Canon R6 Lense purchase sequence advice sought

[Mark Romero 2]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

It sounds, to me, that 24 f/1.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 should cover most of what I need for my mini doc interviews, filming/photos for track and field (indoor/out) and family events (indoor/out)

It's important to remember that most of the people who will be filming the diverse nature of topics you will be filming are pros or semi-pros, so they are going to have a bag full of lenses to choose from.

I may be mistaken but I thought one of your main goals was to keep things to a reasonable budget. In which case I thought that a 24-105 f/4 is a versatile lens that won't break the bank. For MOST things, I would pair it with an f/1.8 prime or two, and call it a day.

But... indoor sports is one of the most challenging things to shoot, either for photo or video.

So that is going to be the main challenge.

[herein2020]

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

It sounds, to me, that 24 f/1.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 should cover most of what I need for my mini doc interviews, filming/photos for track and field (indoor/out) and family events (indoor/out)

 

For me personally that would not work at all. The 24mm is too wide for most of my video work and the 70-200 F2.8 especially the EF version is way too big and heavy for anything I need to shoot video wise not to mention it is too tight of a crop for the spaces I shoot in.

My favorite lenses for video are 24mm for gimbal work, 50mm for handheld, and 24-105mm F4 for everything else.  The 24mm on a gimbal turns into a 35mm because my camera has a crop when shooting 60FPS which I typically am when I am on a gimbal. I have on occasion flown the 50mm on the gimbal and it does great but it turns into 85mm at 4K60FPS so I reserve those times for 30FPS.

But this is a good example of each person needing to figure out what works for them. 

[Mark Romero 2]

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

But this is a good example of each person needing to figure out what works for them. 

Amen to that.

[kye]

11 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

It sounds, to me, that 24 f/1.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 should cover most of what I need for my mini doc interviews, filming/photos for track and field (indoor/out) and family events (indoor/out)

@herein2020 raises an excellent point about shooting with a potential crop mode in your camera to gain a new focal length.  Does the R6 have such a mode?

In terms of the wide end, how experienced are you with using a 24mm prime?  The reason I ask is that 24mm has a certain look that you would effectively be stuck with unless you changed to the 70-200 which is much much longer and huge and conspicuous.  If you've filmed many different events with just a 24mm then you'll know what you're getting into and that's fine, but I'd be cautious about that.

In my own personal work I use a 35mm equivalent lens as the default walk-around one on the camera, which combined with a 2X digital zoom feature (which doesn't lose resolution or quality) gives pretty good flexibility, and I don't have to change lenses much.  However, I also carry a 15mm equivalent for landscapes/vistas/interiors, and an 85mm equivalent for portraits and details, which suits the travel work that I normally do.

I'd suggest that keeping your options open on the wide end might be a good idea, for example leaving enough budget to add a 35mm or 50mm prime later on if you find that the 24mm is too wide.  Certainly, I find it too wide for people shots because as soon as you want a shot tighter than a mid-shot and step forward to reframe then the width of the lens starts dominating the image.

Have you filmed entire events on your phone?  it's an easy way to trial having a single 24mm (or 28mm) prime.

9 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

It's important to remember that most of the people who will be filming the diverse nature of topics you will be filming are pros or semi-pros, so they are going to have a bag full of lenses to choose from.

I may be mistaken but I thought one of your main goals was to keep things to a reasonable budget. In which case I thought that a 24-105 f/4 is a versatile lens that won't break the bank. For MOST things, I would pair it with an f/1.8 prime or two, and call it a day.

But... indoor sports is one of the most challenging things to shoot, either for photo or video.

So that is going to be the main challenge.

Considering the price difference between a 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4 I'd suggest @SRV1981 confirms that the extra stop is required under the typical lighting.  I'd make sure to include tests about raising the ISO and using noise-reduction in post too, which can have more of an impact than you'd think.  

This is actually a really significant point - cinema cameras are often very noisy, even at their base ISO, and professional colourists often have NR as their first node in the colour correction.  It's regarded as normal and a base-level skill in post for professional cinema and TV, yet amateurs act like noise will escape from their images and kill their family, so seem to spend thousands of dollars buying cameras that can see in the dark and lenses that look like mechanical owls, and cart around huge cases of equipment in order to avoid the slightest noise which could be eliminated in post for free in 2 minutes.

