Nikon Nikkor 18-300mm OR 24-120?

Ok, so here it goes--
I have been looking to buy a second lens for a while now, and in a little bit I'm going on a cruise to Alaska. I figured I would use the trip as an incentive to actually carry out this purchase. But, now I'm facing a problem- which lens to get? I'm looking at these two so far. What is your opinion on the two? Which one would you buy? Could you recommend another similar lens in the price range or lower of these tow lenses. Also- if I were to get the 24-120 lens would I regret not getting the extra zoom range on both ends, especially the 120-300 gap?

The 18-300 mm lens would be a great one lens solution. Wide enough to shoot amazing landscapes and long enough to shoot wildlife.

The 24-120 is not wide enough to shoot good landscapes and too short to shoot wildlife.

For a trip to Alaska. I'd definitely go with the 18-300 mm… You can get wide enough to capture the landscapes and you can zoom in on wildlife!

Given the choice of those two lenses, I'd agree with the 18-300 - no debate.

Just to muddy the water, for only about $50 more, you can consider the 28-300, which is not a DX lens. You won't be "stuck" with it if you buy an FX body at some point in the future. True, 18mm is a whole lot wider than 28mm, though.

Compare 18 vs. 24 here

18-300 is what I have.
Ideal compromise!
You will use the 300 the most as the ships are much further away than you think! You would regret ONLY having 120!