What would you buy next?

Hi everybody, I need your advice. I have an Xti + tamron 17-50 2.8 + 55-250.
I was thinking to buy a new lens and I was considering the 85 1.8.
But I'm afraid that this prime is gonna be too specific for me; I mean, I don't wonna buy a lens to be used only for "fixed range" portrait; I'm used to travel a lot, and I won't probably be able to put someone in pose for a shot.
I don't know if you got the point.
Then I was wondering if there's a better lens for me. Would you keep the 55-250 as a portrait lens and buy a UWA, or would you rather go for the 85 1.8? Or what else?
Thx a lot

Ps= I'm definitely on budget! So I'd rather go for a used lens..well, consider the price of the 85 1.8 as acceptable. And I can't go 100$ further than that!

If you plan on still travelling, get the UWA...

Sigma 10-20 for budget
Canon 10-22 if you must have Canon
or Tokina 11-16 if you want F2.8.

I personally don't find the 85 1.8 isn't really a travelling lens. I rarely need more than 17-55 travelling. With the 85 1.8, I see a lot more potrait use for this lens, then secondly maybe indoor sports.

The two lens you have are great for traveling. You have everthing covered.

If you think you will always stay with a cropped camera I would get a wide angle. The Canon 10-22 if you can afford it or the Tokina 12-24 if you are on a budget.

You then have all the range covered, just get a good bag and you are set.

Thx; the point is that I usually prefer portraits rather than landscapes; but at the same time, the lens has to be versatile. What about selling the 55-250 for the sigma 50-150 2.8?
During my travels, I take the most of the shots with 55-250...

Do you have enough working distance on the 55-250 for portraits to create sufficient distance between the subject and background? Or do you need the F1.8 to create a small DOF?

Keep what you have now. Need wider, get Tokina 11-16/2.8, Worried about the 85/1.8 being too specific? Set your 55-250 at 85 and leave it there and see how you do for a while.

Tokina 11-16 2.8mm, or sell the 55-250 and get a 70-200 f4 IS, that is what I would do

other thing to consider is that I notice you have no flash unit listed in your gear. I think a new speedlight would be worth thinking about as well.

if you want a prime, I find 50 or 35 most useful (28-30 or 20mm on crop body). Or get a flash.

The 85 1.8 is definitely a better portrait lens than the 55-250 IMHO. It will allowed you to really isolate your subject. It is also great for inside/low light photography when flash isn't allowed or when you need to freeze action. It's extremely fast focusing, and accurate. It's very versatile in that regard...I'm not sure that it's what I would choose for a lens to walk around a city with though. I'd rather use a fast zoom.

You've got a good range already covered. An ultra-wide would give you a different prospective, and can create some pretty dramatic images. They are also good for city/architecture shooting.

Just my 2 cents.

Thx everybody; what I'm more interested in is portraiture, but not posed portraiture. I want to take shots of common people wandering around the cities of the world. That's why I was talking about versatility. 55-250 would be great for that...but at the same time I'd like to enhance the bokeh and reduce the dof to make the subject come out better.
Did you get the point?
That being said, is there a better lens accoring to my purposes?

I think some other people need to chime in, because I haven't taken a lot of candid portraits.

However, I think the 55-250 is a great range for what you want to do. The next step up would be the 70-200 4/L...you would gain F4 throughout the zoom, but you loose IS. The 70-200 2.8 would be ideal, but it's 1K.

You could use a prime, like you had mentioned, but you would be walking around a lot to frame things. The 85 1.8, and the 100 2.0 are excellent.

You can't go wrong with the Canon 70-200 f4 IS. Probably the best zoom ever made and rivals primes....great for people shooting, outdoors. I use it as often, if not more often than the Tamron 28-75 that I have, which is very sharp, also.

Also more comfortable than the 2.8 versions out there if on your camera all day.

If adding some range to what you have, the recommendations you have read for UW's is a good way to go, imo.

The 85 has been mentioned. I also have the 85/1.8, but it's too use specific to make it a general walkaround, imo. Foot zooming doesn't work unless you're shooting static subjects, outdoors. People are not going to wait for you, if you are shooting candids. You need to get the shot off, FAST.

This is from someone that almost always shoots people.

The 17-50 or similar range doesn't cut it for me, if your primary interest is people photography, which is why I don't have one.

If I need real wide I mount a Canon 10-22.

With candid photography, you need a lens with fast AF. Both the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are great primes for this, but may not have enough flexibility. To get a fast AF and versatility, I'd vote for the 70-200 F4 IS. It is significantly more than the 55-250 or the primes, but the IQ is fantastic. F4 may or may not have the DOF you want, but that you'll have to find out on your own.

It sounds to me like the 70-200 f4 would be your best bet. It sounds like you are wanting to get better street photography pictures. I use a Canon 70-200 f2.8 is or a 24f1.4 depending on the nature of the shot.

I think your idea of the 85 1.8 is a great one. I also felt a prime was too restrictive until I started to use one. You have a good range covered with your other lenses, so I'd opt for the prime. If you don't like it, sell it. It's surprising how much more you can do with a fast prime.