Yes, the state of a photon in a superposition of two modes is an example of entanglement (1).
The reason why this statement may seem strange at first, is that studying basic quantum mechanics one often hears of entanglement as something that is shared between a number of particles.
This is not the best way to think of entanglement, and not the way it is defined (see for example, Gühne and Toth (2008)).
A state is entangled if it is not separable, end of the story.
You do not require to have many "particles" to talk about entanglement. You only need a state that lives in an Hilbert space of the form $\mathcal H_A\otimes\mathcal H_B$.
Even when "two particles are entangled", it is actually more correct to talk of specific modes being entangled, rather than the particles themselves.
In other words, the "entanglement" lies entirely in the way diffent measurement outcome are correlated with each other.
For example, in the typical case of the two "entangled photons" produced via parametric down-conversion, it is more correct to say that the polarization modes of the photons are entangled, not the photons themselves.
Even the state of a single photon with polarization $\lvert\uparrow\rangle+\lvert\downarrow\rangle$ is, in some sense, entangled.
It is not however very useful to talk of entanglement in such a case, because to access such entanglement one has to apply nonlinear operations conditioned to the polarization state, which is highly nontrivial (as in, I've no idea how you can do it directly).
You can however always easily convert such entanglement between the polarization modes into entanglement between spatial modes, using a simple polarizing beam splitter.
You can therefore see how if a superposition of two spatial modes is entangled, a superposition of two polarization modes must be as well.
That said, there is a tricky point in the question of whether a photon in a superposition of two modes represents an entangled state.
In particular, to talk about entanglement, one first has to determine what are the Hilbert spaces $\mathcal H_A$ and $\mathcal H_B$ of the state.
In this case these are the Fock spaces for the two output modes of the beamsplitter.
In other words, we write the output state of the photon as
$(a_1^\dagger + a_2^\dagger)\lvert0\rangle\simeq\lvert1_1 0_2\rangle + \lvert0_1 1_2\rangle$, where in the ket notation "$0$" and "$1$" represent the state with $0$ or $1$ photons in the first or second mode.
This is a maximally entangled state to all effects, where the information is encoded in the photon being present or not in one mode.
However, one may object, there is still only a single photon that carries the information.
In particular, it may look like there is no way to act locally on one of the two "qubits" of the above state.
How do you apply the transformation $X_1$, sending $\lvert10\rangle+\lvert01\rangle$ into $\lvert00\rangle+\lvert11\rangle$, for example?
Note that such transformation effectively removes or add a photon in the first mode conditionally to the presence of a photon in the second mode... how can you do that?
The answer is that, yes, it is highly nontrivial to act locally when the single qubits are encoded in this way. In particular, it requires nonlinear iteractions.
But this doesn't change the fact that the state is, to all effects, entangled. It is just entangled in a way that makes it harder experimentally to exploit said entanglement.
Moreover, as discussed in S. J. van Enk (2005), one can imagine to make the photon interact with a pair of atoms, that get excited or not depending on whether they receive the photon or not.
After such interaction one has a more standard form of entanglement, between the excited states of the atoms, which makes it easier to act locally on the two qubits.
(1) Canonical reference for this is probably S. J. van Enk (2005), which directly tackles the situation of a photon in a superposition of two modes. For an example of an experimental paper in which the authors demonstrate generation of a multipartite-entangled state (a W state) with a single photon, you can have a look at Gräfe et al. (2014). Many other papers use this definition of entanglement in one form or the other, as it is not so controversial.