Hard to beat 1

It used to be the buyers of high-quality SLR advised to replace after purchasing the kit lens as soon as possible by something "reasonable" in order to meet the possibilities of the camera. This is true at least for Canon's APS-C cameras no longer, since the stabilized EF-S 18-55 is available. The lens really allows pin sharp images in the center already at maximum aperture. The resolution of the sensors to include the 50D and 500D is well used. In 100% -crop I see compared to my EF 1.8 / 50mm II Although a difference in quality, this holds but quite limited. Who wants something better, has among the available "Always top lenses" not much choice. Also in this focal length range are lenses without stabilizer no longer appropriate. The new Sigma 17-70 OS I have given a chance, but it gave (at added significantly better processing, but whoever skin with his nails lens already in the wall?), The much poorer images. From the new Tamron 17-50 VC I read nothing that would make me curious. The EF-S 15-85 is better, but neither high speed, five times more expensive and three times as heavy. From the even more expensive and even heavier EF-S 2.8 / 17-55 (the reference lens in this focal length range of Canon's APS-C) to mention. I do not think that the difference in quality justifies the price difference. Even taking into account the USM. Who's financially thick and who needs the light intensity is because access like. Most amateur photographers will be well served with this lightweight kit lens whose value for money is unbeatable. The 2.8 I do not really need, since modern sensors allow it thoroughly, to go sometimes to ISO 400 or 800 and also the stabilizer of 18-55 works very well. For indemnified portraits I use the also very cheap and excellent 1.8 / 50 II. And for me rarely used, extreme telephoto range, there is the EF-S 55-250 IS, the same applies as for the little sister.