Quote Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles View Post
Where will you be walking around? Outside? in the city and doing street work during the day - city park nature types, the 15-85 would be fantastic, a little more indoor lower light the 17-55 is the way to go. I have a t3i and have worked through 18-55 to the 15-85 and now have the 17-55 as I have found I am a little more indoors. With the 2.8 17-55 I find that I effectively never use the nifty fifty 1.8. I like to have it as an emergency lens (on a trip to France loaned it to another Cannonite when their 24-105 on their new 5diii stopped working).

One way to see how wide you need/want is to "walk around" with the 18-55 set on 24 and look through viewfinder, take some shots and see if you are happy w/ the 24 as the widest option. Also do the zoom from 55 to 85 and see if need/want the extra 3-4 steps of sneaker zoom saved by the 15-85. Think about your subjects, do you find yourself swapping out the 55-250 often? trying to "back out"? You won' be getting any extra speed with the 15-85 above about 40mm - 40-85 neighbor hood is still going to be above f4 - a bit of overlap with 55-250 - lastly you would/should sell the 18-55 if get either as both a significant improvements.

For what it is worth, I went "all the way" on the long side and have the 70-200 2.8 mkII, it is indeed a beast, but what a great beast, I have even put extension tubes on it and shot some macro work!!!
Agree with everything you said.
Having said that, tomorrow morning I am going to take pictures of my 6-month old infant on a fluffy white blanket I just bought today. It will be a "tasteful" nude, shot face-on, with her little booty being visible (BUT BLURRED) in the background. She is only like 24 inches long. That is where the thind depth of field will make my cheap "nifty fifty" prove its worth!