T3i udgrade lens

Archibald wrote in post #17683163
Waste of money unless you really need the fast f/2.8 aperture. The 18-55mm STM kit lens is just as sharp as the expensive 17-55mm/2.8. Refer to my comparison of Photozone.de sharpness data here; also see my review of the 18-55mm STM.

I merely offered it as an option, not a solution to the OP's issue.
Same goes for the 18-55mm stm lens, but I have never used that lens myself.

Archibald wrote in post #17683163
Waste of money unless you really need the fast f/2.8 aperture. The 18-55mm STM kit lens is just as sharp as the expensive 17-55mm/2.8. Refer to my comparison of Photozone.de sharpness data here; also see my review of the 18-55mm STM.

You have made quite a few posts referencing the sharpness of particular lenses over the sharpness of others. Just checking here, but do you realize sharpness is WAY down the list of reasons to buy a lens? Let me see, off the top of my head, what comes before sharpness:

1.) Focal length.
2.) IS (OS, VR, VC, etc.)
3.) Aperture
4.) Zoom vs Prime.
5.) Size
6.) Weight
7.) Cost

And that is only lens-specific parameters. With respect to the final photographic content, still more things are more important than sharpness:

8.) Interesting subject.
9.) Interesting composition
10.) Choice of aperture, shutter speed and ISO
11.) Appropriate lighting
12.) Post processing to taste

I am sure there are others. That makes sharpness, in my book, at least 13th in order of importance to the outcome of any particular photograph. Most of the not-sharp photographs I've taken over the last 50 years or so were because I did something wrong. The lens is stupid; it just does what it is told. Of course, that is my perception. You may rank sharpness as #1. Most folks do not.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17683304
You have made quite a few posts referencing the sharpness of particular lenses over the sharpness of others. Just checking here, but do you realize sharpness is WAY down the list of reasons to buy a lens? Let me see, off the top of my head, what comes before sharpness: ...

Most folks will rank sharpness as one of the most important characteristics of a lens. And many users believe that expensive lenses are sharper than a kit lens. Thus we constantly have newbies here at POTN asking for recommendations for an L lens for their Rebel. The OP of this thread felt he was "stuck with KIT Lens". And many here, including experienced photographers, repeat the mantra that "You get what you pay for".

These beliefs are just not true. Today's kit lenses are excellent, and not just in sharpness. My 18-55mm STM lens is not only sharper, it autofocuses better, and has better light transmission than my 17-55mm/2.8.

I agree, though, that buyers should review all attributes of the lenses they are considering, and there definitely will be pros and cons. The 18-55mm STM is not perfect, and has detractors too. And it is true that sharpness isn't everything. If we want, we can agree with Ken Rockwell who says that sharpness of a lens doesn't matter at all. For many newbies, that can be a valid statement. They would do well to learn some technique instead of shopping for expensive replacements for kit lenses.

Lenses are expensive, and buying the one that is just right for you is hard. The process will be more successful if we don't labor with misconceptions.

Archibald wrote in post #17683675
MThese beliefs are just not true. Today's kit lenses are excellent, and not just in sharpness. My 18-55mm STM lens is not only sharper, it autofocuses better, and has better light transmission than my 17-55mm/2.8.

My 60D came with an older variant of the 18-55 IS lens, and I did upgrade it to the 17-55/2.8 for the faster aperture, but I also noticed that the 18-55 had several advantages, and I kept it around for a while:

1. It focused much closer than the 17-55mm, which made taking closeups at 18mm possible, which could not be done with the 17-55.
2. It was almost as sharp as the 17-55 over most of the range, and better at 55mm. The 17-55 is pretty soft at 55, especially wide open, but even stopped down if the subject is close to its MFD.
3. It was light, a good travel option.

The 17-55 was my regular walkaround lens, and it was decent, but I didn't feel like it lived up to the hype or provided particularly good performance for its price. I wouldn't buy it again today for a crop sensor standard zoom, I'd also go with the STM kit lens, 50 STM and the pancake primes for when I need faster apertures. All 4 of these lenses together cost and weigh less than a 17-55. I could probably get the 10-18 too and still not be at the 17-55's new price. Canon has really stepped up the build quality on their lower-cost lenses too. The STM lenses don't have the "I could break this lens if I just squeezed it too hard" build quality of the early 18-55s and the 50/1.8 II.

Archibald wrote in post #17683675
Most folks will rank sharpness as one of the most important characteristics of a lens.
...
The process will be more successful if we don't labor with misconceptions.

I disagree.

Which lens in your collection did you purchase with sharpness as your top priority? My guess is that like most other folks, the first thing you considered was which focal length do you need. Then you moved on available/needed/desir​ed aperture. Next on most folks' list would be AF accuracy/speed. Next? IS, or not. At that point you are considering cost, and wanting to get the best lens you can afford.

Focal length.
Aperture.
Auto-focus.
IS.
Cost.

