Replace my nifty 250?

I have a nifty 250 (55-250 IS). It fits in the middle of the collection I currently have (see bottom). I was thinking of upgrading the glass. Keeping the same general range. Maybe dipping down into the 18 or 24 range, and up towards 200 or 250. Any thoughts?

Need to keep it as far under $1000 as possible. Looking for good glass, as in the last upgrade I might realistically need in this range type upgrade. Definitely want USM and IS.

sigma 18 - 200, got one its great and it'd be all in one.

70-200mm 2.8 non is?

Another vote for 70-200L But I say go for NonIS F4.
Budgetwise its wiser.
Qualitywise its the same.
Much lighter.

i wouldn't bother going to an 18-200mm lens...not much of an upgrade really

samsen wrote in post #15663655
Another vote for 70-200L But I say go for NonIS F4.
Budgetwise its wiser.
Qualitywise its the same.
Much lighter.

I agree, and actually did that. Awesome quality for the price.

boufa wrote in post #15663615
Definitely want USM and IS.

The non-IS f2.8 or f4 don't really fit this criteria... you could go for the 70-200 f4 IS though

I am intrigued by the first idea. I would be ok losing a lens. I know combining lenses into a super zoom doesn't always work out well. Since I got the 150-500 I find that I am not using the middle range as much. There are times however when I would maybe want it, to avoid the size of the 500. A single lens that cover the entire range is an upgrade if the iq is the same.

Started researching the 18-250 macro by sigma. It's got the range and the macro would be something I don't have now, in a single lens solution.

boufa wrote in post #15664297
I am intrigued by the first idea. I would be ok losing a lens. I know combining lenses into a super zoom doesn't always work out well. Since I got the 150-500 I find that I am not using the middle range as much. There are times however when I would maybe want it, to avoid the size of the 500. A single lens that cover the entire range is an upgrade if the iq is the same.

Started researching the 18-250 macro by sigma. It's got the range and the macro would be something I don't have now, in a single lens solution.

keep doing the research. Usually the "IQ" is not the same and the aperture is smaller at the same focal lengths.
here's one comparison site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=2

boufa wrote in post #15664297
I am intrigued by the first idea. I would be ok losing a lens. I know combining lenses into a super zoom doesn't always work out well. Since I got the 150-500 I find that I am not using the middle range as much. There are times however when I would maybe want it, to avoid the size of the 500. A single lens that cover the entire range is an upgrade if the iq is the same.

Started researching the 18-250 macro by sigma. It's got the range and the macro would be something I don't have now, in a single lens solution.

if you want to see what the 18 - 200 can do just let me know and I'll show you some of the images I have gotten out of my copy. I've no real experience with the 18 - 250 though, I will say I did test it out and something just felt "right" with the 18 - 200 I tried and bought. Is it a bit of a compromise? Sure, but all gear is, just have to find the ways to either avoid said weaknesses of the gear or find work-arounds.

Ilovetheleafs wrote in post #15666984
if you want to see what the 18 - 200 can do just let me know and I'll show you some of the images I have gotten out of my copy. I've no real experience with the 18 - 250 though, I will say I did test it out and something just felt "right" with the 18 - 200 I tried and bought. Is it a bit of a compromise? Sure, but all gear is, just have to find the ways to either avoid said weaknesses of the gear or find work-arounds.

Thanks, your samples, while I am sure are nice, won't be relevant. I am definitely not getting the 18-200. Different versions of the same lens, or similar lenses can be drastically different from each other.

I have read some reviews that say that while there are compromises in a super zoom, those compromises are shrinking every day. That the 18-250 is actually short on compromises. I could probably afford the 70-200 L, but honestly, I don't see my self using it. (same problem I have with the 55-250) It is in the middle of the focal range. when I am at a family function, I go for the wide lens, I know that will cover most shots. When I am in the wild, I go with the 150-500, since that will be what makes me photo ready most often.

I would have to stop, change lenses, and purposely switch to the 55-250, (or the 70-200) and I just don't see this happening.

Now, a 18-250, would be the type of lens that could stay on in the car. (The 150-500 is just too big to throw around out the window at random.) Shooting targets of opportunity, and or family.

Of course no one is arguing the potential usefulness of that range of zoom.. only the IQ. So people who think that the super zoom idea will produce poor quality images, simply on the premise that it is a super zoom... what do you think of the IQ on the 55-250 canon? So that we can compare apples to apples.

boufa wrote in post #15669208
Of course no one is arguing the potential usefulness of that range of zoom.. only the IQ. So people who think that the super zoom idea will produce poor quality images, simply on the premise that it is a super zoom... what do you think of the IQ on the 55-250 canon? So that we can compare apples to apples.

most of the superzooms don't produce poor quality images, it's just not as sharp as the 18-55IS and 55-250IS combination but pretty close. Keep the 55-250IS until you upgrade with a quality telephoto - 70-200, 100-400, etc.

watt100 wrote in post #15669305
most of the superzooms don't produce poor quality images, it's just not as sharp as the 18-55IS and 55-250IS combination but pretty close. Keep the 55-250IS until you upgrade with a quality telephoto - 70-200, 100-400, etc.

The whole point of this thread is that I have a Sigma 150-500, that is making the 55-250 expendable.

It sounds you don't actually need the 55-250 range. Upgrade you kit lens to something like Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, your lens lineup will be much more even.

What about something along the lines of a 24-105 or the 15-85? I don't think you'd really miss the 106-149 or 86-149 range very much.