider the Tokina 12-24/4, which is about $100 cheaper than the 11-16 and similar build, image quality and much more resistant to flare issues.

Just a side note... the Toki 12-14 actually can be used on a full frame camera. I have a 12-24 personally and have tested it on my 5D Mark II, though I mostly use the zoom on crop cameras. On FF can be zoomed as wide as 18 or 19mm before it starts to vignette significantly and, at least at this setting, the rear elements don't interfere with the camera's mirror. There is more distortion than some other lenses. The EF 20/2.8 that I usually use as my widest FF lens certainly is better corrected for wide angle distortions. Still, it's usable on FF. I understand the Toki 11-16mm is usable too, but only at 16mm. And I've seen Canon 10-22 modified to be used on FF too, but they seemed to have pretty strong vignetting. I don't know about the other lenses, maybe someone else has tested them.

Speaking of the Canon 10-22, it is easily one of the best of all the UWA when it comes to flare and image quality. In fact, it's unusually good resisting flare. It's also got the better USM focus drive (some of the Sigma have similar HSM), which with many other types of lenses (standards, teles, macro) is a pretty desirable feature for speed and accuracy. But this really isn't a very big deal with an ultrawide that only needs to move its focus group a little to achieve focus. The inherently deep depth of field of any ultrawide tends to cover any minor focus error, too. So lenses with "lesser" focus drives are plenty quick focusing and more than accurate enough, even without USM-type drive. Some find the Canon a bit plasticky... It's their mid-grade build quality that's considerably better than kit lenses, but definitely not L-series build. Most of the third party lenses seem better built... But in use the Canon seem to be plenty durable. The Canon is one of the most expensive among the UWA zooms.

Sigma offers three crop UWA and one full frame. Their 8-16mm is the widest of the wide. It's pretty cool, but also has fairly strong distortions (inevitable with such an ultra, ultrawide). Can't use a filter on the front of it (domed front element) and it ain't cheap. Sigma offers a low cost 10-20 with a variable aperture (f4 to f5.6, if memory serves) and a more expensive 10-20 with a non-variable f3.5 aperture. Finally, they also offer a 12-24 (variable aperture) that's actually a full frame lens... it's the widest available full frame lens, in fact (other than a fisheye). The Siggy 12-24 comes with pretty heavy distortion (as might be expected) and a fairly high price tag.

Finally, Tamron offers a comparatively affordable 10-24mm. It's the widest range of focal lengths in a single UWA zoom. It's been years since I used one, but many folks report they think it's a little bit soft at the 24mm end of the focal length range.

There are fisheye lenses, both zooms and primes, but they have really strong distortion effects. There are also a couple ultrawide primes, but they tend to be expensive and are made for full frame, so aren't as wide as the zooms listed above. Personally I am considering getting an ultra, ultrawide for use on my 5DII... but as little as I need a lens like that, it will probably be the affordable Rokinon/Samyang 14mm (manual focus and manual aperture) and not the uber expensive Canon 14mm or Zeiss 15mm.

amfoto, you forgot one little Siggy gem...the 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 I picked one of these up recently and have had great results with it. I'll be happy to post some edited ones later if anyone cares but for $300, its a great little lens (well, its not that little actually, about like a 24-105). It doesn't technically take a filter but you can screw one onto the "hood" at 82mm if you want. With a filter attached that way, it'll vignette on FF, okay on a crop though from what I've heard. With no filter, you have no vignette at all o FF> I may still go back to the 17-40 since I just love that lens, like the constant aperture, and don't need 15mm but for only $300, I would strongly suggest at least giving the 15-30 a look.

I've had the 15-30, then 17-40, then 17-35 and now 16-35 II All are good lenses, the 16-35 II, as one might expect is superior. Although its hard to find a lens sharper than the 17-40 stopped down to 5.6 or 8 for outdoors.

I tried three different 11-16s on a 7D, could not find one that reliably focused. Then I sold the 7D so there was no need to keep looking.

I use the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 on my 5D all the time. You can use it perfectly at 15mm and at 16mm. At about 14.5mm you start seeing the corners.

I'd say 17-40mm. Due to the larger sensor, you won't loose anything in term of dof control or low light capability.