An STM lens. Really. That's pretty weak for what is presumably a best-in-class APS-C rig in the $2k neighborhood. STM is fine for video, and it's also nice upgrade over the squeaky slow AF motors of the older entry level Rebel kit glass, but 7D2 still shooters would want the speed of USM, right?
Are they legitimately going after pro wildlife/sports guys with this rig or just enthusiasts who want a high burst rate? Surely the days of kitting this with a relatively average lens are over, aren't they? (I recognize that the people drooling over a 7D2 likely already have a lot of glass, but the same could be said at the launch of the 5D3 and that had a decent lens kit option...)
I think it could make a lot of sense. Here's why.
First, I think you're right that many prospective buyers would already have a lot of lenses for shooting stills, and would have little interest in either a cheap kit lens, or one of the L zoom options like the 24-70s or 24-105. However, many of them might have relatively little interest in video and would therefore have few, if any, dedicated video-lenses (STM, wide focal range, usually). Therefore, a higher-quality STM video lens might make sense.
This applies to me. I have plenty of lenses for still shooting (though, the rumored Sigma 24-70/2.0 OS sounds pretty exciting if it's real), but I would be interested in, say, an 18-135STM as my video lens if the 7D replacement comes with some great video features (dual-pixel, hybrid viewfinder, good compression, resolution and windowing options, etc.). Maybe they're even thinking of a power-zoom if this camera is going to have a lot of new video functionality.