Long story short; I’m getting married at the start of August and moving to Bangalore, India (for the next couple of years) at the end of August. Camera gear is actually more expensive (from what i have found, PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong) in India than here in Europe (not to mention the US) and apparently import tax is a bit of a bugger too. I can mentally and financially justify buying a single new lens before we go, and i’m torn between which to get. The weakest part of my set-up is at the longer end (55-250) and would like to replace it with either the 70-300L, 70-200L is 2.8 II or the 100-400L.

Regarding my photo style, I’m a bit of a Jack of all trades, master of none. I enjoy all photography; travel, street, landscape, strobist, portrait, wildlife etc... Each of these lenses has its own attributes (physical size, speed, optical-length, resolution) that make it more desirable for one style or the other. Considering I have no one specific role for lens, I find myself ping-ponging between all of them depending on the direction of the wind! I just know that I'm not happy with the results i get from my 55-250!

I’m not rich (especially with the upcoming expenses) so any purchase is a BIG one. My body will be replaced anyway in the next 9-12 months; either FF or cropped depending upon what canon has to offer...
Any advice for this rather “privileged” dilemma?

Thanks.