zug55 wrote:
"Wide enough" indeed is a relative term, and different photographers legitimately have a different take on what is wide enough.
In the other part of my answer, I recommended the Sony 18-135mm--which is remarkably similar to the 18-200mm you are using, particularly at the wide end. So where is the disagreement? OP has a Sony a6400 and wants *one* light-weight lens suitable for a trip to Scotland. In my humble opinion, the Sony 18-135mm, while not perfect, comes close to meeting that objective.
The underlying issue is that many UHH users wildly mix full-frame and APS-C in their discussion. While the focal lenfth of course does not change, whether it is used on a APS-C or full-frame body, what the lenses do on the respective bodies changes a lot because of the crop factor involved.
Specifically here, some folks recommended a 24-105mm lens. This is a full-frame lens, which is a great one-and-done travel lens if strapped on a full-frame body, like my Sony A7 III. If OP were to use it on an APS-C body, like his Sony a6400, it would be 36mm (full-frame equivalent) at its widest, which in my humble opinion is not "wide enough" for an all-purpose travel lens. This is based on my significant travel experience--I am currently based in Nairobi and am on a two-month side trip to Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France (from where I write this), Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden. The 18-135mm would bring that to 27mm full-frame equivalent, which is not perfect but more workable than 36mm full-frame equivalent. As you say, it is what it is.
"Wide enough" indeed is a relative term,... (
show quote)
Like many, I have both crop and full-frame cameras. I also have a number of lenses, including an 18-200mm DX Lens and a 24-120mm full frame lens. I bought the 24-120 as a "sometimes alternative" for the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens that I've happily used for close to 15 years.
While the 18-200 is a generally serviceable lens, it has some noticeable quirks that would cause me some concern taking it as my "only" lens on a trip halfway around the world. The 24-120 is just generally a better lens, not to mention faster. So I'd much rather have to deal with those few times that I might have to make a panorama or otherwise deal with a lens that isn't quite wide enough than deal with a lens which uncorrectably makes all of my photographs a little less "good."
To me, questions like this bring to the front the question, "Do you drive your photography, or do you allow your equipment to drive and define your photography?"