Looking for ideas on what I need

I shoot mostly wildlife and anything with a motor basically, some people shots.
Im also on a budget so no L's for me please.

Whats would be a good lens choices for me? Rebel Xt

what's your total budget?

85mm f1.8 is a good place to start

i'm assuming your gear is in your signature?...how are you shooting wildlife at 55mm?...what's your budget...i figure no more than $600 as that's the cheapest L around...why not just get a 55-250IS to pair with your kit...it'd give you so much needed reach

I have a Quantary 55-200 i think it is. I forget, but Im pretty sure its more crap than lens lol

unless I can sell off my bass guitar gear, Im looking at pretty cheap like 600

55-250mm or 70-300mm iS lenses (not the 75-300mm which isn't very good). I would stick to IS assisted glass in those focal lengths. I had a non-IS 70-200mm f/4L and didn't get a lot of use out of it since I was so constricted by the need for brighter lighting conditions. I use my IS version 4-5x as often.

Yeah I was thinking of the 55-250 heard good things about it here.

I did just get a 2x TC from Quantary, won on Ebay for $26. It does work my Q tele. Going to test it tomorrow.

Given yor constraints, I'd say that the Canon 55-250IS is pretty much your best bet.

But given I have a 200mm now would the add 50mm matter much? 200mm for me now, doesnt fix my birding needs unless the bird is dead and laying around somewhere

I'd vote for something with an aperture of f/2.8 or wider. Given your budget I'd probably say a prime or two. Pick up your camera, step outside and zoom to a spot where you would say you take a lot of your pictures. Then take a look on the lens to see what focal length you're at & post it back here.

you said mostly wildlife, but looking at your website i don't really see anything that shows many wildlife shots...

what do you find yourself unable to accomplish with your current kit...you could get a nice prime lens...maybe a macro?

torkk wrote in post #10678899
But given I have a 200mm now would the add 50mm matter much? 200mm for me now, doesnt fix my birding needs unless the bird is dead and laying around somewhere

The advantage is only partly in greater focal length. The 55-250 will be much sharper and deliver better contrast than your Quantaray. If you're looking for longer, then the 70-300IS is probably your best bang-for-buck option. Any longer than that will stretch your budget.

RPCrowe wrote in post #10676221
EF-S 55-250mm IS or EF 70-300mm IS lenses (not the 75-300mm which isn't very good). I would stick to IS assisted glass in those focal lengths. I had a non-IS 70-200mm f/4L and didn't get a lot of use out of it since I was so constricted by the need for brighter lighting conditions. I use my IS version 4-5x as often.

Bingo!

As to the Quantaray... Do you have a video camera? If so, think sledgehammer, lens, sidewalk... make a video and post it on YouTube. That's probably the best use for that lens.

Now, regarding 200mm, 250mm, 300mm... Well, face it, no birder ever has "enough" lens. Period. If you buy a 400mm, you'll want a 500mm. Get that and you'll want a 600mm.... Soon as you have the 600, you'll want an 800mm. And a 2X teleconverter.

Practice attracting birds to you, working from blinds, stalking skills. There are ways to get good shots. Learn to work with what's within reach and/or how to get it to come within reach. But, let me assure you that there will always be subjects you'd like to shoot just out of your reach, no matter how long a telephoto you have at your disposal or what techniques you try. That's when you have to simply practice patience and enjoy the show.

Your camera has a 1.6X lens factor... so a 250mm "acts like" a 400mm would on a full frame camera. A 300mm "acts like" a 480mm.

For the first ten years of his career as a professional wildlife photographer, Nial Benvie's longest lens was a 300mm with a 1.4X teleconverter.... on film (i.e. full frame) cameras. He managed to get a lot of great shots.

I get what your all saying. I took some shots with my Quantary with and without the 2x Quantary TC. once I zoomed in on the photo it look like, well lets just say the chimney looked like it was dropped from a dogs butt.

The Q tele only cost me 49 bucks thou

Guess Im going to try to sell off my music equipment and buy some better glass

torkk wrote in post #10678899
But given I have a 200mm now would the add 50mm matter much? 200mm for me now, doesnt fix my birding needs unless the bird is dead and laying around somewhere

Well, the Canon would give you better optics, color, etc. Unfortunately, with the non-L constraint, I assume you're trying to avoid the cost there, you're not likely to find much more reach without spending $1000 or more ("L" or not).

The Tamron 200-500 is around $950 or so, but I don't know anything about it's performance.