All,My daughter is starting swimming, she is four so nothing pro. Even so, I want to get a new lens where I can take some close up images that my kit 18-55 simply can't reach to.I'm curious if picking up the viltrox 85 1.8 would be a good option, I could also use it as a portrait lens or picking up a used 55-200 would be a better option.I welcome any and all advice.

I own bothThe Viltrox is a lovely lens but its AF is not a Ferrari Excellent for stills, portrait I would not recomand it for sportThe 55-200mm is excellent and as a faster AF  Realise it is an "old" Fuji lens which means AF average and no WR (same Viltrox)Both are excellent lensesDon't buy the 55-200mm new since for 100$ more you can get the new 70-300mmBob

Agreed on the AF speed of the Viltrox, but it may be good enough, especially if you have other uses for it.

baobob wrote:I own bothThe Viltrox is a lovely lens but its AF is not a Ferrari Excellent for stills, portrait I would not recomand it for sportThe 55-200mm is excellent and as a faster AF Realise it is an "old" Fuji lens which means AF average and no WR (same Viltrox)Both are excellent lensesDon't buy the 55-200mm new since for 100$ more you can get the new 70-300mmBobHuh, I think my 85 is on par with the focusing speed of my 55-200, and pulls ahead in low light for sure.To the OP it really depends on the situation. The 85 is my go to lens for indoor pool shots, but these are casual situations not meets. My rule of thumb is go with a prime if I have mobility, and a zoom if I don’t. So if I’m going be constrained to a chair and possibly one that I don’t choose take a zoom, however if I can pick my spot or stay mobile take a prime(s).

With the 70-300 coming out, I’ve seen a few 55-200 go for sale used. But definitely weigh out the price ratios between those two when choosing since the former is an option now. I don’t think “low light” will be a concern for swim sports necessarily, so I think the 55-200 aperture is fine and may be the better option for use case.You mentioned portrait, so maybe defining if portrait is really what you’re after? I imagine you can get nice compression shooting at the 200 end for the 55-200 tho too so don’t rule that out for portraits necessarily.