I plan to take two trips to Europe this summer and want to take only one lens – a walk around lens. Having toured foreign cities before carrying different lenses, I want to avoid the weight and the hassle of different lenses.

I plan to buy either the Tamron 16 – 300 mm or the Nikon 18 – 300 mm lens.

To date, I have only purchased Nikon lenses and have been satisfied with the quality and clarity. Reviews say both lens under consideration are good but neither the sharpest at certain lengths. Given they are good but not the sharpest does it make sense to pay more for the Nikon usually known for sharpness? I don’t see advantages of Nikon here.


A second question is about the 16mm width compared to the 18 mm width. I take mainly architectural and street photography and I like idea of the extra width.

I am leaning towards the Tamron but hesitate as it will be my first non Nikon purchase. I would greatly appreciate help in this decision.

Raypep,

I have all full frame Nikon photo stuff and have done photography around the world. From my experience I found that it's much better to travel lighter than to carry a bunch of gear you may not use. If you look at my recent images from China, they were all shot with a Nikon D500 using one 18mm-300mm lens. I left all the full frame stuff at home and I'm glad I did. There's very little difference between the 16mm vs 18mm. I can get whatever I want from Nikon because I'm part of NPS. I still prefer to use the above equipment for traveling.