Author Topic: SLR Cameras - recommendations and advice  (Read 144673 times)

Offline Sat1

  • Banned
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,376
SLR Cameras - recommendations and advice
« on: August 31, 2007, 12:05:39 pm »
Im wanting on eof these now. Got my compact digital one but the SLR look better for quality of pic.

Can anyone recommend a gooden for around £500 - £600, and any good sites for reviews/buying etc.

 :wave
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 04:22:41 pm by Veinticinco de Mayo »

Offline Mr Boat

  • y McBoatface
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,976
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2007, 12:13:34 pm »
It's got to be on here for advice etc................http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
How strange it is to be anything at all - NMH.

Offline Walshy nMe®

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,372
  • Legend
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2007, 12:31:45 pm »
Although not actually an SLR, the Sony H7 (or H9 which is better spec) is an amazing camera. 8.1 megapixel, 15x digital zoom.  All the features you really need.

Got mine for £240 from Gratton.

Offline Sat1

  • Banned
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,376
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2007, 12:45:10 pm »
Cheers guys.

Im think of the CANON EOS 400D. Any have one?

Looking here, got my last camera from here.

http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/1661/xx/xx/1/1/criteresn.html

Im considering one of the two following:

Canon EOS 400D
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/



Nikon D40X
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/



If theres another one around the 450-500 mark which competes with these two then please tell.

Once I have one, the next thing is a course in photography.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 02:07:18 pm by Sat1 »

Offline Claire.

  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,763
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2007, 02:24:08 pm »
Nikon everytime.

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2007, 03:38:44 pm »
Canon every time.
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline Sat1

  • Banned
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,376
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2007, 04:06:53 pm »
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Samsung/samsung_gx10.asp

Samsung caught my eye. They have a £100 quid cash back too.

Offline Mr Boat

  • y McBoatface
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,976
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2007, 04:16:31 pm »
Canon every time.

 :thumbup

I love my Canon Pro1 ;D
How strange it is to be anything at all - NMH.

Offline grimreaper

  • this is a new one... ok it's shite but it is a no-brainer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,201
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2007, 05:23:29 pm »

Offline RedMarko

  • Master arsonist and goat hater
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,852
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • TW42 now!!
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2007, 05:42:06 pm »
I got the Nikon D40 about 3 months ago.

As a step up from "point-and-shhot" standard digitals, it's brilliant. I've been leanrning more and more as I use it (i.e. start with Point and Shoot settings and then change an occassional one as you go along.

I did a 2 week trip to Scotland over the summer and came home with +500 shots (after deleting as I went) - not one battery recharge required!

Needs the 55-200mm additional lens, but with that it's the dogs.

Highly recommend it. (It's also been on offer in Dixons Ireland for a number of months now!)

Offline runkerry1

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • Whitepark Designs
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2007, 06:02:18 pm »
Canon every time.

Would totally agree with that - Photogaphy is one of my main hobbies/passion..... did it at college and worked at a few studios & shops.

Would suggest Canon everytime, obviously everyone has different views on the different makes, it's down to personal preference..... but I would advise, don't let budget limit you to which you choose, even if it means saving a little longer as a GOOD camera will last a lifetime, esp.(as you mention you want to do a course in that field), you'll get to learn to use your camera to it's full potential.

I have an EOS 300 myself(best camera I have out of all them, I have a fair few!) - still on negative format, as I'm a traditionalist at heart, and enjoy getting my hands dirty in chems, but will probably end up going digital one of these days to save time.

Once you got to grips with your camera, mess about with doing some depth of field and multiple exposures - where you take multiple photos on the same frame/neg, brilliant & effective effect.

I'm blabbing now, as I could talk about photography day & night, but whichever you choose, just enjoy it, and most of all have fun while you do it!!

Offline timiano

  • Flatlander
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,482
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2007, 06:35:38 pm »
I'd get a 2nd had 300D/350D/20D for not much money and invest in a good lens, as the standard kit ones are rubbish in comparison to a good bit of glass.

Offline SpenceUK1968

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,957
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #12 on: September 1, 2007, 01:22:09 am »
Olympus E500, very glad I got it. It's much better at taking pics than me ;D

Offline ♠Dirty Harry♠

  • Michael Pain the tittie-fixated inflatable doll salesman
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,031
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #13 on: September 1, 2007, 01:29:50 pm »
Why you want a slr for? Why not go for a high res digital, very little difference now

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #14 on: September 1, 2007, 09:13:23 pm »
:thumbup

I love my Canon Pro1 ;D

Been using a Canon Eos 1000Fn for 13 years now.  Got a EOS 5QD about 10-11 years ago.  It really is a sublime piece of kit.  Nothing to touch it.  I have a pair of lenses that work on both bodies and will work on the next SLR I get because it'll be another Canon.

