Are these lenses redundant for my needs?

tatslau wrote:

dgr88 wrote:

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

and/or

Sigma 18-250 mm f3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM

A little background - I bought the original Rebel shortly after it was released. I was just starting to move along the DSLR learning curve when my first child was born 11 years ago, went back to the ease and portability of a point and shoot.

Now I'm about to revisit the dslr and purchase the 70D in advance of a family trip to Costa Rica. As it happens, I'm also about to start filming a series of work-related training videos for YouTube, so I'm factoring this into my purchase decisions as well.

After researching lens options for our Costa Rica trip, I decided to put the Sigma 18-250 mm f3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM on my list. I want to avoid changing lenses while on the trip if possible, so this seems to be the best middle ground for convenience and image quality.

With the addition of video capability, however, the 70D kit lens - the Canon 18-135 mm f3.5-5.6 STM - has stood out as a superior lens.

Is it overkill have have both lenses? I know that I want the Canon for it's video capabilities, but would it also serve me well on my trip if I decided to forgo the Sigma? I have the budget to buy both, but certainly do not want to spend more money unnecessarily.

Any guidance would be appreciated. I'm also open to other lens suggestions within the same price orbit as the two above.

Thanks!

Yes, definitely redundant. If you have to switch lens for that extra reach of 250mm, get the Canon 55-250 STM IS instead. I have it and its IQ is close to that of L lenses, AF is super smooth and quiet. STM lenses are the best for video, even better than L lenses with USM.

Couldn't agree more on the recommendation of the 55-250 STM IS as a travel lens.  Light, affordable, and IQ will be noticeably better than the Sigma.

Mark