Canon 17-55 vs Sigma 17-50 - Web viewing, no pixel peeping, no enlarging prints

I primarily view pictures on my desktop/laptop and occasionally print standard size prints. Is there a noticeable difference between the two? Currently a $330 price difference between both.

For web viewing only, you really aren't putting much demand on a lens. I would imagine that the cheapest one would get the job done decently. That said, I have no experience with either of the lenses you mention.

From all the research I have done, the Sigma comes out on top, which is why I have one now. The Canon is definitely not worth the extra $330.

Raylon wrote in post #13443058
From all the research I have done, the Sigma comes out on top, which is why I have one now. The Canon is definitely not worth the extra $330.

Mostly, anyway. I'm not sure how the HSM on the Sigma compares to the USM on the Canon lens, but it COULD be worth the difference to some folks.

In general, though, if I were to look for a lens in that group right now, I'd take the Sigma for a spin before dropping the cash on the Canon.

Ady2glude707 wrote in post #13442205
I primarily web view with the occasional standard size print. Is there a noticeable difference between the two? Currently a $330 price difference between both.

Properly sized and sharpened, pretty much all lenses are going to look the same at web size.

In that case, get the cheapest lens in that range.

But, know that someday you too will view at 100% when you are trying to figure out why the photo just doesn't look good.

For web pictures, you can't justify buying anything more expensive than the kit 18-55 IS.

The Sigma is simply a fantastic lens and I doubt any will be able to depreciate between one or the other, particularly in the conditions you describe.
I am very happy with my Sigma, i used to have the Canon and really dont miss it as the Sigma delivers on every department

I think the primary difference you would notice at web size would be the bokeh differences. Certainly the kit 18-55 isn't going to give you nearly the bokeh as the 2.8 and certainly not the same quality of bokeh. I'm not sure how the Sigma compares to the Canon in this aspect. I do have the Canon 17-55 and can tell you that the bokeh is fantastic wide open.

for web viewing, hell the 18-55 is good enough!

For your application - no.

Go with Sigma and you will have no regret.

RTPVid wrote in post #13443202
For web pictures, you can't justify buying anything more expensive than the kit 18-55 IS.

Unless you need the 2.8

muusers wrote in post #13446417
Unless you need the 2.8

In which case you can get the 50mm 1.8, which is not "more expensive than the kit 18-55 IS".

Yeah of course having a 2.8 zoom would be nice, but RTPVid's point is a good one.

melauer wrote in post #13447523
In which case you can get the 50mm 1.8, which is not "more expensive than the kit 18-55 IS".

Yeah of course having a 2.8 zoom would be nice, but RTPVid's point is a good one.

unless you need 2.8 AND IS/OS