Dropping a stop on the zoom, would save a huge amount of money and free up more funds for more compact primes at the wider end.  It's definitely worth confirming that you *really* need that 2.8 aperture.

[Mark Romero 2]

38 minutes ago, kye said:

...yet amateurs act like noise will escape from their images and kill their family...

LOL!!! True though. And this is despite the fact that the cameras of today are much better at higher ISO's than the cameras of about four years ago or so.

 

40 minutes ago, kye said:

Dropping a stop on the zoom, would save a huge amount of money and free up more funds for more compact primes at the wider end.  It's definitely worth confirming that you *really* need that 2.8 aperture.

Agreed. 

Personally, I think that if one were trying to get most bang for the buck, using a good f/4 zoom and a couple of primes that look good at f/2 (or faster) could provide an awful lot of versatility both for stills and video. 

(I am spoiled / biased toward the 24-105 f/4 focal range because the Panasonic Lumix version I use on my S1 and S5 cameras has 1:2 macro and has been great for the product photography I do on the side.)

[SRV1981]

29 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

It's important to remember that most of the people who will be filming the diverse nature of topics you will be filming are pros or semi-pros, so they are going to have a bag full of lenses to choose from.

I may be mistaken but I thought one of your main goals was to keep things to a reasonable budget. In which case I thought that a 24-105 f/4 is a versatile lens that won't break the bank. For MOST things, I would pair it with an f/1.8 prime or two, and call it a day.

But... indoor sports is one of the most challenging things to shoot, either for photo or video.

So that is going to be the main challenge.

Well said ...

Doing some quick math:

1. 24-105 f/4 would be  , plus  for a 24 and 85 f/1.8 - or thereabouts

2. 70-200 f/2.8 would be  used, plus  24 f/1.8 ( i don't think i'd need a 85 1.8 since 70-200 2.8 should be good enough on the R6)

Thoughts?

[Mark Romero 2]

28 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Well said ...

Doing some quick math:

1. 24-105 f/4 would be  , plus  for a 24 and 85 f/1.8 - or thereabouts

2. 70-200 f/2.8 would be  used, plus  24 f/1.8 ( i don't think i'd need a 85 1.8 since 70-200 2.8 should be good enough on the R6)

Thoughts?

I think I would tend to agree with @kye that a 24mm prime is... kind of peculiar. And for a walkabout lens, I would look to something like a 35mm, too (I use zooms that are equivalent to 16-35 on my walkabout cameras).

Don't get me wrong; I am sure there are lots of people that use them well. Just for me, if I want WIDE, and if I already had a 24-105 f/4, then I would look at a prime or zoom that was 20mm or wider.

Maybe that's just due to my inability to think outside the box. 

Don't get me wrong; you can use 24mm prime for landscapes, but a 24-105 f/4 would cover that just as well.

So I guess my question is how would you foresee using the 24mm prime? 

[kye]

3 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I think I would tend to agree with @kye that a 24mm prime is... kind of peculiar. And for a walkabout lens, I would look to something like a 35mm, too (I use zooms that are equivalent to 16-35 on my walkabout cameras).

Don't get me wrong; I am sure there are lots of people that use them well. Just for me, if I want WIDE, and if I already had a 24-105 f/4, then I would look at a prime or zoom that was 20mm or wider.

Maybe that's just due to my inability to think outside the box. 

Don't get me wrong; you can use 24mm prime for landscapes, but a 24-105 f/4 would cover that just as well.

So I guess my question is how would you foresee using the 24mm prime? 

Some people prefer a 24mm prime, but I think that's mainly as a prime for narrative work, and to be complimented by a 50mm or so.  Also, when cinematographers talk about a 24mm prime, they're often talking about it on S35, so it's around 35mm FF equivalent.

In terms of my lenses, I use the 35 as the default lens, and maybe 60% of final images are 35mm equivalent, maybe 25% of final images are 85mm equivalent, and the remaining 15% are the 16mm equivalent.  If there was a fast enough 16-35 equivalent zoom then I'd be glad to use it, but not even close.

I find 35mm the right FOV for getting environmental portraits, taken from a normal distance away from the person for a social situation, and lots of flexibility in taking a step forwards or backwards to "zoom".  The 16mm wide, is as you say, WIDE and that's exactly what you want for those WOW shots like landscapes and buildings etc.  Then 85mm is great for sniping little moments while the kids don't notice me etc.  

