that 18-55 really the cheapest and worst lens for this camera.

Yes. Its not even worth for free.hehe

I just bought it without the lens and the both coupons still worked, so it came out to be $575-ish before tax.

What would be a good general use lens for this camera?

There are some photo folks who would argue the XTi kit lens is the best deal around for Canon glass. Granted, it's not the best Canon lens -- but then again it doesn't cost a grand or more for L series quality. The kit lens is a basic, bang around lens that's priced to be almost worry-free. You can get the EFS 17-55 f2.8 (a grand) or the 17-85 f4-5.6 EFS IS for $500 if you are looking for more quality in this kind of setup.

Folks who want a DLSR like the XTi for dirt cheap are probably not the same folks who would splurge for an L lens, though.

I have the Tamron 17-300. I love it.

Getting the body dirt cheap and spending for quality glass is the way to go. If you buy L and IS L series, youll never have to upgrade your glass, but the body will eventually become outdated. IMHO, of course.

Grab the body and the EF_85mm_F/-1.8 -. You have quality, speed, price and a lens you can move to a full sensor later. As you get cozy with the camera and the near L quality pictures this lens will give you, you can decide on where to upgrade later.

I have seen good things written about the Tamron 18-250mm f three.five-six.three Di II Macro. It sells for about $500. It's just too slow at f6.3 for my tastes. And it would be better if it had IS.

I bought the 10-22mm EF-S and use it as my everyday lens. I also have a 50mm f one.four. It's fast but with a one.six sensor it is too long.

I also have a seldom used 28-105 USMII. It's quiet and quick on the focus but too long and slow for me.

My next lens is the 70-200 f4 L with IS. It's smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f two.eight L white-monster and the IS almost makes up for the speed difference.

For as little as I use my 28-105, I wish I had not bought into the bad-kit lens cliche' and saved the bucks I spent on the zoom by buying the kit lens deal.

Oh yeah, and Ben's rodeo cowboy filter sucks.

I have the Xti with kit lens. To really make the most of it you do need to invest in other lens(es). But to be honest the jump from a point and shoot to the Xti with a kit lens is quite amazing, so you will be very happy with it while you learn to use all the features of a DSLR such as this one - it also has the advantage of being very light.

After a few months I invested in a 17-85 f4-5.6 EFS IS (image stabilized) lens which is my new walk-about lens (the Cannon range requires image stabilization to be part of the lens, they do not have it as part of the camera body/sensor like some other manufacturers). A much heavier lens but well worth the price, the image stabilisation helps but it is not a magic fix for camera shake - you still need to know how to Handel apertures, exposure times and ISO speeds if you want blur free photos in low light. (something you can learn while on the kit lens). I'm guessing most people (like myself
) draw the limit at a lenses that cost approx the same as the camera body, anything more and you would probably be considering a better camera body too.

Am I right that all the L lens are huge? Or maybe I just happen to look at the huge ones.

What's the best walk around L lens? Need to save up for these lens.

I'll get smacked around for this, but I've had great luck with the following combination of relatively inexpensive lenses:

Sigma 17 70mm f two eight
Sigma 70 300mm

this way you've got a very large range of focal lengths covered, without spending a massive amount of money. Of course, if you want to do a lot of low-light stuff you'll need one of the fast lenses. My indoor shooting is usually with the canon 50mm f one eight prime.

BUT...
The kit lens is a great place to start--#10 has it right about the jump from point/shoot to DSLR, and the kit lens is a good learning lens.

$56+ for tax? I dunno. That may be the deal breaker right there.

#11 not all L lens are huge - you have just been looking at the high magnification (and very high $$$$) ones that paprattzi use . L lenses come in all "sizes" to cover all applications.

You can get small L lenses that are fixed magnification (no zoom)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-GREY/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html

Moderate Zoom with IS:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-USA/Canon_0344B002_24_105mf4L_IS_USM.html

and many many more.

However - watch out, many of the L lenses are geared towards full frame (35mm) digital camera bodies , so min zoom is g 24mm, so you have to be careful on a sub frame (like the Xti) that the widest angle is still good for your "landscape" photos (you need 18mm or lower IMO). - something you can work out the impact of with a kit lens....

#14 is right about the L sizes. The 70-200 f two.eight L is the big white paparazzi/pool photog monster. As I noted in my earlier post, the f4 IS version is smaller -- half the weight, actually -- with all the sharpness, and you still get the white-body cool factor (if that matters).

To expand on what #14 said, also be careful of the EF-S series Canon make lenses. They won't work with the full sized sensor models. Buying an IF-S is about the only way you'll find a satisfying wide angle as they are available in extremely short focal lengths.

I also tote around a Bogen monopod with retractable feet.

I bought a sigma 10-20mm lens for my XT and I absolutly love it - a splurge for me at $450.

For a inexpensive lens that will give you great pictures, pick up an $75 Canon 50MM prime. The 50mm from Canon for that price is a no-brainer. The pictures will be much sharper than the kit lens (but you lose the zoom) The Canon 75-300 is also an relatively inexpensive lens that recieves good marks for optics for ~$140.

These three lenses will give you pretty good coverage from 10mm all the way out to 300 for not too much money.

I am puzzled. Why is tis a good deal when some place else (such as Ads by Google stores) selling body-only for $259. Am I missing something?