Bayou

lyndacast

And the 18-140 mm Z series lens wins! To clear up confusion, this lens is specifically designed for the mirrorless line and no adapter is needed.

Thank you for all your input.
I am a happy Nikon user, having both the d500 and the z50.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I've been using the 16-50mm on my Z fc with good results. Of course, 50mm isn't much of a reach. Look for refurbished.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, I SAW that ........my mistake about the 18-140 but the F version could be used on BOTH cameras - with an adapter.

With a Sony RX100/10 you would not be "switching systems" - just adding capabilities so you could more fully enjoy your trip.... ALL travelers who are serious about traveling light, have an open mind and are fastidious about IQ should be interested in exploring the Sony option. I understand it is difficult to imagine how good they really are. Yes, I have one and have been STUNNED by the quality of images - see my UHH postings.
.

Bubbee Loc: Aventura, Florida

Definitely the 18-140. That's what I used for 3 European trips on D80 and D7100 with great results. I, too, have the Z50 and same kits. I got the adapter but, for me, it adds too much weight, so I'm quite happy shooting, mainly my cat and new Great-Grandson plus Family and local, with the kit 50-250. I don't recommend the adapter because of the additional weight.
Have a wonderful trip!

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

Your present kit covers everything from 14 - 250mm. That's a nice range. The two lenses you are looking at, both kind of fall in the middle of that range and offer no real advantage other than gathering more light, maybe.

You did not say to where or how you were traveling. In my limited travels I have longed for a very wide lens for landscapes and interiors. I bought a small, light weight, easy to carry, crop 10-18mm. I've also found that 70-300mm plus a 2x converter to be very useful for pulling in distant objects. Or just for looking to see what something is way out there.

At least one person has suggested the Tamron 18-400mm zoom. If your intent is to have just one versatile lens, this is it. Everyone who has them seem to be pleased with the photos produced.

I have been a Canon shooter since 1982, but my first two zoom lenses were Soligars (no longer in business). But this 18-00mm Tamron has always been in the back of my mind. And please note that I have not suggested that you buy a Canon just because it is my preferred brand. Obviously you like Nikon. No problem here. Viva la difference. Tamron has been around a long time. Give it a looky see. It might be what you are looking for.

Rayban

I have the 24/200, It is an amazing walk around Len’s, excellent value for money in my opinion.

RolandDieter

Considering the crop factor you are looking at 27-210mm vs 36-300mm. 36mm is not very wide and in my opinion not nearly wide enough for most travel (but where are you going?). Many city street scenes and building interiors REQUIRE much more than 36mm to get the shots you will want.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The combined weight of the two lenses you already have... DX 16-50mm and DX 50-250mm... is 540 grams (or about 1 lb. 3 oz.)

FX 24-200mm ($897) actually weighs more than those two lenses... 570 grams (or about 1 lb. 4 oz.)

DX 18-140mm ($637) is lighter weight at 315 grams (11 oz.). That's about 8 oz. lighter than your two lenses.

So if weight is your primary concern, the DX 18-140mm makes some sense.

But is 1/2 lb. weight savings enough difference to really worry about? Is it enough difference to give up both wider angle (16mm) and more powerful telephoto (250mm)?

A single lens may be a little more convenient. But you would be giving up a lot of focal length range to get that.

16mm versus 18mm doesn't seem like much, but in practice it is a significant difference. Personally, for most of the subjects like you mention... architecture, street, landscapes... I'd want the wider lens. In fact, I might even want wider! 12mm... 11mm.... even 10mm! There's an interesting new lens coming called the Venus Laowa 10mm f/4 "Cookie". It's not in stores yet, but will be soon. It's tiny, only weighs 130 grams. (less than 5 oz.) and will cost $299. It is manual focus and manual aperture only, but an ultra wide lens has a lot of depth of field so focusing isn't difficult. Setting exposure isn't hard, either, with mirrorless cameras. I use a similar manual focus/manual aperture lens on one of my cameras now: a 12mm f.2.8 that's a lot larger and heavier than the "Cookie".

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If someone has never used a full frame camera and has no idea how lenses perform on them, there is no reason to get into a discussion of crop factor. It's only relevant when coming from years of experience with 35mm film cameras, crossing over from one format to the other, or using both formats.

boblaw Loc: Victoria BC

I have the Z50 with the 18-140z lens. A great combination for walk-around or travel.

MJPerini

I would think very hard about bringing the two lenses you have.
It costs nothing, having one lens on the camera and a second in a pouch, is a pretty easy way to travel.
You would not need an adapter. And you are very happy with the results you get.

It is of course a personal choice and if a single lens is the requirement, get the widest one, because as many have said you can crop but you cannot make the view wider

neillaubenthal

Remember the 1.5x crop factor…and then decide which the overall equivalent FL range suits your needs better.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

I find my 18-135mm on my cropped sensor Canon to be ideal for about 99% of my shots. Thus the 18-140 Nikon would fit the bill for you.