XF16-80mm vs. XF18-135mm for travel/landscape/architecture photography

Oregon Dawg wrote:

"Even that review says "from 35mm to 150mm or so it performs much closer to the Fuji zooms". That's where I mostly use this lens...better then having to switch between 2 lenses."

Off topic: Tamron makes a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens for full frame. It's a big and expensive lens, but I like that they did something outside the box for the focal length range of that lens.

Oh yeah that is definitely a good lens...bag of primes of sure...great for event photography but that's not what I do.

Choosing an all-purpose or walk-around or travel zoom can be a challenge. It's pretty tough to be prepared for all eventualities, in that case the Tamron 18-300 is a really good option.

Yes it's great for this purpose.

For me, I would be choosing between the 16-80 and 18-55. When I'm shooting longer than these lenses, it would be for a specific purpose, and so I'd have a 70-300 or 50-230 or 55-200 for that. I would likely opt for the 16-80 for the newer lens, AF, OIS and WR. But the 18-55 is tempting for size/weight/price. And both lenses are really good. All Zooms have their strengths and weaknesses, you just figure them out and work with them. In return you have a lot of flexibility.

Yes the 16-80 & 18-55 are nice indeed and difficult to pick between the two. I sold the 16-80 but it's not a bad lens and the marked aperture ring is great too. I replaced it with the brick but then realised I don't really need the f2.8 as much just for walk around. I'd rather have the longer reach and close focussing of the 18-300. I still have the 18-55 but I would be selling it soon. I never used the 18-135 but it does seem decent...unmarked aperture ring though you could find a used one for cheap.

With the telephoto lenses, the 70-300 seems like a winner if you're going to use that longer reach. 50-230 is also great for price an starting at 50 could be useful. I never tried the 55-200 but that also looks nice.