It's a powerful combination of focal lengths because it perfectly matches the types of shots that you want to take, at a focal length that you want to use.  If you use a lens that's wide and get too close to someone you alter their face shape and it feels "too close" and uncomfortable, and if you use a lens that's long and stand a long way from the subject then it will enlarge the background and make the shot feel distant (at best) or voyeuristic (at worst).  Far from it being a lack of ability to "think outside the box" - it's actually a sensible lens choice for the style of video you want to make.

 

[gt3rs]

First Canon does not have any 24 1.8 is either 1.4 or 2.8 (useless lens today).....

Are you buying the RF or EF version of the 24-105 both EF versions are meh imo? I owned the Mk I and tested the Mk II.

Second, maybe I got it wrong but you want to shoot sport right? 

24-105 F4 for sports is not great (for me is bad but other my differ). 24-70 2.8 is better especially later shots at 24 where the subject travel very fast you need very high ss...

For sports you want BG isolation, reach and high shutter speed. Most common sports lens are 70-200 2.8, 200-400 F4 and 400 2.8 not by chance. 

Not sure that the hobbyist noise remark that somebody did was for me as I said 1 stop can make a big difference...  
  


 

 

[herein2020]

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Well said ...

Doing some quick math:

1. 24-105 f/4 would be  , plus  for a 24 and 85 f/1.8 - or thereabouts

2. 70-200 f/2.8 would be  used, plus  24 f/1.8 ( i don't think i'd need a 85 1.8 since 70-200 2.8 should be good enough on the R6)

Thoughts?

Yet another thing to consider is that you can also turn any lens into even more focal lengths by cropping both in camera and later in post. I always shoot 4K, edit on a 1080P timeline, and upload at 2K. This gives me the ability to turn a 24-105mm into a lossless 24-252mm lens. Of course you don't get the background compression of a true 200mm lens but you do get the FOV and full screen effect of a 250mm lens.

I literally just shot a wedding video yesterday and the 24-105mm is what I used. It was an outdoor beach sunset wedding, camera was set up to shoot down the aisle but I needed to go handheld for the bride's and flower girl's arrival, tripod for the center aisle walk, and tripod for the vows. 

I locked down the tripod, shot handheld at 50mm for the flower girls, 100mm for the bride's arrival, 24mm for the center aisle walk to show the audience, and around 100mm for a full framing of the vows. In post on my 1080P timeline I am leaving it at 100mm for the opening statements and cropped in to 250mm during the vow recital to show facial expressions. For the couples kiss, beach walk, and send off I switched over to the 50mm prime and shot handheld. I could have stuck with the 24-105mm but the barrel is a PITA when you start angling the camera up or down, otherwise I would have kept the same lens. 

No other lens in my bag would give me 24-252mm at F4 and for this wedding I needed every single end of that lens. So like I said....only you truly know what your budget, needs, and shooting style are. But yesterday was a great example of why my most hated lens still ends up being my most used.

[SRV1981]

On 10/24/2021 at 12:02 AM, kye said:

@herein2020 raises an excellent point about shooting with a potential crop mode in your camera to gain a new focal length.  Does the R6 have such a mode?

In terms of the wide end, how experienced are you with using a 24mm prime?  The reason I ask is that 24mm has a certain look that you would effectively be stuck with unless you changed to the 70-200 which is much much longer and huge and conspicuous.  If you've filmed many different events with just a 24mm then you'll know what you're getting into and that's fine, but I'd be cautious about that.

In my own personal work I use a 35mm equivalent lens as the default walk-around one on the camera, which combined with a 2X digital zoom feature (which doesn't lose resolution or quality) gives pretty good flexibility, and I don't have to change lenses much.  However, I also carry a 15mm equivalent for landscapes/vistas/interiors, and an 85mm equivalent for portraits and details, which suits the travel work that I normally do.

I'd suggest that keeping your options open on the wide end might be a good idea, for example leaving enough budget to add a 35mm or 50mm prime later on if you find that the 24mm is too wide.  Certainly, I find it too wide for people shots because as soon as you want a shot tighter than a mid-shot and step forward to reframe then the width of the lens starts dominating the image.

