[Klaus]

What to take .... hmmm.

This time I will not carry something for testing but just for my enjoyment.
Oly 12-100mm f/4 PRO maybe. Simple. Light-weight. Great.
But Fuji is probably as close as it gets to Japanese style - the 10-24, 50 APD and 90 maybe.
Or Sony with the 12-24, 35mm f/1.4 and 100 STF? But Sony is a bit too clinical I think

Ahh, so much to chose from. 

[Rover]

Clinical? WTF does that mean?

[MatjazO]

I would take two primes, one wide angle and another one a short tele. For reach, added compact tele zoom completes the lightweight package. That covers it for me. In past, I did try several times with normal to wide angle zooms, however always came back to primes. It must be me. ? I find it just fine to zoom with feet on short distances, with benefit of having better low light and DOF control.

In my case, that is 12/2, 45/1.8 and 35-100/2.8. A kilo together with the camera. Normally I do throw in also a 20/1.7 pancake, but do not use it most of time.

Wish you great time. ?

[Klaus]

Clinical? WTF does that mean?

I'm not a big fan of Sony's AWB. Of course, you can fix that during post-processing but honestly, I don't want to bother. As mentioned, this time, it'll be about fun and not for the sake of it.
Conversely, I think that Fuji is putting more efforts into getting the colors right - maybe something they carried over from their film history.

[toni-a]

I know you will end up with Olympus, you have the temptation to take Fuji but I don't think it will last long...

[obican]

I'd go for Sony 12-24, 55/1.8 and 90/2.8 Macro or 100 STF but that's me.

[Rover]

If anyone ever asks me what to take on a vacation, I'm usually replying along the lines of "16-35 + 70-300 and be there". I ended up with the 100-400 for the long end, forgoing the 35-100 range entirely. Most of the time, it didn't matter.

[Brightcolours]

If anyone ever asks me what to take on a vacation, I'm usually replying along the lines of "16-35 + 70-300 and be there". I ended up with the 100-400 for the long end, forgoing the 35-100 range entirely. Most of the time, it didn't matter.

Just to make things clear(er), you use APS-C (or 1.3x crop compared to 135 format (FF)). 16-35mm then is equivalent to 21-46mm on FF and 100-400mm then is equivalent to 130-520mm on FF.
You are welcome (helps others more than "tha wide" which is not thaaat wide and "tha long" which is longer than most tha longs.

[Rover]

I own a 14mm lens but I don't carry it with me all the time; I take it with me on some travels but there were only a couple where not having it would've been a deal breaker. 21 equivalent is plenty wide for a lot of things. Unless you explicitly need a mega-wide lens this is usually more than adequate (and when I was in Japan I had a 16-35 as my widest lens, mostly ended up all right). YMMV.

[you2]

The 12-100f4 is huge. I saw one when I was in japan a few months ago.