Originally posted by pathdoc If you are DEFINITELY getting the 55-300, the 18-270 is pointless overlap. In fact the 16-85 may be a better choice to cover the wide end if you are getting something for the long end anyway, because you get a little more at the wide end. I considered it but went for the 18-135 because I wanted ONE WR zoom lens that could do as much as possible outdoors in wide open spaces at reasonable cost, and that fit the bill better. Had I not already been swimming in glass decided on a two lens WR solution with price no real object, I would have gone with 16-85 + 55-300.
I went with the two lens WR solution, and I'm happy I did. I had the 18-135 and the old non-WR 55-300. I've sold both and now have the 16-85 and newest 55-300 PLM. I've found that I use 16mm
much more than the 86-135 range, but your usage may be different. In any case, I agree with @pathdoc that the 18-270 is pointless overlap if you have the 55-300.