amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Except that the Tokina 11-16mm is not a full frame lens, like the original poster is seeking. (Same with Tokina 11-20mm, 12-28mm & 12-24mm.... all are "DX/crop" lenses.)

There also is no such thing as a Canon 12-24mm f/2.8. There are Sigma 12-24mm f/4 and a Canon 11-24mm f/4L (see below).

Fisheye lenses (such as Canon's 8-15mm or their earlier 15mm prime) are NOT a good idea for the purposes stated. Fisheye are highly specialized due to their very strong distortion effects.

******************************************

Based on what's wanted (ultrawide for full frame for travel and especially city street shots), there are currently nine possible zooms:

Canon 11-24mm f/4L USM... the widest of all non-fisheye, but also the most expensive at $2700 and one of the heaviest at nearly 1200 grams. Also cannot be used with standard filters due to convex front element.

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM... took three tries, but they finally got it right! Great image quality, but also fairly pricey, big and heavy. $1800, almost 800 grams, 82mm filters.

Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.... Almost as great IQ as the f/2.8 III, far lower price, smaller size, lighter weight AND it's one of only two stabilized ultrawide zooms available for FF Canon. $1000, about 600 grams, 77mm filter.

Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM.... An older design now, pretty good but not as good IQ as the newer 16-35s, reasonable size/weight, lower price. $750, 500 grams, 77mm filter.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4 "Art"... Nearly the widest, also one of the higher price, large & heavy.... $1600, almost 1200 grams, convex front element/cannot use standard filters.

Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 "Art"... Faster f/2.8, but also rather large & heavy... $1300, nearly 1200 grams, convex front element/cannot use standard filters.

Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC... Faster f/2.8 AND image stabilized, but rather large/heavy... $1100, 1100 grams, convex front element/cannot use standard filters.

Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8... One of the more affordable f/2.8 ultrawides... about $600, nearly 1000 grams, convex front element/cannot use standard filters.

Tokina AT-X 17-35mm f/4... Currently the most affordable ultrawide... Under $400, 600 grams, 82mm filters.

Many of the above zooms cannot use standard filters because they have strongly protruding, convex front elements. In many cases there are adapters for those lenses that allow using various oversize filters to be used, but there's extra cost involved, the type and qualities of filters may be limited, and those types of filters are rather bulky and difficult to shade well from oblique light.

IMO, f/2.8 isn't a major requirement for an ultrawide zoom.... more often than not, this type lens is being used stopped down for increased depth of field. The high ISO capabilities of recent DSLRs also may make f/2.8 less necessary. Of course there are some exceptions, such as an astrophotographer or others shooting a lot at night and wanting a larger aperture lens to brighten their viewfinder or a sports photographer needing particularly fast shutter speeds. But f/2.8 not only makes for a larger, heavier and more expensive lens, a faster lens also may not be as well corrected as a smaller aperture lens... less sharp in the corners, more prone to distortions and with more chromatic aberrations.

It's only available on two of the above zooms, but image stabilization may not be as important on ultrawides as it is on telephotos... shorter focal lengths being more easily hand held at slower shutter speeds. Plus many users put these types of lenses on tripods anyway, for the types of photography the lenses are commonly used. Even so, image stabilization is always a nice feature and two zooms on the above list offer it.

If you consider used, there are some older versions of some of the above. Just be careful of compromises in those lenses. There are reasons they've been replaced with new, revised versions. For example, there are at least two pre-Art Sigma 12-24mm.... But they are known to have fairly strong distortions that might be problematic for anyone wanting to shoot architecture.

Speaking of which, ANY of these ultrawides are going to tend to cause some exaggeration of perspective and heavy "keystoning" effect when photographing buildings. That's just the nature of very wide angle lenses. The best you can do to minimize these effects is use the least extreme focal length possible. There are also Tilt-Shift lenses available that can help counteract some of the effects. Those are only available as manual focus primes, though. And they're fairly pricey, large and heavy... ... such as the widest available Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L, $2150, 800+ grams, cannot use standard filters due to convex front element... or the the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, $1900, almost 800 grams, 82mm filters (which doesn't do you much good since you already have a 24mm wide lens).

There are also some 12mm, 14mm, 15mm, 17mm, 18mm, 20mm and 21mm non-fisheye primes you might want to consider as alternatives, instead of zooms. I'll leave it to you to research them, but they can be smaller, lighter and more affordable than the zooms listed above. Note that many ultrawide primes are manual focus only, some of the most affordable are also manual aperture only, and the widest among them use convex front elements that preclude using standard filters.

It's going to be tough to find folks on forums who have used them all and can give you truly comprehensive and unbiased recommendations (I know I can't!). But fortunately a lot of these lenses have been extensively reviewed at various online websites. Some of those review sites also include test shots with which you can compare for yourself the image qualities of some of your top contenders against each other... such as Bryan Carnathan's The-Digital-Picture.com. You might find useful that site's side-by-side comparison of image quality (sharpness, contrast, etc.), vignetting, distortions and more.

Hope this helps!

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

The Canon 11-24 f/4L is insanely sharp. One of my most useful lenses.

The 14mm f/2.8 series II prime can not come close. I actually purchased and sold the new version 14mm because of how short it fails in comparison. The 11-24 is expensive and Heavy but worth every penny.

snapshot18

johntaylor333 :

I'm confused. You said you had a 10-18 and loved a 12-24??? The 10-18 is a good bit wider than the 12-24, so what's the problem?

TBPJr Loc: South Carolina

There's nothing to match the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 USM; it does weigh 41.6 oz., but its performance justifies the weight.

johntaylor333

I guess I didn't make it clear - the 10-18 is an EF-S lens and can only be used on the 7D (where it effectively a 16-29.

I'm looking for a lens with a minimum focal length of 10-12 on a full frame camera.

Thanks

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I am a bit confused by your post, you say that you have the Canon 12-24 f/2.8L out for a loan but Canon does not make a 12-24 and the 11-24 is an f/4 lens.

If money is not an issue and you are looking at the 16-35mm lenses then the f/2.8 mark III is their best lens in that range, the f/4L IS is a really good lens, and of course the really expensive 11-24 f/4L is probably a great lens and is extremely wide. If you really want that extremely wide lens but feel the price is a little steep then you might consider the Sigma 12-24 Art. One thing great about the Canon 16-35mm lenses is that they have a flat front element and take regular filters the others have bubbled front elements and requite a filter holder and large rectangular filters.

johntaylor333

Thanks - very helpful comments.

Still not sure what I will do, perhaps just a prime like 12 or 14 mm - smaller, lighter and less expensive ……