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

I did not find two copies of the Tamron better than my 18-135mm, actually quite the opposite. I had an early release one from last year and a replacement  that arrived in January.

I was lured by the range and encouraged by the pre-release positive reviews. For weekend getaways I always pack my 18-135mm and 23mm f/1.4 prime. That combo has worked great, but at times I want or need more reach so I throw in my 55-200mm or worse, 100-400mm.  So the 18-300mm sounded like an ideal range for my needs, provided it was close to my 18-135mm. Many reviews had the Tamron pegged as far superior to Fuji’s punching bag zoom.

In my opinion and solely based on the two samples I had, the Tamron is okay (at best) IF

1- You have a lot of light on the long end. VR is not as good as Fuji’s OIS so expect a high percentage of keepers.

2 - Don’t  want to crop too much, as softness and other flaws become obvious

3- Don’t care about corners

4- Always land what anchors your composition in the center

5- Willing to experience to find the sweet range of your particular sample.

6- Don’t want a morning to night lens. With the Fuji one can still get decent low light photos (indoors and night). Not the case with the Tamron, missed photos even at 18mm and wide open.

7- Enjoy having to shoot at f/8 - f/14

They say zooms are a compromise, I guess the Tamron given its range just comes with more of them. So like I said in a review at another site, “Not for me”.  I will stick with my 18-135mm as my Jack of all trades until the next wonder zoom debuts. 
Good luck with your decision.

Angel