once the novelty has worn off, fish eyes tend to sit in the cupboard, rather than on the camera
The 11-16 is going to be a lot more flexible
I shoot Fx and find the biggest advantage of the 16mm f 2.8 fish eye is its small size and light weight when compared to the 16-35 f4, but other than that, the zoom wins hands down
I agree with this in the principle that a fisheye is for a very special effect. It can dramatize a building, in a manner that only can be done by the fisheye "effect." And, when used with a great deal of care, can produce some interesting shots. The 16-35 is a monster lens. And the angle of coverage, while it states is 107° is actually only 89° horizontally. The other alternative is the Nikon AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED Autofocus Lens, which will give about 95° horizontal coverage.
However, the 10.5mm f/2.8 Nikkor is a very sharp lens and can be reasonably cropped so as to produce a nice rectangle, albeit with some very clear distortion. If one maintains certain key elements, e.g., people standing, vertical doors, things our mind "sees" as vertical, then the distortions are less obnoxious. I find my modified version is quite handy at doing some of the things I want to do.