Any really good reason to go 55-250mm vs the 18 or 28-135mm?

My lens collection is decent, for my purposes. (Details in Sig line). The weak point is the Sigma 28-70, AFAIC. I've got the primes at 50 and 100 covered OK for my purposes, so I'd like to get something to cover the mid-20mm to 100mm range. Assuming I can spend up to around $400, and most of my shooting is outdoors, landscape/wildlife, in fairly good light, is there any reason to go with the 55-250mm over the XX-135mm lenses? I'm just not sure if the extra reach of the 250 is useful, what with my 100-400L also in the pack. On the other hand, that's a nice wide range for one lens. I guess my indecision is based on whether the IQ of the XX-135 lenses is better than the 55-250, enough to override their shorter reach? (And higher price, for the most part.)

Any thoughts? Thanks!

55-250 is a good lens as long as there's sufficient light.

I only briefly used 28-135, from what I saw it doesn't have a better IQ.

I doubt their IQ is better. Have you considered just saving a bit for something like a 24-105?

themadman wrote in post #10619019
I doubt their IQ is better. Have you considered just saving a bit for something like a 24-105?

I'd love the 24-105L but right now it's about three or four times my budget..

I've started to lean a bit more towards the 55-250. I figure the coverage gap between the 10-22 and the 55-250 it is not worth giving up the over 100mm of extra reach between the 135's and the 250, if that makes any sense.

JimmyJam wrote in post #10619489
I'd love the 24-105L but right now it's about three or four times my budget..

I've started to lean a bit more towards the 55-250. I figure the coverage gap between the 10-22 and the 55-250 it is not worth giving up the over 100mm of extra reach between the 135's and the 250, if that makes any sense.

Id advise against this. A gap between 70-100 isnt nearly as big as one between 22-50, even though its roughly the same mm.

You will always want something just a little longer than 22 mm and 55 mm will be too long. Plus, the extra mm of the 55-250 wont do anything your 100-400 cant beat the snot out of.

Id look for a nice mid-priced normal range lens like Tammy 17-50, Sigma 17-70, Tammy 28-75, etc. Even the Canon 17-85 will probably beat what you have now.

Another good option, if you can stretch it, is the canon 15-85. Its a great lens and just barely outside your budget - you could probably be even closer still by saving a bit or buying used.

FWIW, the 24-105 regulalry goes for 850 used on this forum, so its only twice your budget - maybe that makes saving for it seem a little more realistic.

The 55-250mm IS is a great little lens, but I don't think that it fills your gap well. I would also recommend the 15-85mm, but for less $$$ you could get the Tamron 17-50mm non-IS. Hell, even the 18-55mm IS would fit better than the 55-250mm.

Yes,

If you need a longer lens...

JimmyJam wrote in post #10617696
. reach of the 250 is useful, what with my 100-400L also in the packss my indecision is based on whether the IQ of the XX-135 lenses is better than the 55-250, enough to override their shorter reach? (And higher price, for the most part.)

Any thoughts? Thanks!

if you're wondering about the "IQ" of the Canon 55-250IS and the 28-135 - look at www.photozone.de
at comparable focal ranges (on a crop model) the 55-250IS is significantly sharper with better image quality than the 28-135 lens. But with all your lens, it is debatable whether the 55-250IS will really add to your gear bag!

I'm with everyone who is recommending a standard zoom. You'd get a lot more out of a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50 macro than you would with a 55-250 in terms of usability.

All very good points. So the consensus seems to be:
1) The 55-250 won't add that much, and the 100-400 already in the bag will take over above 100mm without breaking a sweat.
2) The 18-55 has entered the race as a dark horse.
3) The 28-135 has been scratched at the post.

Let me ponder on this a while.. Thanks ALL very much for the input.

EDIT : Now I'm looking into the EF-S 17-85 IS USM - It seems to be halfway decent, if a little high in my budget right now.

JimmyJam wrote in post #10621341
All very good points. So the consensus seems to be:
1) The 55-250 won't add that much, and the 100-400 already in the bag will take over above 100mm without breaking a sweat.
2) The 18-55 has entered the race as a dark horse.
3) The 28-135 has been scratched at the post.

Let me ponder on this a while.. Thanks ALL very much for the input.

EDIT : Now I'm looking into the EF-S 17-85 IS USM - It seems to be halfway decent, if a little high in my budget right now.

No!

Had the 17-85, and did not like it (barrel distortion at 17mm is horrible). But I've read other people like the newer 15-85mm that was recently released. Save up for the 15-85 if you are even considering the 17-85. From what I read, you'll be much happier.

tempest68 wrote in post #10622136
No!

Had the 17-85, and did not like it (barrel distortion at 17mm is horrible). But I've read other people like the newer 15-85mm that was recently released. Save up for the 15-85 if you are even considering the 17-85. From what I read, you'll be much happier.

I noted the reviews that mentioned the distortion at the wide end. The 10-22 will be on camera for anything that needs W/A. So I wasn't overly put off by that. Other than that, most people seemed OK with it (except you, of course..

I just got the 24-105L used for about 800 and some change... That would make it only double your budget if your willing to wait and save up. Bought it here at potn.

If you can't wait... I have an 18-135 kit lens I need to to sell

+1 on the 15-85.