I just went through comparing three DX super-wide zooms: Tokina 11-16/2.8 (the first version) Tokina 11-20/2.8 Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5 Di-II VC HLD The intent is to replace my wife's 11-16 with something a bit more versatile (which brought the Tamron into the picture because of both the widest range and the presence of vibration reduction). I have not tried the Nikon AF-P DX 10-20/4.5-5.6G VR - which is the other DX super-wide that offers vibration reduction. For what my wife mainly shoots, a wide aperture is not necessary, which automatically makes the Tamron the favorite from the above list. Since of lot of what she shoots is landscapes or cityscapes, somewhat even performance across the frame is desirable - which is why I focused mostly on corner performance in my comparisons (done on a D500 and evaluated at 100%). In a direct comparison at the widest zoom setting, one surprise was that the old 11-16 clearly beats the new 11-20 when it comes to corner performance (center sharpness seems to be at par with all three - at least I can't see a significant difference). It's not a big difference but definitely noticeable in a direct comparison. The Tamron looks slightly worse wide open (f/3.5) compared to both the Tokinas. Stopping down to f/4 sharpens up the corners with both Tokinas but does nothing for the Tamron (no suprise really as it is only 1/3 stop down from wide open). At f/5.6, the small advantage of the 11-16 over the 11-20 remains and the Tamron still lags behind but manages to close the gap somewhat when stopped down to f/8. At 16mm, the 11-16 looses in the corners against the 11-20 and the Tamron 10-24 at every aperture; the 11-20 clearly beats the Tamron at each aperture. At 20mm, in the corners, the 11-20 is clearly ahead of the Tamron at each aperture again. The 11-16 performs well at the widest focal length setting and gradually degrades towards the long end. The 11-20 does the opposite, as does the Tamron. Overall, the 11-20 is better than the 11-16 except at the widest focal length setting. Replacing the 11-16 with the 11-20 comes with the additional caveat that the 11-20 requires 82mm filters, the other two make do with 77mm. The Tamron never matches the 11-20 but gets close to the 11-16 with the Tokina having the advantage over half of its focal length range (starting with the widest) and the Tamron over the rest. I summary, the 11-20 is the overall sharpness and eveness king of the three lenses compared while the Tamron is the most versatile due to the widest range and the presence of VR. And I am nowhere closer in finding out whether I should recommend the 11-20 or the 10-24 to my wife (though I am leaning towards the latter). Her main lens is the Nikon 16-80, with either lens there will be some overlap - which I consider a good thing as it may eliminate some lens changes. Anyone wants to chime in on the Tokina 11-20 vs Tamron 10-24 VC selection decision?