I'm about to buy a new Canon DSLR camera (EOS 400D) and not sure which kit to get? I do a bit of Macro photography, especially water drops and such, so was thinking of getting the Macro kit which comes with an EF-S 60mm macro lens. But if I get this will I be limited in what I can use the camera for or can I use a Macro lens for taking normal pictures also?

You can use it for normal pictures as well. Its a pretty good lens, from all I hear. Check out a review at photozone.de

EDIT: Landscape photography and wide angle commonly go together, but short telephoto lenses (which is what this will behave as on his camera) can be used for compressed landscapes to good effect. I've seen killer landscapes shot with superteles.... actually.

That said, MOST people USUALLY use a wide angle lens for landscapes. This 60mm macro lens will also work quite well as a portrait lens on your camera.

That is one of the sharpest lenses (per popular photography magazine, that is). That would work out as .. 96 mm (on a cropped sensor). I am not sure if it's a "landscape" shot-it's certainly a tight one. I suppose so-but would you not want something wider?

Canon 50 mm f 2.5 macro is much cheaper. But it's loud and it doesn't have full time focusing

It all depends on how you define "landscape." Most people take this to mean broad, scenic vistas. I hate to quote a dictionary, but mine says, "Scenery as seen in a broad view."

A 60 mm lens on the 400D is going to be a mild telephoto. It is GREAT for some things and I use my 60 mm macro lens for many things other than strictly macro work. It's probably the sharpest lens I own right now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/60/\

If you check these out, I think you will see that you wil need a wider lens. In this example, the 17 mm is "classic" landscape and the 35 mm is okay by some people.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/1245831147/

Here are some more. I'd say the 17 mm is good for landscape.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/476181737/

However...

Is this landscape at 111 mm? (70 mm on your camera): http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/459603923/
It's scenic, but probably not "landscape" in a strict definition.

Ditto:
135 mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/409564887/
70 mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/1250011561/
Probably a 35 mm on film (22 mm on your 400D): http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/1077174373/

In other words, you really want about 24 mm or wider for landscape.

Get the 17-55 kit lens with the 400D. It is a decent lens and you will NEVER buy another lens at such a good price as you can when you buy it bundled with the body in a kit. It sounds like the 60 mm macro should be your next purchase, though.

You can use any lens for landscape work, but if you want to get the whole scene in the frame, a wide angle lens is needed. A 60mm lens on a 1.6x body will now be a 96mm lens. It's really not good, but I always try to find a way to work around my lens flaws. You'll probably have to focus on a certain subject from a landscape, not the entire landscape.

Since you are just stepping into the DSLR world, I would really suggest the Canon 10-20mm, as fhotoace suggested. It really is a near-perfect lens. You'll will find it not as limiting as a 60mm macro lens.

Hope this helps.

No ... landscape photography requires a wide angle lens ... the 60mm on your camera is more of a medium telephoto lens.

Look at the 10-20mm Canon lens .. it is perfect for shooting landscapes.

I almost always agree with fhotoace, but I am going to disagree this time.

Yes, you can use your macro for landscape. You will not be able to do a wide angle or long telephoto landscape but you can certainly do landscape with that lens.

Your subject, not focal length, defines an image as landscape or not.