I think canon 17-55mm 2.8 is the best EF-S lens available today. It is costly, but i heard the lens retains its value like L series lens.
I also read 17-55mm 2.8 is even better than 24-70mm 2.8 L on crop body. The only problem seems to be with 17-55mm 2.8 is build quality is lower than L series. Some say dust issue, but that does not affect the IQ. I blv that goes for all on L lens.
Compare IQ results using:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404
With the above link you can check how much bad (sharpness, CA, colors, saturation) the kit lens are compared to better lens like 17-55 2.8, primes or L grade zooms. I compared the images of 17-85mm with 17-55mm 2.8.......17-85mm images appear to be only 10% (not a calculated one
....) of 17-55mm 2.8.
Assuming that 18-200mm would be worse than 17-85mm.
17-85mm is sharp only in center..when calibrated properly...and who places subjects in center
....over that it will give dull colors.
I would suggest you better buy the body without a kit lens.
My suggestion for lens are:
1. Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 - Should be good for portraits (short though)/Landscapes/indoor/Walk around..later you may want to buy add on 85mm or 100mm or 70-200mm...for longer range.
2. Canon 70-200 4L IS or non IS version....i heard 2.8 IS II is best
....these are THE best for portraits and also good for cropped landscapes....makes people look better by compression. 70-200mm 4L indoors would require good lighting and space. Can be paired with 50mm 1.8 / 1.4.
3. If you don't want to spend too much and don't care about zoom, then 85mm 1.4 and/or 50mm 1.4 / 1.8 should be good enough for portraits and products.
4. 100mm 2.8 for portraits and macro....this is ultimate macro tool..if you don't want to spend too much. This could be paired with 50mm 1.8 / 1.4.
Never buy a canon kit lens. Waste of money and waste of photos storage space.