Should I get a Canon 55-250mm 4-5.6 instead?

This is kind of a mix of flash and lens.... so I hope its ok that I post this here.

I just picked up a 580 to go with my 430 flash... but now I am wondering if instead I should put the money into getting a Canon 55-250mm lens. I know that my 18-200mm is a good "hiking" lens but I feel it is lacking some sharpness in my images and provides very average bokeh when at 200mm. So what do you guys think? Stick with 2 flashes and my 2 lenses (nifty fifty and 18-200mm) or send the 580ex II back and get a better lens instead (55-250mm)?

Thank you in advance!

If you're concern is hiking, I'm not sure why a flash is in the equation
You have to be the one to judge weight vs benefit of course, but obviously the 18-200 will not be spectacular. Although the 55-250 will no doubt get you sharper images, 55 isn't very wide and I wouldn't expect an amazing jump in bokeh.
Assuming the 55-250 is your only choice for budget reasons and you know its the range you want: Is the 55-250 and upgrade? Sure.

No hiking is not my only concern. I am really interested in wildlife photography and shooting portraits. I am thinking of just using the 18-200mm for hiking type things, and if I were to get the 55-250 then I would use that as well as my 50 prime for portraits.

I am one of the few that do not think the 55-250mm is a "better lens" - when I had my 500D, I was very dissatisfied with this lens. I did buy the 15mm-85mm lens for my crop camera and it was so much better that I saved until I could get the 70mm-200mm f/4 IS. I know, it is way more than the 55mm-250mm, but to me it was worth is. I love the pictures I get with this lens and I know it is all I will ever want. I have had it for a couple of years without a desire for anything else. Sorry, bu I am just not a fan of this lens. Know this isn't the answer you are looking for, but I suggest trying one out before buy it.

I guess it depends on what you consider a great hiking lens to be. I consider my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS a great hiking lens. I change to wider (or longer) if I need to. But I only hike to take pictures, and I take pictures more than I hike. The result I never get very far (usually only 3-5 miles) in a morning or afternoon.

I don't think you need both the 18-200 and 55-250. 55-250 is not really any better than the 18-200 and you would barely notice the extra 50mm.

Have you looked at the 28-135? Or perhaps the new 18-135 just announced?

Ratjack wrote in post #14559944
No hiking is not my only concern. I am really interested in wildlife photography and shooting portraits. I am thinking of just using the 18-200mm for hiking type things, and if I were to get the 55-250 then I would use that as well as my 50 prime for portraits.

The 55-250 has a longer reach, a bit less distortion, and a lot less chromatic aberration than the 18-200mm. Manual auto focus is a pain as is the use of circular polarizers. Its only marginally sharper at the edges as some focal lengths and no sharper in the center. At its price point it is a terrific bargain but if you want a real improvement for shooting wildlife, you're going to have to shell out money for a more competent lens. One advantage of the 55-250 for you is that at various focal lengths up to about 150mm it will be faster than the 18-200 since it starts at 55mm and covers a narrower focal range. At 55mm it's maximum aperture is f4 while at the same focal length on the 18-200mm the maximum aperture is f5. But I think for portraits you'll be better served with the inexpensive Canon 50mm f1.8 II. Very sharp and very fast ... and very cheap. The bokeh? Well, with five blades, the 50mm is not the best, but I'm not sure the 55-250, even with 7 blades, is all that much better.

I also have a Canon 15-85mm and I can tell you that in the range where the 2 lens overlap, (from 55-85mm) the i5-85mm is noticeably and significantly sharper from edge to edge, has better contrast and better color rendition. The 55-250mm, although a bargain at its price, has limitations that become obvious once you compare it to the really good stuff.

55-250 is maginally better at best.

Save up for a 70-200f4 non-IS as an absolutely minimum...

kin2son wrote in post #14561203
55-250 is maginally better at best.

Save up for a 70-200f4 non-IS as an absolutely minimum...

Certainly in a completely different IQ league, but I'm guessing its way too far out of the OP's price range since he was interested in one of the least expensive lenses that Canon or anyone else makes.

Well, I REALLY appreciate everyones input. Looks like I will be saving up for an L lens after all.

Ratjack wrote in post #14561386
Well, I REALLY appreciate everyones input. Looks like I will be saving up for an L lens after all.

Look also at reviews and opinions of some of the competition from Sigma or Tamron. Even if you get Canon in the end, its pays to understand what you're getting for the money vs the other guys. In other words the better you're educated on the subject the more likely you'll end up with the best choice for you.

Get the EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM if you want better IQ than the 18-200. Throw in better/faster USM focusing and smaller/lighter than the 70-200 f/4 and it begins to sound like a steal for around $100 on e-bay, or where ever else you can find it.