Fujifilm XF 18-135mm vs XF 18-55mm + XF 55-200mm for travel photography

sluggy_warrior wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Jerry-Astro

May I suggest an alternative to the 18-135 (which is still quite limited for long reaches. Use the Fuji and also buy a bridge zoom. I have owned the Panasonic FZ1000 and now have a Sony RX10 IV. My X-T3 and the 10-24 and 18-55 give me good coverage from 15-80 and the Sony is spectacular wide open, even at 600mm. The Fuji, two lenses and the Sony RX10 IV are a relatively light travel kit. Oh and the AF for both cameras is great !

Certainly for some folks, that’s a very reasonable alternative. I’m not personally a fan of hauling multiple kits around, even if one of them is fairly compact, and prefer to use a single body (for the most part... at least when traveling) and select lenses as needed. But, that’s just my preference and I can see where folks who only need a longer zoom occasionally might prefer not investing in an expensive tele, but would would rather use a superzoom instead.

Agreed. Although, I think if somebody is OK with the quality of the bridge camera, then s/he probably don't even need the bigger sensor/lens, and thus, would be OK with just the bridge camera alone which covers the whole big FL range.

Gotta disagree here. Good bidge zooms have 1" sensors, which only get you so far. Having good light is very important. An APS-C or FF is important to also have available if DR and /or high ISO is an important issue to conquer to get good images. Cheers.

sluggy_warrior wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Jerry-Astro

May I suggest an alternative to the 18-135 (which is still quite limited for long reaches. Use the Fuji and also buy a bridge zoom. I have owned the Panasonic FZ1000 and now have a Sony RX10 IV. My X-T3 and the 10-24 and 18-55 give me good coverage from 15-80 and the Sony is spectacular wide open, even at 600mm. The Fuji, two lenses and the Sony RX10 IV are a relatively light travel kit. Oh and the AF for both cameras is great !

Certainly for some folks, that’s a very reasonable alternative. I’m not personally a fan of hauling multiple kits around, even if one of them is fairly compact, and prefer to use a single body (for the most part... at least when traveling) and select lenses as needed. But, that’s just my preference and I can see where folks who only need a longer zoom occasionally might prefer not investing in an expensive tele, but would would rather use a superzoom instead.

Agreed. Although, I think if somebody is OK with the quality of the bridge camera, then s/he probably don't even need the bigger sensor/lens, and thus, would be OK with just the bridge camera alone which covers the whole big FL range.

That’s a very good point. If the bridge camera output is good enough for most of an individual’s needs, then you’d have to question why that person would require the larger sensor camera. That said, it’s certainly possible that some uses (requiring a shorter FL range) might demand higher quality output, perhaps for bigger enlargements, in which case having both might make sense. I suspect it all depends on how the images will be used and how much resolution is needed for the final output.

I don't know how people traveling with friends-family do it. Really. Bringing 25 lenses, 3 cameras, monopods-tripods...I really don't know. My wife would kill me. I would have to travel alone. So, I take a prime for night shooting and the 18-135 for daytime. Last trip I was taking a picture of a vicuña that was far away and then one of my wife with the landscape. 18-120 in less than a minute. And that was in every single outing. I like primes, but for traveling I need one lens, one camera. I dont' even carry a bag. Just the camera around my neck and I'm good to go. And the 18-135 delivers more than good IQ IMO.

sluggy_warrior wrote:

I always think of the 18-135 as 18-90mm. Beyond 90mm is still OK but too soft and inconsistent for me. I brought both the 18-135 and 18-55 on my Hawaii trip, ended up using the 18-135 only for hiking and daylight, the rest is 18-55 (street, indoor, night, ...)

Personally, I can't afford switching lens in the middle of a hike/walk-around, so I usually choose ahead and leave the other lens in the car or my backpack.

On my last trip to LA, I brought only the 18-55 and didn't miss the 18-135 at all. I don't plan to sell the 18-135 though, as I know I'll still want it for serious travelling, at least for now. The 18-55' size is perfect on the X-T20, its' sharp and wide enough for low light. VR is really good, can frequently shoot handheld at 1/2s.

If you can swap lens easily then the 18-55 + 55-200 will give better range and IQ. For me, the convenience of a single lens is more important so I'll lean toward having just the 18-135, or even just the 18-55.

i have the 16-55 monuted most of the time these days but before 90% of the images came from the 18-135. if you dont compared and printed nothing more than 8R, plus dont put your subjects near the edge all the time, the 18to15 is a wonderful lens.

i am still keeping mine. considered selling cos i hardly use it but when i looked at used price (probably in anticipation of 16to80, i decided to keep it for 'raining' days...when i need to shoot my kids at water parks etc w the xt1( which also worth close to nothing now but still a gem).

So true!!!!

This lens is well adapted for trekking light, fast AF 1:1 ratio reprod with a 150 Raynox Bonnette at 135mm with no vignetting and 5 stops OIS

Haven't you found the AF isn't great? It can be fast but often misses on my X-T30. The 150-600m AFs much better and has made me doubt the 18-135 quite a bit for fast shooting. Getting an X-T5 so will see how the 18-135 does on that.

Also my 18-135 droops when pointed down, it slides out with little resistance which is not great when walking around.

I had a 18-135mm, which is IMO at best average

I now use the Tamron 18-300mm with very good results, taking into account o the important range of this zoom

I also use Tamron 17-70mm f 2.8, a remarkable zoom with the Xf 70-300mm This combination is excellent Moreover you can use the TCs on the 70-300mm

The first solution is a one lens set, rather compact, no lens change in severe conditions (dust, sand, wind, moisture)

The Tamron is better in the range 18-100mm especially in borders. At 300mm it might lack a bit of contrast easy to cope in PP I am very pleased with it and I would quote it as very good (not excellent) Center sharpness is always excellent At 18mm there is easily lateral CA in contrasty areas, easily removed in PP

IMO the lens is an excellent solution for travel (in a one lens solution) the built is excellent and the IQ is remarkable for such an ultra zoom like that, 17x.

A very balanced review is https://les-guides-fujifilm.com/test-tamron-18-300mm-f3-5-6-3/#:~:text=Cet%20objectif%20propose%20un%20zoom,que%20du%20m%C3%A9tal%2C%20je%20valide%20!

a video in french but the complete script to be used with Google translation, with which I completely agree this will give you IMO a faithful info on the lens

bob