Have you filmed entire events on your phone?  it's an easy way to trial having a single 24mm (or 28mm) prime.

Considering the price difference between a 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4 I'd suggest @SRV1981 confirms that the extra stop is required under the typical lighting.  I'd make sure to include tests about raising the ISO and using noise-reduction in post too, which can have more of an impact than you'd think.  

This is actually a really significant point - cinema cameras are often very noisy, even at their base ISO, and professional colourists often have NR as their first node in the colour correction.  It's regarded as normal and a base-level skill in post for professional cinema and TV, yet amateurs act like noise will escape from their images and kill their family, so seem to spend thousands of dollars buying cameras that can see in the dark and lenses that look like mechanical owls, and cart around huge cases of equipment in order to avoid the slightest noise which could be eliminated in post for free in 2 minutes.

Dropping a stop on the zoom, would save a huge amount of money and free up more funds for more compact primes at the wider end.  It's definitely worth confirming that you *really* need that 2.8 aperture.

I believe the extra-stop is needed indoors based on my a7III experience (f/2.8 or faster)

 

On 10/24/2021 at 5:39 AM, gt3rs said:

First Canon does not have any 24 1.8 is either 1.4 or 2.8 (useless lens today).....

Are you buying the RF or EF version of the 24-105 both EF versions are meh imo? I owned the Mk I and tested the Mk II.

Second, maybe I got it wrong but you want to shoot sport right? 

24-105 F4 for sports is not great (for me is bad but other my differ). 24-70 2.8 is better especially later shots at 24 where the subject travel very fast you need very high ss...

For sports you want BG isolation, reach and high shutter speed. Most common sports lens are 70-200 2.8, 200-400 F4 and 400 2.8 not by chance. 

Not sure that the hobbyist noise remark that somebody did was for me as I said 1 stop can make a big difference...  
  


 

 

photos are awesome!  I agree 70-200 seems like a need and I am now debating whether or not to pair it with a 24 or 35 to start (doc/sports/travel)

[gt3rs]

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

 

photos are awesome!  I agree 70-200 seems like a need and I am now debating whether or not to pair it with a 24 or 35 to start (doc/sports/travel)

24 there is not too many choices at the moment on Canon basically only EF 24 1.4 II 

Maybe buy the RF 35 1.8 is quite small and not too expensive if you don’t like it resell it for a 100$ loss. Is a bit noisy the af motor but image quality is good.

For almost half the price of the 24 1.4 you can buy the RF 35 1.8 plus the RF 16 2.8. They are small and lightweight great for travel. I’m testing the 16 2.8 right now seems quite good for the price but I need more tests.

An alternative is to buy a used RF 24-105 4-7.1 you find them around 220 usd is small light weigh and okeish. You then see the most used fl and sell it and buy something better. This of curse is a no go for indoor moving subjects. 

 

[kye]

14 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I believe the extra-stop is needed indoors based on my a7III experience (f/2.8 or faster)

Sounds like you're trying to buy skill.  Or are letting "just in case" push to beyond a reasonable spec.

The reason that I say that is that there are almost no other telephoto lenses faster than f2.8, and there are almost no other cameras with better high ISO performance than the A73.  What this means is that the A73 + f2.8 zoom combo is better than the state of the art for the entire history of photography up until a handful of years ago.

Let that sink in....  People have been taking photos and video in exactly the same situation you're in, with *far* worse equipment, for decades, and yet you can't even sacrifice a single stop of light?  I understand that maybe that setup would be better for you, and maybe it's a tradeoff worth making with your budget, but "needed" is a pretty strong word.  I need to breathe to live, but even clothing isn't technically "needed".  

I mean, don't get me wrong - it's your money and you can spend it however you want to.  But, if I said that I can't possibly make a film without an Alexa 65, a full set of Anamorphic Master Primes, and a $100K dolly crane, you'd take that assumption, you'd think about the fact that basically every movie ever made got made on inferior equipment, often on DRASTICALLY inferior equipment, and you'd realise that I might be overstating what is truly required.

You say you're an amateur, and yet, equipment that most pros don't have is the minimum?

[gt3rs]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Sounds like you're trying to buy skill.  Or are letting "just in case" push to beyond a reasonable spec.