Got a Canon Ixus 905IS mid-July and I'm very pleased with it.  Absolutely superb.  Even my wife and 9 year daughter can't fuck up a picture.  And the quality of the picture in full auto is always spot on.  I'm saying this after 250-300 picture in 6 weeks.

But I love SLRs, so.... Canon 40D on it's way at the same time as a 8 core Mac Pro once the Penryn chips are out.  Hopefully November.
« Last Edit: September 1, 2007, 09:19:05 pm by MolbysBigBelly »
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #15 on: September 1, 2007, 09:22:25 pm »
Why you want a slr for? Why not go for a high res digital, very little difference now

Errrr.... just a guess, but user control?  The ability to use quality lenses?  The right lens?

I've just bought an Ixus 950IS and good as it is, I still prefer to use my EOS 5 for anything other than family pics.
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline ♠Dirty Harry♠

  • Michael Pain the tittie-fixated inflatable doll salesman
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,031
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #16 on: September 1, 2007, 10:51:10 pm »
Errrr.... just a guess, but user control?  The ability to use quality lenses?  The right lens?

I've just bought an Ixus 950IS and good as it is, I still prefer to use my EOS 5 for anything other than family pics.

BUt most lenses now have backward compatibilty don't they? Not sure no expert really

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #17 on: September 2, 2007, 01:48:59 pm »
BUt most lenses now have backward compatibilty don't they? Not sure no expert really
No they don't.

Nikon for example, are on their 13th lens type.  If you have old lenses or want to pick up a prime lens second hand, good luck with compatibility.

I don't know about Olympus or Minolta.

Canon changed lens type/mount when they moved over to the EOS system more than 15 years back.  EOS lenses are all compatible with EOS bodies.  The exception is some of the new digital stuff, whereby old lenses will all work on the newer digital bodies but some of the newer lenses (EF-S series) are for digital only.  That would make it the second lens type in 20 years, which is pretty damn good considering it's taken the shift from film to digital for Canon to introduce the new lens type.

Canon lenses also have had the auto-focus motor build into the lens from day one.  They almost silent and very quick when using A.F.

Other manufacturers, though not all, implement their autofocus systems into the bodies.  Makes them heavier, the A.F. slower and and use more battery power.

"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #18 on: September 2, 2007, 01:55:05 pm »
Nikon everytime.
Canon every time.

Both wrong.

Either every time, it's one or the other depending exactly what you want it for and the job that it will be doing.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline ♠Dirty Harry♠

  • Michael Pain the tittie-fixated inflatable doll salesman
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,031
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #19 on: September 2, 2007, 02:23:45 pm »
No they don't.

Nikon for example, are on their 13th lens type.  If you have old lenses or want to pick up a prime lens second hand, good luck with compatibility.

I don't know about Olympus or Minolta.

Canon changed lens type/mount when they moved over to the EOS system more than 15 years back.  EOS lenses are all compatible with EOS bodies.  The exception is some of the new digital stuff, whereby old lenses will all work on the newer digital bodies but some of the newer lenses (EF-S series) are for digital only.  That would make it the second lens type in 20 years, which is pretty damn good considering it's taken the shift from film to digital for Canon to introduce the new lens type.

Canon lenses also have had the auto-focus motor build into the lens from day one.  They almost silent and very quick when using A.F.

Other manufacturers, though not all, implement their autofocus systems into the bodies.  Makes them heavier, the A.F. slower and and use more battery power.



I'll be talking to you when santa is coming

Offline Sat1

  • Banned
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,376
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #20 on: September 3, 2007, 09:01:52 am »
Why you want a slr for? Why not go for a high res digital, very little difference now

I've got a Canon Ixus 850 and love using it but I want to do a course in photography and need a SLR.

Also been told SLR produce better pictures than the compact. a 6 megapixel slr will be better than a 6 megapixel compact. Anyone?

Offline ♠Dirty Harry♠

  • Michael Pain the tittie-fixated inflatable doll salesman
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,031
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #21 on: September 3, 2007, 11:21:52 am »
I've got a Canon Ixus 850 and love using it but I want to do a course in photography and need a SLR.

Also been told SLR produce better pictures than the compact. a 6 megapixel slr will be better than a 6 megapixel compact. Anyone?

Probably better shutter speeds etc availability of lenses, but doubt if the res could be much better on a DSLR if all the features were similar to a compact 6mp

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #22 on: September 3, 2007, 11:28:10 am »
Also been told SLR produce better pictures than the compact. a 6 megapixel slr will be better than a 6 megapixel compact. Anyone?

