dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I agree here. I almost passed it over since 85% of lens topics that leave the camera make out of the title are Nikon. (I actually went through 50 lens topics about a year ago to find out.) I have little to contribute to Nikon topics, so I often skip them.

OneShot1 Loc: Wichita, KS, USA

I also have the Sigma 18-250 Macro HSM and I've found it to be excellent. I used it exclusively on a tour of New Zealand and Fiji as a way to save weight. I was very happy with the performance. I use it as my walking around lens. I use my Canon L lenses for specific artistic photography. The Sigma does have a little barrel/pincushioning (some straight lines bend, like the sides of a building) but if I care, I just straighten in Photoshop. Sharp fast focus. Great value lens.

OneShot1 Loc: Wichita, KS, USA

I also have the Sigma 18-250 Macro HSM and I've found it to be excellent. I used it exclusively on a tour of New Zealand and Fiji as a way to save weight. I was very happy with the performance. I use it as my walking around lens. I use my Canon L lenses for specific artistic photography. The Sigma does have a little barrel/pincushioning (some straight lines bend, like the sides of a building) but if I care, I just straighten in Photoshop. Sharp fast focus. Great value lens.

Selene03

The last time I traveled with an Sl/1 (similar camera), I went to New York City. I took a 70-300 with me, but my 10-18 pretty much stayed on the camera the whole time. Obviously, it depends on where you are going and what you want to take pictures of. I would have used the longer lens had I had time to do a couple of things I wanted, but for shooting street scenes, buildings and churches, I would have been lost without the 10-18. I mostly didn't want anything longer than the 18.

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

I find that with my 18-270, when shooting indoors, (Canon 60D) with dim lighting (i.e. A church) or outdoors at night with low light, I need to use a very high ISO and slow shutter speed, (leading to very noisy photos) and hold the camera as steady as possible or rest it on something. (I don't travel with a tripod). I suppose Tamron improved the newer lens, or your camera is better in low light or both. Or, perhaps you are more skilled than I, which is very likely.
Steve

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

When I went to Israel last year I brought a 12MP bridge camera with a 25-600 optical range due to baggage restrictions, but several times wished that I had taken my DSLR and a couple lenses. People on my trip used everything from a cellphone to a Nikon ILC. It was my first 2-wk-plus trip so I was probably being too conservative.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Good choices for sure!😀
Have fun!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It depends upon WHAT you want to shoot.... not where you will be shooting it.

For travel, you want a reasonably compact, lightweight, portable kit of camera, lens(es) and accessories.

If you will be doing scenic shots, you're likely to want a wider lens.... the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is one of the smallest and lightest "ultrawide" zooms, as well as a very affordable choice. It also was the very first of it's type to have image stabilization.

An alternative might be the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM "standard zoom", much more expensive, but also higher quality build, excellent image quality.. able to go wider than most lenses in this category, but also covers less, wide normal and moderate telephoto focal lengths.

Or maybe you want to be able to shoot in lower light conditions and need a "faster" lens such as the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Another relatively expensive option, like most lenses of this type it has a narrower range of focal lengths.

But if you want to be able to shoot sports or wildlife that's a bit farther away, the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM would be a good, relatively compact and lightweight choice. It's also one of the least expensive of the Canon telephoto zooms there is an approx. $50 cheaper non-STM versions that's slower and noisier focusing, though still has good image quality... And there is an even cheaper EF 75-300mm III that's best to avoid, Canon's cheapest - and worst - telephoto zoom.

An alternative is the EF 70-300mm IS USM II (or the earlier version, which is still widely found). A bit more expensive, it's got higher performance autofocus, yet is still reasonably compact and not too heavy for travel.

Some premium choice in tele-zooms are the EF 70-200mm "L" series lenses. Canon makes four... two f/4 and two f/2.8... in each case one with and one without image stabilization. These are built like tanks, larger and heavier... and of course more expensive. There's also an EF 70-300mm "L" IS USM that's premium qualiity, though starting to get larger and heavier. Just recently Canon discontinued the EF 70-300mm "DO" IS USM, which uses "diffractive optics" to be especially compact, but doesn't save much weight and makes for a pretty high price. Offering the most reach that's reasonably portable... although bigger and heavier than any of the above... is the EF 100-400mm L IS USM "II", which also has one of the heftiest price tags.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

My kit is a Canon Xt and T3i - lens are 18-55 and 100 - 300 - my 18-55 gets 90% of my images but I sure would like to have any of the 18-
250,300 or 400 just but my budget just will not cover it.

quote=bonzo]Thanks for the comments. I ha e an 18- 55mm so i think im all set.[/quote]

Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA

Emphatic thumbs-up on the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS STM for traveling. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS STM is a good entry-level telephoto zoom lens. It is a lens that you will actually carry with you because it is light and because it can provide reasonably good image quality. Considering the price, especially as part of a camera-lens package, it is very good value for money.

Here are a few EF-S 55-250mm jpeg snapshots from a 2016 trip to Thailand and Cambodia (plus one heavily cropped picture of a vulture in Maryland). As is usually the case, the EF-S 55-250mm was the adjunct to a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, and the shorter faster zoom was the predominant choice for most situations on that Southeast Asia trip. The camera is an EOS Rebel T6s.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Just another thought - -
I have a Canon 7D Mk-1, now using the 80D as my go to camera.
Several lenses, including a Tokina 12-24 Mk-1, Canon 18-200, and a Tammy 24-70 f/2.8 IS
BUT - - if you can only take ONE - consider a super-zoom bridge. Just about the same cost as a super-zoom lens for a DSLR
Much smaller and lighter - - yeah - - some compromises (Lower ISO, other stuff)
I really thought I wanted the new Tammy 18-400 - - but too many compromises.
I've almost dropped the hammer on the Sigma 150-600C with Dock, but held off because I don't really do Birds
And - my superzoom reaches out to 1200mm :) :)

cthahn

If you are a photographer, you should understand what lens to use.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

It wouldn't be wide enough for me.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I always use and recommend wider for travel than long zooms. In the long run you decide is it convenience or quality you are after. I like fast aperture primes personally, but if zooms are your thing, and you prefer quality over convenience for your T6, I don't think you have to look beyond the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. There are so many choices out there today.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Ignore cthahn - - he's a hit and run troll here on the board; rarely ever visits the same post twice
He'd not know how to enter a helpful post if it came up and bit him