[rogerstg]

I'm just wondering whether I need the 55-300. It has been always like this: when I did bring it, I rarely took it out, sometimes it came back from a trip untouch in the bag, but when I didn't bring it, there was shots I wish I had it

That's perfectly logical. When you have it with you but not on the camera body, you won't wish you had it, you'll just conclude that the circumstances are too fleeting to switch lenses. That's the nature of many telephoto subjects: they don't last long. On the other hand, with wide shots there is usually time to change glass. An article I once read explained this better and suggested using your telephoto as the default lens when traveling. My own experience confirms it, though usually when I regretted not following that advice.

I haven't been to Israel, but based on the lenses you have, I'd probably take the 20-40 and 55-300. Those two can cover a lot of situations.

[Bui]

I finally decided to bring the limited trio 15, 20-50 and 70, plus the 55-300, a bit overweight as compared with previously planned. The 18-135 is so convenient, but I love the 20-40's rendering. Finally most of my photos were taken with it. The 15 was useful inside churches where space are limited. The 70 was used rarely, but still handily for some family portrait. I never took the 55-300 out, even when we traveled to the Dead Sea, except for some occasion when it helped my to take photos of Jewish praying and walking on the street, they were so attractive but I didn't want to disturb them.

[aslyfox]

I finally decided to bring the limited trio 15, 20-50 and 70, plus the 55-300, . . . .

sounds like you made the right choices

glad it worked out