Frustrated with travel lenses

<p>I have to agree - the 18-55 IS kit lens is capable of very good results. Below is a 100% crop from a portrait of a toddler (40D, shot in RAW, default sharpening)</p>

<p><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f73/Olaf123/Razno/EFS18-5540f63.jpg" alt="" width="584" height="438" /></p>

<p>Wow Ales! I can even see the photogrepher on it's eye!<br>

I think by travel lens, Eugene means a do it all lens that covers (almost) all necessary focal lengths.</p>

<p>I was in a similar position to this a bit over a year ago. I've got a Canon 350d with the non-IS kit lens and at the time I wanted to get an additional lens or two for travel. The question is, what should you look for in travel lens to complement or replace the kit lens? More wide angle, more telephoto, and faster aperture are all obvious goals. As far as image quality goes, the kit lens (especially the newer IS one you have, I hear) is pretty decent in good light. Some of the best shots I've taken were on a summer hike in Freiburg with the 18-55 and a polarizing filter.<br>

I ended up taking the following kit to India with me:<br>

EF-S 18-55 kit lens<br>

EF-S 55-250 IS<br>

EF 50/1.8<br>

Tokina 11-16 f/2.8<br>

The wide angle lens is superb from an IQ perspective, but isn't that great for travel: it's the opposite of versatile and it weighs a ton compared to the rest of the kit. However, there's simply no other lens that would have allowed me to take natural light shots of Rajasthan palace interiors.<br>

The 55-250 lens should not be underrated. In good light it's a great zoom that gives pretty decent macros.<br>

If I had to do it again I'd probably take a higher quality prime. The EF 50/1.8 is so light it's a cinch to take everywhere, but in combination with the 350d body at least the focusing performance isn't what I'd like.</p>

<p>Given the range you are considering, I would recommend to you the 55-250 and a fast prime, perhaps the Sigma 30/1.4 (which I have and love). To be fair, when I got my 55-250 the 18-200 didn't exist. I'd also recommend a polarizing filter for your kit lens. For travel a good wide angle bears thinking about but there's no perfect lens out there. The Canon 10-22 seems to be the popular compromise. I've heard people are very happy with faster kit replacement lenses, like the Canon 17-55/2.8 or the Tamron 17-50/2.8, but I've never used them. I had planned to get a Tamron at one point but for that range these days I just stick with my Sigma 30 prime.</p>

<p>I think there are a few questions that you need to ask yourself: what is the purpose of your trip? What is the general photographic objects you'll be encountering? If the purpose is for pleasure: take one, maximum 2 lenses. Just enjoy the trip.<br>

Here is my experience in my trip to Vietnam last year. I took a few guided tours which covered most of Vietnam. The places that I visited ranged from mountain area (Sapa), islands, old capital cities, to modern cities. I took with me Canon 28-135mm, 17-40mm f/4L, and 50mm f/1.8 and Canon Rebel XT (350D). Here are what I learn from it:<br>

1) On guided tours, you tend to be rushed (by the guide or the other people). So changing lens is not really that great. Besides, in some places that I went to (particularly in the caves), the moisture in the air is so high (you can feel it) that I felt reluctant to expose the inside of the camera to such environment (not that my lenses are air-tight, but I tried to keep it down to a minimum).<br>

2) The range of the 28-135mm is very good. However, 135mm is too long for the kind of travel I described above. I might have gone to 135mm about 5% of the time (and only in bright daylight, at night forget it).<br>

3) The 17-40mm f/4L is really great for landscape and has a decent range for people photog on the cropped body. However, you probably only want to use the lens in good lighting condition (i.e. outdoor and sunny).<br>

Summary: if you have to take only one lens, I'd suggest the 28-135 out of other lenses you listed. The IS really helps.<br>

Another lens you might consider: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's a bit more expensive than 28-135 though. But I heard many good things about it. So it is a good investment and I'm sure it'll last you longer than your camera. If price is a big factor, another lens to consider is Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5. It's about $370 on BHPhotovideo.com.<br>

I didn't use either one, but from what I read online, Tamron 17-50 has better image quality, but the range of the Sigma is so attractive.<br>

Have fun.</p>