Walk-around lens for a 400D

I have been looking at three...
1: Tamron AF 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Di 11 VC
pro..15x focal length range,
con..geometric distortion across much of zoom range.

2: Canon EF-S 18-200 mm F3.5-5.6 IS
pro..good central sharpness at all focal lengths,
con...(and to me a biggie because I do want to use wide angle perhaps even more than zoom)
wide angle performance is distinctly mediocre due to a combination of barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, and softness at wide apertures.

3: Sigma OS 18-200 Dc Canon AF OPT
pro..75% positive user reviews
con..25 % negative reviews hated it,.. heavy lens, serious auto focus problems, soft macro

I realize none are gong to be a perfect lens, but opinions please on the lesser of all the evils???
Any help in deciding will be appreciated.

Go for the Canon, I would.

What about the 70-300mm IS?

Go for the Canon EF-S 18-200 mm F3.5-5.6 IS - Hubby has it and it is superb

I already have a Canon 55-250 mm IS, and find 55 mm still far too narrow.

That is great to know Melody! Thanks.
It is really a pain when having to continually switch lenses in less than ideal circumstances.

He doesn't see any problem with wide angle barrel distortion or softness then?
(I suspect I can avoid that by not using the lens at 18 mm..but would hope that isn't necessary.)

This is probably going to sound harsh, but..... You bought an SLR, the idea is that you change lens to suit the shot.

Now, if you want a carry round lens, why don't you bite the bullet and buy a carry round camera with a fixed lens, like the Canon S3/S4 (are they on S5 now?) that you can use as a Point and Shoot, but with manual controls and L series glass.

Then you can use your SLR for when you are prepared to change the lenses. The cost of a good Prosumer camera might be cheaper than an all purpose lens too.

Tamron, well it's a Tamron, and F6.3 @ 270mm, possibly going to have to carry a tripod as well, which probably wasn't your intention.

Canon 18 - 200mm sounds okay, yes at wide angle it may not be at it's best, but generally, zoom lenses are optimised to operate somewhere in the middle of the range. So at the extremes they suffer.

Sigma - I've had a few, heavy, well if they are metal then yes, but I like that, feels like they are properly made, autofocus on Sigma's has generally been slow and noisy, but are you in need of a fast focus? Macro? my my we do want a lot from our single lens don't we

Did you get the kit lens (18-55?) if so, and you have the 55-200 then I would say you are wasting your money buying an 18-200mm lens, and that you should possible consider the prosumer approach if it is just a camera to carry around on walks that you are after.

Just a different point of view to give you some more food for thought

Alan.

I would get the Canon EF-S 18-200 too

I can see where Alan is coming from, but unlike a lens, a point n shoot won't hold it's value as much. Additionally, I don't think there would be much difference between that and the other two lens (so you could sell them), and then with that money get some quality glass for the times when you don't mind swapping n changing lens

I traded in my kit lenses for an 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS lens shortly after I bought the camera. They both are incredibly good lenses, and for the most part all I will likely need. (Unless I want to venture into macro some day.)

However, when loaded down with beach towels, fins, snorkel, masks sunscreen and snorkel vest..a camera with a lens I can use all day without changing becomes a real necessity.
I do own a Canon Powershot S3 IS and a Canon SD 700. Both are quite fine for many situations....but not close to SLR image quality when I want it.
As much as I wish it wasn't so, an L series glass just isn't in this seniors budget. They are pretty big and heavy anyway I believe?
We travel several times a year, and on the days we are on excursions..I want one lens that would work for most situations.
Otherwise not likely will use this lens too often.

Technical jargon is just that ..jargon and means little to me mostly, however looking at photos taken with each lens, the barrel distortion of a brick wall was very apparent to me when they used the Canon at 18 mm. That might bother me..although it is fixable with editing software.
Just thinking out loud now.

I think I have eliminated the Sigma lens although it is cheaper, I would chose Canon first...mostly because I would have the Camera Shop standing behind it where as they would have to order a Tamron for me.
This Tamron has stabilization and a 6 year warrenty..and why I am hesitating getting the Canon.
My favourite lens is my 18-55 IS, and one I use the most for landscapes. I would not part with that one.
Thank you everyone for your input! Much appreciated!

I tend to find that I use my wider lenses 95% of the time, and only use the telephoto ones 5% of the time.

In fact, my Canon 17-40 L stays on my body most of the time, only being switched off when I do gig photography.

I travel abroad a lot, 30-ish times a year and had to really think about what I take. I now only take my camera body, 2 memory cards, the 17-40 and the 50mm F1.8 for night time. And to be honest, I never need the longer lenses I have as I mostly am looking at landscapes/buildings or things that I can walk right up to.

Alan.

I have to agree with you Alan, my 18-55 lives on my camera for the most part as well.
Most of all my photos are wide angle tool
However in the Islands I sometimes don't have an option to "get closer" even if I wanted to.....
Not a good image..but an example