The reason that I say that is that there are almost no other telephoto lenses faster than f2.8, and there are almost no other cameras with better high ISO performance than the A73.  What this means is that the A73 + f2.8 zoom combo is better than the state of the art for the entire history of photography up until a handful of years ago.

Let that sink in....  People have been taking photos and video in exactly the same situation you're in, with *far* worse equipment, for decades, and yet you can't even sacrifice a single stop of light?  I understand that maybe that setup would be better for you, and maybe it's a tradeoff worth making with your budget, but "needed" is a pretty strong word.  I need to breathe to live, but even clothing isn't technically "needed".  

I mean, don't get me wrong - it's your money and you can spend it however you want to.  But, if I said that I can't possibly make a film without an Alexa 65, a full set of Anamorphic Master Primes, and a $100K dolly crane, you'd take that assumption, you'd think about the fact that basically every movie ever made got made on inferior equipment, often on DRASTICALLY inferior equipment, and you'd realise that I might be overstating what is truly required.

You say you're an amateur, and yet, equipment that most pros don't have is the minimum?

Every single pro sport photographer has a 70-200 2.8 not a 70-200 4 and I can tell pro sport venues have 2 to 4x the lighting of an amateur venue. I do work on this environment every week both pro and amateur. 

Better to buy a used non IS 70-200 2.8 lens than a modern f4. As I mention BG isolation in equally important. Sports is one of the few area where equipment will trump skills.. 

[herein2020]

16 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

Every single pro sport photographer has a 70-200 2.8 not a 70-200 4 and I can tell pro sport venues have 2 to 4x the lighting of an amateur venue. I do work on this environment every week both pro and amateur. 

Better to buy a used non IS 70-200 2.8 lens than a modern f4. As I mention BG isolation in equally important. Sports is one of the few area where equipment will trump skills.. 

 

I completely get what you are saying...but the part that is hard for me to wrap my head around is that for the OP this will be completely unpaid work. I know that I personally wouldn't even consider doing that much unpaid work but even if I was planning to I wouldn't be willing to pay for that kind of gear with no expectation of compensation; if I were approaching this as a hobbyist I'd be fine with F4 and just crank the ISO.

I would just get the EOS R, an EF lens adapter, a used 24-105mm F4 and call it a day. I know it has a pretty severe crop but so does the S5 when shooting 4K60FPS but I've learned to live with it. The biggest problem with the R6 is its lower resolution will limit its cropping abilities. 

Canon EOS R Used - $1500.00

Canon EF 24-105mm F4 II Used - $849

Adapter EF to RF - $100

Total Investment: $2449.00

 

17 hours ago, gt3rs said:

24 there is not too many choices at the moment on Canon basically only EF 24 1.4 II 

I have the Canon EF 24mm F2.8 and it is great for gimbal work. Used they are about $430.00. With my camera I can shoot cropped at 35mm FF equiv or wide open at the original 24mm.

 

21 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I believe the extra-stop is needed indoors based on my a7III experience (f/2.8 or faster)

With the S5 and it's dual native ISO I shoot at ISO4000 all the time; I once shot a fashion show terribly lit at night and was able to shoot at F5.6 and ISO4000 which was just as clean as at its other native ISO which is 640. The lens was an F1.4 but I wanted more DOF to get more of the model's walks in focus.

[gt3rs]

1 hour ago, herein2020 said:

 

Canon EOS R Used - $1500.00

Canon EF 24-105mm F4 II Used - $849

Adapter EF to RF - $100

Total Investment: $2449.00

 

I

He wants to shoot sports EOS R is a terrible sports camera is very slow in fps. It is also not that great for video. Is really an old tech. 105mm for sports is super short.

I had all the 1D III then 1Dx I, II and III the R6 is basically an 1Dx III for a really good price. Is better in video and millions time better for action shoot than an R. 12 fps, 20 fps, and a super AF. 
For static, landscape etc.... EOS R is very good, and ok for video but for action imo is a no go.

[SRV1981]

9 hours ago, kye said:

You say you're an amateur, and yet, equipment that most pros don't have is the minimum?

Sweet - sounds like an ad hominem - I sold my A7III because of the video side not photos.  Your comments make sense regarding photo only and much of it I never made an argument against - I never said that my A7iii sucked at photos or shooting sports.  I don't like the color for video and tried correcting to get a more Canon/Fuji/Panasonic look.  It wasn't successful and therefore I am moving on.  I think that is a logical and not uncommon thing.  But you're free to disagree.

