So it seems that nikons offering of the 10-20 is generally disliked. It's super cheap comparatively, so the penny pincher in me is dissapointed, but I suppose good glass can last just about forever.
So, in my online review scouring, it seems that the 11-16 is much more widely used than the 11-20. The 11-20 also has reports of auto focus issues, while I am yet to find anyone with anything even remotely poor to say regarding the 11-16.
Now, tamron also offers a 10-24 F3.5/4.5, which has little traction is seems in the way of actual hands on use. It seems priced in with the tokina, and could be a valuable bridge to my soon to be three lens set up of a 10-XX, nikon 24-120, and Tamron 200-500.
Any input on which direction to go? Body is a 7200. Sorry for spamming so many threads as of late, I have just officially caught the camera bug and am trying to do this right the first time.
I'd go with the 11-16. I've never really heard anything bad about it and the availability of the 2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range is more valuable than the little bit more zoom the Tamron gives. I doubt that you'll notice that 8mm missing from your range.
I've had both. Got the 11-16 because that's all they had at the time.
In a moment of utter stupidity and loss of gross motor skills I broke it (flung camera across room by accident) and replaced it with the 11-20, as the repair cost would be an appreciable part of the cost of a new one.
The 11-20 has some documented softness/blur issues in the corners of the frame, particularly at 11mm, but other than that it's fine.
It vastly improves the flare reduction over the 11-16 (the 11-16 has severe flaring if the sun is anywhere near the frame). Still some flare, but a heck of a lot less.
Sunset 20170220 by FredMan, on Flickr
Alae Cemetery Monkey Pod Perspective by FredMan, on Flickr
Lightning Rainbow 20180514 by FredMan, on Flickr
Approaching Cell 20180531 by FredMan, on Flickr
In the final analysis you'll be very happy with either.