Nikkor 10-24mm vs Tokina 11-16mm?

I need a new wide-angle lens for my Nikon D90 and I'm having a hard time choosing between these two. There's a $200 difference between them (the Nikkor being more expensive).
Any opinions for image quality, speed, durability, etc?

Only $200?

I would go with the Nikon and it's wider view.

Both lenses are pretty sharp. The Nikkor feels more solid but the Tokina is a great lens. The tokina is f/2.8 while the Nikkor is f/4, but both lenses work well in low light conditions. The Nikkor is a little better and faster with the autofocus. If price is an issue I would buy the Tokina, but if price is not a factor, go for the Nikkor.

The Tokina 11-16mm is reckoned to be a pretty sharp lens & highly regarded. Better than many 'brand' lenses.

Another option (cheaper still, but tack sharp results) is the Sigma 10-20mm. Two versions a fixed max aperture of f3.5 and a slightly cheaper variable aperture version. Seeing as you rarely need wide apertures for landscape work, the variable aperture lens is fine.

It's a bit hard to choose.

The 11-16mm has much tougher build quality and somewhat better image quality, plus it has that constant f/2.8 aperture, but the Nikon has a far wider range of focal lengths.

I think I would still choose to get the 11-16mm in the end.

Both are fine lenses

The 10-24 mm is a little wider and at 24 mm fits in with the next lens you may buy, either the 24-85 mm f/2.8~4 or 24-70 mm f/2.8

The Tokina is perhaps the best of all the generic lenses made.

Tokina is the company that makes both Pentax dSLR's as well as Hoya lens filters

looking through both lenses when attached to your camera is perhaps the only way to make an informed choice. See if you can find a store that sells both and do your comparisons

If you can live with the range get the tokina. Constant f2.8, build like a tank!