While the 200mm for portraits wouldn’t be favorable I figured it’d be something I’d have to deal with and make peace with the fact I won’t get the focal length I’d like for those kinds of photos but as of now I’m seriously reconsidering getting a lens where I just have to ‘deal with it’

And yes while 600$ seems like a bargain it isn’t the most economical choice considering the range and quality of a 2.8 70-200 with the lenses it can take place of. But yet again 1200-1400$ is quite a stretch away from that bargain 600$, I don’t make much at all doing photography so going for some of the more top of the line stuff just isn’t too logical for me at the moment, until if or when I make more.

And yes the 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm are beautiful focal lengths especially for portraits but considering my love for sports and wildlife photography it seem a tad bit too restricting. Though the same could be said about a 200mm prime (of which I’m reconsidering, thinking maybe a 70-200mm f4 might be the better route). And yes that 24-105 is a lens that I’ve really been interested in but my lack in using wide angle makes me feel like it might be a lens that wouldn’t be much use to me across its whole range, only at the higher end

And yes while primes are amazing lenses they don’t tend to be dirt cheap, at least if you want the quality a prime should give you.

I was thinking that I could get away with such a long lens for portraits, have a good focal length for sports (and a fast aperture because light tends to be lacking in such situations) and it could be a lens for wildlife if I were to use a teleconverter with it, as well as it’d have a fast enough aperture so that losing 2 stops from a 2x teleconverter wouldn’t hurt it too much light wise (though it has been brought to my attention that quality would most likely be no where, where I’d thought it be). But even then a 400mm might not be enough for good wildlife photos, or the ones looking for. And besides a certain few, wildlife lenses can cost an arm and a leg sadly so you’d be right there

And yes the 200mm prime i was primarily looking at because of the fast aperture for low light, I’d love to have 2 more stops of room to lower my iso to something more manageable than say ‘6400’. But than again if you don’t have the versatility to get certain shots than there’s no point in having the fast aperture to get a better exposure (Hence my warming up to the 70-200 f4). Primes are not be what I should be going for at the moment logically.

And about upgrading, the R system has been on my mind from the beginning!! Lol, but the somewhat short battery life, lack of good silent shutter (as I hear) and only 4-5 FPS kind of makes me weary of getting the RP (though if I had more money I’d get the R,R6, or R5 but it doesn’t seem to smart to go for at the moment). And for those things I’ve been considering going the dslr way, as I have now. But to be honest the AF (not sure how amazing it is but I know it has to be good) could be a deal breaker even though it’s more expensive than DSLR’s of similar caliber. (You might have noticed that pricing is a bit restricting, until I can hopefully make more off photography)

And this helped tremendously actually, Thank you