you have some good ideas. i would not go with the kit lens. better get the 50mm 1.8 for about 100$. also I do not like EF-S lenses. If you succeed you might want to upgrade to a full-frame camera later on. EF-S does not work on full-frame.

100mm macro sounds good. you can also check out the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and sigma 105mm macro lenses. afaik they all get good reviews.

@stock_fan: why dont you like EF-S lenses?
@stock_fan: The "Tamron 90mm 2.8 " is the same price of the Canon 100mm. What�s the difference between them?

@vphoto: which one would fit better for my needs? You suggested  Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens, I did a quick research and this one cost $309.95. In the end, which one will best cover my needs?
@vphoto: I didnt understand the difference between them  (one is macro and the other dont?)

Thanks for all attention.

Even though I have a crop body now, and probably will for a few more years (next one will be the step up crop a la 40d), I look at lenses two ways.  Some ranges and types are better off going for the gold and getting a FF lens than others.  In the end you may need a new lens or two when converting, but it shouldn't be a big deal.  For long lengths, 50mm+, I think that a FF lens is the way to go.  These lenses don't get used as much and IQ is king when talking long lenses, might as well get a good one.  Macro lenses would fall in this category as well, the 100mm is a very highly regarded lens, both on a crop and FF body.  All primes should be FF, I don't know if they make any non-macro EF-S primes anyway. 

But normal, and especially WA, I'd compromise and get a EF-s, especially for a WA, as all the superwides, the 10mm minimums, are made for crop sensors, and are needed to get the kind of wide range that is possible on a FF sensor.  With a normal lens, IQ and usability would be the only determining factor for me, it is going to be the workhorse, better to get the best for you now and maybe have to switch in the future.  For my eventual normal lens, I'm either going to get a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (the sharpest, most holdable zoom lens you can put on a crop body), or a EF 16-35 f/2.8 L.  The FF lens lacks the IS, has less range, but is built better, and costs almost $400 more.  IQ is equivalent between the two, possibly tipping toward the EF-S actually.  I could save the $400 now, get a more usable lens, even though I'll eventually go FF, that lens will take 10's, possibly 100's, of thousands of pictures before I ever get a FF camera, and probably play a big role in paying for the new camera and L lens (which would replace both the WA and the normal). 

In that sense, for all specialty lenses (macro, prime, tele, fisheye), get ones that will last in any format, unless it only is applicable to one format (the superwides), for the workhorse though, get the best that you can, for your application, irregardless of future applicability.  Just my humble opinion.

The kit lens is crap. Definitely skip it and buy just the body, then buy other lenses elsewhere.

@stock_fan: why dont you like EF-S lenses?
@stock_fan: The "Tamron 90mm 2.8 " is the same price of the Canon 100mm. What�s the difference between them?

@vphoto: which one would fit better for my needs? You suggested  Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens, I did a quick research and this one cost $309.95. In the end, which one will best cover my needs?
@vphoto: I didnt understand the difference between them  (one is macro and the other dont?)

Thanks for all attention.

if you want to shoot  closeups, food,  portrait then Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro. if  food, street, portraits then 50mm f 1.4