2 new lenses, or just 1?

I'm currently using an XSi with 50mm 1.8 and the kit 18-55. I want to add 2 more lenses - a wider prime lens primarily for shooting family in tighter indoor spaces, and a zoom lens for shooting wildlife.

I'm considering adding the 28mm 1.8 and the 55-250mm. Combined looks like it'll cost me about 650 dollars.

OR, I could save up a bit more and go with just 1 nice lens, like the 24-105L. Of course it's nowhere near as fast at the wide end and doesn't give me the zoom capability. But it seems like an overall terrific "1 lens" solution to keep on my camera.

24-105 L without a doubt.

I've owned the 55-250, didn't care too much about it, AF was so-so. But 28mm 1.8 seems like a great lens to add to your setup for sure.

24-105 is a great lens if you find yourself in a lot of situations where you just don't have the space or time to swap lens. I love this lens for day time street photography. I will be bring this and my 50mm to China with me in October.

I suggest the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It may satisfy you on the wide end. The 55-250mm is a surprisingly decent lens. These will run you about the same price. Tamron is offering a rebate right now for that lens.

The 24-105 is a great lens for sure, but I personally find it awkward on a crop.

You say a wider prime, do you mean wider than the 50, or wider than 18? I've never used one, but lots of folks seem real happy with the 55-250.

Laramie wrote in post #14922760
The 24-105 is a great lens for sure, but I personally find it awkward on a crop.

You say a wider prime, do you mean wider than the 50, or wider than 18? I've never used one, but lots of folks seem real happy with the 55-250.

Sorry, wider than the 50. Definitely no need in anything I shoot regularly to go wider than 18 even on my XSi.

And honestly, the 50 probably allows me to get about 75-80% of the shots I have in mind, it's only inconvenient when I just don't have any more room to step back (again, usually indoors).

24-104 is most certainly the way to go
it's about a near perfect to an all around lens

Laramie wrote in post #14922760
The 24-105 is a great lens for sure, but I personally find it awkward on a crop.

in what respect?

I flip mine between both formats without a thought.

I say get a Sigma 17-50/2.8 and a 55-250. If you really want a prime, get the Sigma 30/1.4.

24-105?? For what you described seems to be a poor choice too slow for indoors, unless paired with a flash...and not even remotely long enough for wildlife

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14922808
in what respect?

I flip mine between both formats without a thought.

For my style of shooting. I tend to be on one extreme or the other, ultra-wide or at 200+1.4x.

17-5X easily. either the tamron or if you can spend, then the canon(you did mention the 24-105 after all).

I'm surprised by people recommending the inferior 24-105.

two keywords: "tighter", "indoors"

Laramie wrote in post #14922845
For my style of shooting. I tend to be on one extreme or the other, ultra-wide or at 200+1.4x.

ah ha

suppose I hear ya...on the streets I love shooting people with my 100-400 but find myself leaving it at 4

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14922922
ah ha

suppose I hear ya...on the streets I love shooting people with my 100-400 but find myself leaving it at 4

I like the separation of a long zoom. But admittedly, I shoot more 4 legged or legless critters than I do anything else, so obviously my needs are different.

Certain leses are right at home on FF, but again, for me they are just a bit awkward on a crop in terms of focal length. But obviously just depends on the type of shooting you do.

Charlie wrote in post #14922874
17-5X easily. either the tamron or if you can spend, then the canon(you did mention the 24-105 after all).

I'm surprised by people recommending the inferior 24-105.

two keywords: "tighter", "indoors"

Thanks, but this doesn't meet my needs for a longer zoom lens for wildlife photography. The reason why I mentioned the 24-105 was because I was under the (maybe incorrect) assumption that 105 would be long enough to get some decent wildlife photos with some well done cropping.

If I get the 17-55 (a terrific lens I admit), I might still need to add the 55-250 to get the range of what I want to do with my photos, and that tacks on another 200 dollars. I know it's just another 200, but now I'm looking at almost double what I was originally thinking of spending with just the prime and the 55-250.

Another consideration is I do harbor dreams/ hopes of moving up to full-frame one day, so I wanted to stick to EF lenses if at all possible... I know the 55-250 is an EF-S, but that's only 200 bucks and probably fairly easy to sell or cheap enough to keep on a hypothetical back-up crop sensor camera.

DreDaze wrote in post #14922840
24-105?? For what you described seems to be a poor choice too slow for indoors, unless paired with a flash...and not even remotely long enough for wildlife

I have to agree here. You're going to need quite a bit of light or a really high ISO to shoot this indoors without flash.