Only for a person that know how to use a SLR to get the benefits out of it. Point and shoot's are for people that want to get good pictures with just a click and nothing else. SLR's are really for people more seriously into the art of photography. You'll get a sharper, more saturated image from a point and shoot than you will with an unaltered SLR image.

If you need a SLR then you'll know you need and SLR.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline nidgemo

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,836
  • Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat.
  • Super Title: Coming soon! Official Launch May 2008
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #23 on: September 3, 2007, 11:38:32 am »
Nikon everytime.

Is wrong.

Canon every time.

Is right. :D

Just bought a 400D last week to replace the old 300D.

Not used it enough yet to comment.
I'm no longer on RAWK, but if you need to contact me about anything, you can email me on nigelmorrison@connectfree.co.uk

Offline nidgemo

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,836
  • Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat.
  • Super Title: Coming soon! Official Launch May 2008
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #24 on: September 3, 2007, 11:41:31 am »
I've got a Canon Ixus 850 and love using it but I want to do a course in photography and need a SLR.

Also been told SLR produce better pictures than the compact. a 6 megapixel slr will be better than a 6 megapixel compact. Anyone?

Chips will be a bit better - stands to reason - more expesive camera - more expensive chip sensor in it.
I'm no longer on RAWK, but if you need to contact me about anything, you can email me on nigelmorrison@connectfree.co.uk

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #25 on: September 3, 2007, 12:02:15 pm »
Both wrong.

Either every time, it's one or the other depending exactly what you want it for and the job that it will be doing.

And what type of work specifically, would you select the Nikon for over thae Canon?
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #26 on: September 3, 2007, 12:04:50 pm »
And what type of work specifically, would you select the Nikon for over thae Canon?

Depends on which model mate and the budget and the reason for using it.

They both do some fantastic camera's. For years I fought the Canon side, but things have moved on since then.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #27 on: September 3, 2007, 12:08:43 pm »
I've got a Canon Ixus 850 and love using it but I want to do a course in photography and need a SLR.

Also been told SLR produce better pictures than the compact. a 6 megapixel slr will be better than a 6 megapixel compact. Anyone?

The reason for improved quality will be the quality of the lenses. 

You are not going to get the same quality from a built in lens where the front element is only about 12mm across compared to a basic SLR lens where the front element is 50+mm across.

You've got to consider distortion, vignetting at the wider angles, the quality of the glass in terms of colour, etc.

SLR will be better every single time.  Maybe unless you spend £1000 on a Leica compact digital - though I've never used one so couldn't say.
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #28 on: September 3, 2007, 12:12:07 pm »
SLR will be better every single time.

Not straight from the camera it won't
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline Sat1

  • Banned
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,376
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #29 on: September 3, 2007, 12:13:42 pm »
So question is do I get one?

I want one and am planning to do a course but if I dont do the course I have to learn the functions myself. I like taking pics and want to get better.

Do I spend £450+ on a Canon EOS 400D?

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #30 on: September 3, 2007, 12:17:14 pm »
BTW, I'm not deriding the current crop of digital compacts;  I mean I bought one 6 weeks ago.

Overall though, if you know what you're doing, the SLR will be better every time.  That's the thing, if you do go down the SLR route, learn how to use it, and learn the techniques - well worth it.

I'd also say that for flexibility, it's worth getting just a zoom lens to start with.

If later you prefer portaiture, buy a standard 50mm (non zoom) fairly cheap.  It'll be faster (light wise) than a zoom and because of the size of the CCDs compared to film, you've got a magnification factor of about x1.6 so a film 50mm will work out to around 80mm on a digital SLR, which is almost the standard for portaits with film SLRs.
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #31 on: September 3, 2007, 12:17:21 pm »
Do I spend £450+ on a Canon EOS 400D?

If you've got the notes, why not?

You need to factor in which glass (lenses) you want. They are far more important than the body in my opinion. Getting a good body with shit lenses is pointless.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #32 on: September 3, 2007, 12:19:04 pm »
Not straight from the camera it won't

Of course not.  Just basing my answer on the fact that Sat wants to do a photography course.  Learn to use the camera and it will do a better job every time.
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #33 on: September 3, 2007, 12:20:17 pm »
If you've got the notes, why not?

You need to factor in which glass (lenses) you want. They are far more important than the body in my opinion. Getting a good body with shit lenses is pointless.

Absolutely.  But at this early stage, wouldn't a zoom be better for flexibity and cost?  A decent zoom, of course.
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #34 on: September 3, 2007, 12:22:37 pm »
Learn to use the camera and it will do a better job every time.

