>I am thinking of buying it as well. > >Ken Rockwell reviewed the lens and compared it with Tokina >11-16mm f/2.8 with conclusion the Tokina outperform the >Nikkor in terms of sharpness.
I am the original poster of this thread. I have not used the Tokina 11-16mm but I did buy the Nikon 10-24mm.
Because of the minor riot caused by mentioning Ken Rockwell in an earlier post I swore I would never bring his name into a discussion again! So, no comment about his review from me. I'm sure the "regulars" here no what I'm talking about.
As far as the Nikon 10-24, I have really enjoyed having it with my D7000. Usually using it not for landscapes, but when I need the Ultra-wide because of space restrictions. The optical quality and build is about the same as the Nikon 16-85mm if you are familiar with that lens - not as good as the professional lenses, but excellent for upper consumer grade lenses. There is some distortion at the widest focal ranges, but all ultra-wides have it too and its easily corrected in software, or automatically in camera if it has that feature. Color and contrast is very good, but again, not as good as professional lenses.
Below is two pictures that I could not get without the 10-24mm. A wall was at my back in the Missouri State Capital "Rotunda" picture and two-steps backward would have resulted in a 200-foot drop down a cliff into a lake in the Ha Ha Tonka Castle ruins shot. The castle detail is not the best, but that is not the fault of the lens. The lighting was poor due to a cloudy sky and the yellowish sandstone bricks don't show detail and contrast well. So, it has been invaluable for situations like these. EXIF information has not been removed from pictures.
11mm, f/5.6, ISO 800, 1/8, no flash, handheld (took five shots to get it right @ 1/8)