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

Oregon Dawg wrote:

"Well I know what you mean about standard zooms. You can generally use 2 primes and zoom with your feet. They good for event photography or hikes etc but for hikes I don't really need f2.8 or even f4.

The issue I have with uwa and telephoto lenses is that they're specialised lenses and would require lens swaps or 2 bodies. I find uwa difficult and you need to be in a great location to find good compositions.

The 16-55mm f2.8 is a great lens but it just doesn't work for my needs. The 16-80mm f4 needs to be stopped down to f8 to get sharp images so that f4 aperture is only really worth it to get a marked aperture ring. The OIS is handy though.

That led me to the Tamron 18-300mm which I use at 35-150 but have tested at the extremes wide open (still good enough). --Flying Fijian"

Thanks, I like the way you chose the lens that best matches up with what you want to do. The Tamron definitely is best for a 35-150mm range. It looks plenty sharp to me, and as you learn the lens you'll figure out it's sweet spots and all that.

I also don't particularly care for lens swaps, and 99% of the time go out with one lens, which for me is the 33 f1.4, which also happens to be my only lens, lol. I decided to simplify this year, so I sold my 4 "fujicrons" and bought the 33.

Haha thanks I've tried many different lenses! I'd actually prefer to shoot primes, my favourites being, the 35 f1.4, 56 f1.2 and the X100V. Your 33mm is a great choice to be your only lens!

However, the Tamron should work well for me when I'm out and about on walks with friends/family. Simplicity indeed.