What would your 1-2 lenses for a Canon Body at Disney World be?

[slashbinslashbash]

Do NOT, under any circumstances, get rid of your 55-250 in favor of a 75-300 (IS or not). The 75-300 is a decades-old design that Canon has been pumping out ever since the EOS cameras first came out. (The "USM" on that one isn't real USM, either.) The 55-250 is much sharper, lighter, faster to focus.

The 70-300 IS is a big improvement over the 75-300 version, and maybe a bit better than the 55-250, but not worth 3x the price, or the substantial increase in size and weight.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

When selecting the 55-250 years ago, I read about the 75-300. It's a horrible lens. If not crossed off in my OP, it should be.

I thin the first step is to get the 18-135. After that, I'll look at the xx-300 models.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Ignoring price, are the 18-250 or 18-270 any good? I think when I looked over reviews, the 18mm setting was pretty bad.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Ignoring price, are the 18-250 or 18-270 any good? I think when I looked over reviews, the 18mm setting was pretty bad.

Crazy-zoom lenses are always full of compromises. Otherwise, everyone would carry one. Even the 18-135 is a pretty zoomy lens. Most zoom lenses renowned for their image quality top out around a 4x zoom (e.g. 100-400, 24-105, etc.). There simply have to be some optical compromises when you "get it all" in one lens. I guess it depends on what your standard for "any good" is. They are generally not up to pro photographers' standards.

In the conclusion of their review of the Tamron 18-270, the-digital-picture.com states that they would take the Canon 18-200 over the Sigma 18-250 and Tamron 18-270, in that order.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-18-270mm-f-3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

The 18-200 by Canon is all over EBay. Kinda tempted to snag it. No "buy it nows" but there are a handful of auctions going on.