Help needed with lenses

I am not completely new to photography but I am now thinking about stepping up to an XT. I keep reading that the kit lenses are less than ideal but exactly what is a kit lens and what are the good lenses? I probably won't be able to afford Canon lenses but I was thinking to start I would get a couple of zooms one short and one long zoom. Almost all of my photography will be outdoors - landscapes and nature. I know this is a wide open question and there are as many opinions as there are lenses but I need some help getting started.

The 18-55mm 'kit' lens is not so bad. True it's not top of the line or even middle of the line but the lens can take some nice pictures. Then maybe add either Canon's 28-105mm ($220) or 28-135mm ($400). Use the gear for awhile and you will be able to decide what you want and need and if you wish to upgrade.

You can take very nice photos with the kit lens working two f/stops down, preferible arounf f/8 or less. I have very good ones, indeed. To start and get familiar it´s alright, but everyone looks the excelence (remember, that resides in you !!, you make the photo!!, not the camera + lens).

If you tell us about your budget, we can point out some lens (best for your pocket), but you want to cover wide & tele range, then it implies at least 2 lenses.

The kit lens is ok to start with, but it flares a lot, and F3.5-F5.6 (or whatever it is) is quite slow. I'd skip it and get the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 or Tamron 28-75 F2.8, both excellent lenses and good value.

Get the kit lens unless you have lots to money because you'll have to spend us$400+ to get a short lens that is significantly better.
Then get a telezoom like the sigma 70-300 apo DG or canon 100-300usm -these two are the best consumer teles (allthough you certainly could consider cheaper ones if need be).
Then DEFINITELY get the 50/1.8 because it's so sharp,inexpensive and has a large aperture.
Sure it's not a zoom but it's very usefull for portraiture, low light and shallow depth of focus effects.It's also a very good way of finding out just how much you want to spend in future on better lenses (because it gives image quality that $500 zooms have trouble beating)
Don't worry at all about the apparent 'gap' between the kit lens and the telezoom,you'll allmost never notice it.

Almost 30 years ago I had an AE-1 and I still have the 50/1.4 that came with that camera. Will that lens work on a XT or is it a different mount?

Its a different mount - FD as opposed to EF. I believe you can get adapters but the lens will be manual focus

If you dont want to go for the lenses tim mentioned, then you might want to consider sigma 18-125 mm f3.5-5.6 lens. It covers a better range & has very decent reviews. There is a new 18-200 version also but its slower (f6.3 ?), 18-125 should be much cheaper also.

It's a different mount, and with any affordable adapter you won't be able to focus to infinity with it. Not worth the effort, really.

The kit lens can take some nice pictures. This one was taken with it:

XT, Canon 18-55 kit lens, 18mm, iso 100, 10sec, f/11

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Just had an interesting thought: has there been a thread on "photos taken on 350D's/Rebel XT's kit lens"? Could be useful for this discussion. I was chatting to my Dad a while back and putting down my kit lens in the discussion. He then reminded me to have a look back through some of the landscape shots I've taken with it on my travels around the US. Apart from my "green-ness" with an SLR set up, ie user-related composition issues, I think the 18-55 helped me capture some fantastic shots. I will probably one day upgrade to better glass with a nice aperture, but for now, it does nicely .

At the time I bought my Rebel, the kit lens cost only $50 extra. There is of course the option of buying body only and putting the fifty bucks to another lens, but for $50 it's a nice starter lens and definately a good back up for in the future.

I have to agree with Ron and 2nd what he said, if budget is tight this is a good way to start out and you can always move up to better as life allows.

I appreciate all the information from everyone. I may go ahead and get the kit lens as a starter and then as I can begin to build up my collection of lenses as finances allow.

Good idea..... I for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with the 18-55 EF-s. I know it does get bashed a lot, but in reality, if you know what you are doing, it will take really great shots. Best recommendation if you are just starting out is ask a lot more questions regarding how to take a great shot and worry less about the lenses..... without that foundation, you will be lost when you start adding lenses with different focal lengths, aperatures, etc...... you need to know your Rebel inside and out first. And the kit lens is fairly forgiving because it is a 3.5-5.6..... you stand a better chance of getting well focused shots more than not.

Get some books, ask some questions, take a course at your local night school, whatever.... and get the Rebel of "AUTO" and learn "MANUAL" as a first step.... it will make you learn quicker...

There is NOTHING wrong with the kit lens.... in fact, almost no one gives any solid evidence that it's garbage.... you just hear that it is. If you want I'll show you several shots taken with the kit lens much like the one above by In2Photos (which is great by the way).

Going with the kit lens would be your safest option untill you have an idea of what you want to invest and what your needs are. I've gone backwards and forwards when it came to lens choices and have finally decided on the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which I havent regretted one bit and the Canon 10-22 which is also an excellent piece of glass (for my needs). Now if someone would like to donate some money so that I could afford the Canon 70-200 4L I would be in lens heaven.