 

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Better to buy a used non IS 70-200 2.8 len

I agree - that said do you think a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 used is worth the buy rather than a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II?

 

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I would just get the EOS R, an EF lens adapter, a used 24-105mm F4 and call it a day.

I think the point has been lost in this thread ... I am sold my a7iii due to video color - not because f/2.8 or f/4 lens.  I am having trouble following at this point since these responses are unrelated to my inquiry/post/discussion.

 

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

With the S5 and it's dual native ISO I shoot at ISO4000 all the time; I once shot a fashion show terribly lit at night and was able to shoot at F5.6 and ISO4000 which was just as clean as at its other native ISO which is 640. The lens was an F1.4 but I wanted more DOF to get more of the model's walks in focus.

I fail to see how this works with poor LED lights in an indoor track with people sprinting and having ridiculous fast shutter speeds - the ISO has to be very high and the extra stop of light is needed. 

I do not feel that these responses are relevant to my post (video/photo) and feel like many people respond with their own experiences and opinions unrelated to the original inquiry.  It's wild to me.

[SRV1981]

On 10/19/2021 at 11:52 AM, SRV1981 said:

Moving to R6 and would like to get some help with analysis for practical use as well as financial options.

Between Now and March I will be ...

-Filming short documentary interviews, b-roll for my students (teach history, politics, reading, writing, etc.) should be decently lit with sun, etc.

-Filming/Photo events (baby shower, holiday parties) should be both a mix of well-light and low light situations

-Filming/Photo Track and Field (indoor and outdoor) a mix of well-light and low light situations

Next Spring/Summer I will be ...

-Filming documentary/cinematic road trip across the west coast of the US and a mix of well-light and low light situations

Zooms (16-35; 24-70; 70-200)

Primes (35, 85, 135)

It seems that EF mount with an adapter is a good way to go to save $$$ over RF mount, so I am open to those options.

What lenses, combos, etc. would make most sense now versus being able to put off till a later date?

Thoughts on EF vs. RF

Thoughts on 3rd party EF/RF vs. Canon?

FYI - this was the original post.

[Mark Romero 2]

I don't know if I added to the confusion or not. For some reason, I thought that you were on a more modest budget. Silly me.

You see, most of the people who inquire about equipment to shoot "student sports" and "baby showers" are not interested in dropping $30K on gear.

Also, since you mentioned you had "students," I assumed you were a teacher... and since teachers are the one profession who are paid LESS than photographers and videographers,  I thought your pennies might be precocious. 

So that is why I suggested something like a 24-105mm f/4 and a prime or two since it is a very affordable and still versatile combo with today's cameras that have better high ISO performance than cameras of even a few years ago. 

It would be very easy to recommend something like a pair of R5's or R3's or whatever Canon's flagship sports camera is and suggest dropping $1,350 on an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and while you are at it another $12K for an RF 400mm f/2.8. 

I mean, that's what the pros use, isn't it???

[SRV1981]

57 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

You see, most of the people who inquire about equipment to shoot "student sports" and "baby showers" are not interested in dropping $30K on gear.

I hope that isn't the impression I gave off. I will not be spending $30k on gear 🙂

57 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

So that is why I suggested something like a 24-105mm f/4 and a prime or two since it is a very affordable and still versatile combo with today's cameras that have better high ISO performance than cameras of even a few years ago. 

And I appreciate this advice I am doing that!  I may swap a 24-105 for a 70-200 and a 35mm prime.  So I am taking your advice, and others, and making a decision - which was my goal! So thanks!

 

57 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

It would be very easy to recommend something like a pair of R5's or R3's or whatever Canon's flagship sports camera is and suggest dropping $1,350 on an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and while you are at it another $12K for an RF 400mm f/2.8. 

I mean, that's what the pros use, isn't it???

Probably is - but i've never referenced that I am seeking to be a pro or spend money as a "pro"

Again, I wrote in my post: "What lenses, combos, etc. would make most sense now versus being able to put off till a later date?  Thoughts on EF vs. RF. Thoughts on 3rd party EF/RF vs. Canon?"

- How a few of you got to $30k, pro vs. non-pro, etc. baffles me