That puts sharpness as #6, at best, for most people. After you factor in those items, if there is more than one choice, you MAY get to sharpness. Unless, like lots of those same folks, you'll take a Canon lens before a 3rd party lens, all else being equal.

Examples:
You need a 300mm f/4 IS lens. You only have $1,5000 to spend. You are down to one lens to consider and sharpness isn't even in the calculation.
You need an f/2.8 mid-range zoom with the best AF in the business. You are buying a 24-70 II. It is the only choice; sharpness - irrelevant.
You need a 14mm lens and all you have to spend is $300. You're getting a Rokinon/Samyang. It is the only choice; sharpness - irrelevant.

OP said he wanted SHARP pics like goose bump on skin.

Archibald wrote in post #17670769
Just about any camera and lens made in the last 10 years (and before) will take sharp pictures. If your pics are not sharp, maybe your gear is defective, or maybe your technique is lacking. I suggest you do some careful tests on a tripod to find out what is wrong.

Archibald wrote in post #17683872
OP said he wanted SHARP pics like goose bump on skin.

You seem stuck on sharpness. That is rarely (never?) anyone's first criteria for choosing a lens. Please see previous posts. Your fixation on sharpness did not start in this thread. It is mis-guided. As you stated previously in this thread, any lens will get the results he is after. The problem is either defective equipment or technique.

absplastic wrote in post #17683787
My 60D came with an older variant of the 18-55 IS lens, and I did upgrade it to the 17-55/2.8 for the faster aperture, but I also noticed that the 18-55 had several advantages, and I kept it around for a while:

1. It focused much closer than the 17-55mm, which made taking closeups at 18mm possible, which could not be done with the 17-55.
2. It was almost as sharp as the 17-55 over most of the range, and better at 55mm. The 17-55 is pretty soft at 55, especially wide open, but even stopped down if the subject is close to its MFD.
3. It was light, a good travel option.

The 17-55 was my regular walkaround lens, and it was decent, but I didn't feel like it lived up to the hype or provided particularly good performance for its price. I wouldn't buy it again today for a crop sensor standard zoom, I'd also go with the STM kit lens, 50 STM and the pancake primes for when I need faster apertures. All 4 of these lenses together cost and weigh less than a 17-55. I could probably get the 10-18 too and still not be at the 17-55's new price. Canon has really stepped up the build quality on their lower-cost lenses too. The STM lenses don't have the "I could break this lens if I just squeezed it too hard" build quality of the early 18-55s and the 50/1.8 II.

Yeah, totally. Anyway, I have never had an issue with build quality. I mean, whoever wears a lens out? And if it should ever happen that a cheap but good lens finally becomes worn out from use, just buy another one.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17684001
You seem stuck on sharpness. That is rarely (never?) anyone's first criteria for choosing a lens. Please see previous posts. Your fixation on sharpness did not start in this thread. It is mis-guided. As you stated previously in this thread, any lens will get the results he is after. The problem is either defective equipment or technique.

Criterion.

Yes, you are right. For newbies, the sharpness of a lens is not important.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17684001
You seem stuck on sharpness. That is rarely (never?) anyone's first criteria for choosing a lens.

When picking a lens, there are two tiers of criteria: the hard-and-fast requirements for the application, and the image-quality requirements that are always secondary. Sharpness is at the top of the list of the second group for most people, and one of the first things people consider to pick from options that meet all the hard and fast criteria.

For example, if you need an ~100mm macro, a tack-sharp 600mm isn't going to be of much use. A lens that is 100mm but max. magnification of 1:5, also not so useful, no matter how sharp. But... once you've narrowed down your options to a handful of macro lenses in the 100-ish focal length range (90-105mm say), sharpness could easily be your highest priority for image quality.

The OP who said:

That's pretty unambiguous with regard to his image quality priority. So the task is to find the lenses that fit is hard usage/application requirements, and then identify the sharpest of those.

That said, the OP really had no first-tier criteria, at least none that he expressed in the initial post. Some people assumed he meant to replace his 18-55, and gave advice for other zooms. I suggested his next lens should be the 50/1.8 STM, which a couple of you called questionable advice, but the OP said he was looking to take his photography to the next level, and not just get a new slow walkaround zoom, so I stand by my recommendation that he should experience a fast prime as the next step of his photography adventure. And the 50/1.8 STM is a perfect choice. According to photozone.de, it is sharper in the center than either my 100L macro or 85L II, and no photo I've taken with it contradicts this. You can't say that of many $125 lenses, nor of any of the 18-** zooms. If you believe the photozone data, at f/4 it outresolves the 135/2L by a fair amount. If the OP wants tack sharpness, he'll have it.

Like with everything else, first you identify a tool you need, and then the quality of that tool. Do I need a drill or a hammer? If a drill, powerful or not so? Can it be cheap or will it have to be expensive? Etc., etc. I need an 85mm prime, but then I want the sharpest and best IQ for the money I can afford. Sharpness is my number one criteria after I identified the tool (lens) and defined the budget.