Learn to use a camera and digital darkroom and then you'll start getting the images you want.

If you're looking at real photography though, the best thing to concentrate on isn't the camera differences really. It's about your composition, use of light, and subject.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #35 on: September 3, 2007, 12:25:20 pm »
Absolutely.  But at this early stage, wouldn't a zoom be better for flexibity and cost?  A decent zoom, of course.

Yeah, but don't want one of those zooms from about 15 - 1500 mirror jobbies, anything over 2/3 times gets a bit manky. Chromatic aberration and horrific quality.

If  you're serious I'd get the 70-200 f4L or the Sigma pro equivalent and a sigma wide angle zoom, anything less and you might aswell get a point and shoot really. You're looking at another 800+ quid.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline timiano

  • Flatlander
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,482
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #36 on: September 3, 2007, 01:05:06 pm »
Not straight from the camera it won't

If  you're serious I'd get the 70-200 f4L or the Sigma pro equivalent and a sigma wide angle zoom, anything less and you might aswell get a point and shoot really. You're looking at another 800+ quid.

Learn to use a camera and digital darkroom and then you'll start getting the images you want. 

Can't agree with all that.

The APS-C size CMOS sensor on a Canon 300/350/400/20/30/40D, is still huge compared to a point and shoot (POS) CCD. With that, you get bigger photosites, and much less noise and cleaner images. Therefore you have a camera that performs above and beyond a POS. Add the processing chip (Digic II/III) and the thing wipes the floor.

Images straight out of the camera (Jpeg) can be adjusted using loads of parameters to adjust sharpness, contrast, saturation etc etc, and they'll look better than a POS (although high end pro-sumers do well, but they are hardly classified as POS).

Suggesting £800 worth of lenses to a beginner who wants to learn, serious or not, is a very OTT. But, you are right about investing in better lenses, but then contradict yourself a little by saying none of it matters, as it's all about light, composition and subject. I know what you are getting at though. Aesthetic quality - which is probably the most important, is as you said, about comp/subject and light. Technical quality, is about the gear.

Best lens for a beginner is the age old standard lens; the 50mm. They are almost always as sharp as a good percentage of good zooms.

If I was starting off now, I'd look for a 2nd hand 300/350D for around about £200-250. Or, look around photography websites for a bundle deal including cards and accessories. I'd then stick the EF 50 1.8 Mk II or I on it, and use my legs. After I'd got used to that, and realised its strengths and weaknesses, I'd then be thinking what other lenses I wanted.

Offline Claire.

  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,763
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #37 on: September 3, 2007, 01:45:10 pm »
Oh pfft, you Canon lot are terrible bores about this crap.

Both Nikon and Canon are pretty much the same nowadays, people have said to me Canon performs better in low-light conditions but seeing as 90% of the work I do is in low-light I can't say I've noticed any major noise issues compared to some things I've done on a Canon at gigs.

It's all very slight differences and as long as your images come out like you imagined, who gives a shit what the branding on the camera is?

I use Nikon because it's what I'm used to and what feels right to me.

Offline timiano

  • Flatlander
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,482
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #38 on: September 3, 2007, 01:49:50 pm »
I use Nikon because it's what I'm used to and what feels right to me.

...and that's how it should be.

Offline MolbysBigBelly

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: SLR Camera's
« Reply #39 on: September 3, 2007, 01:54:46 pm »
Yeah, but don't want one of those zooms from about 15 - 1500 mirror jobbies, anything over 2/3 times gets a bit manky. Chromatic aberration and horrific quality.

If  you're serious I'd get the 70-200 f4L or the Sigma pro equivalent and a sigma wide angle zoom, anything less and you might aswell get a point and shoot really. You're looking at another 800+ quid.

Again bearing in mind that Sat is looking at a photography course and doing it as a  hobby, a mid-range starter lens such as a 24-85 or 28-105 (or digital equivalents) should be fine. 

Cheap-ish, decent glass and flexible enough to deal with all the subjects he's likely to deal with.  A kit lens supplied as part of a deal is likely to be a bit naff.  Go for a a midrange zoom with the USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) and you'd get a decent zoom without breaking the bank.  Likely to cost anything between £100 and £250 for the lens, depending on model.  Not worth going for an all singing, all dancing zoom.

A prime lens(s) would be better, but as a starter kit, it would be easy enough to sell on if you deceded later on that you didn't enjoy it.  If you enjoy the course and want to spend more, start buying the best quality glass without worrying about zoom ranges.
"I believed them fellas."
Thank you, Mr. Moores.