SRV1981

Actually, there are a few vocal pros posting here of late, but the majority are not pros.
You mentioned not wanting to learn colour, but @Djangos advice is right - shoot in LOG and just use a LUT.
The reason that SOOC doesn't work with "cinematic" and "family" and "video" is that SOOC profiles have limited dynamic range and this has a very video look to it, which is the opposite of cinematic.  It is possible to get great looking SOOC footage, but you have to control your lighting and guess what - that's not what you're doing when you shoot family stuff!
Shoot LOG and use a LUT or transform.
"learning colour" isn't what you think it is either.  "learning colour" is kind of like saying "learning painting".  It takes 2 minutes to learn to hold a brush and paint stick figures, and many lifetimes to learn to paint like Rembrandt.  If you want your footage to look cinematic then you're going to at least have to learn how to adjust whitebalance in post.  One of the least cinematic looking things I see is when people don't do that on their videos.
What about video?  OP said he's 70% video and 30% stills.  

This is the lens I bought, I hope you where not thinking of a FF version!
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07KD2XJD1?ref=ppx_pt2_dt_b_prod_image
And this is the Cage I am going to use to hold the lens.
https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-professional-universal-mobile-phone-cage-cpu2494.html

I have an R6 and I find it has some of the best SOOC color science out there. 
Canon is considered a leader in that domain but the competition has mostly caught up.
That said, some people don't like Canon colors so maybe its just not for you.
Make sure you check various picture profiles though as Standard may be a bit to vivid/contrasty.
But of course for best results and a cinematic look you have to shoot Clog.
Clog is very easy to shoot with the view assist on. 
Grading Clog is also very easy and if you're a starter/amateur just go with LUTs.
Only thing is you'll need a very recent computer (M1 Mac) to edit the h265 footage.
I had an XT2 by the way and it did have a nice look thanks to the film simulations which are probably the best picture profiles out there (especially Eterna on later models).
 
@webrunner5  I don't understand, you bought a Sirui anamorphic lens.. for a Sony Xperia ? How is that even possible to interchange a lens on a smartphone? 

if he is not happy with his Fuji in low light that smart phone isn't going to cut it.
 
I like the colors in Canon LOG2 after just throwing a lut on. Of course you gotta get the WB right.

Fuji Autofocus has improved since the XT2 and the 10 bit H265 looks better in low light than the 8 bit coming out of the XT2, similar amounts of noise though.

It is not just multiple lenses that are added it is all the Computational Math stuff, the AI, night modes, DOF stuff, IBIS, on and on.  With Fimic Pro it is pretty amazing what you can do with that also.

A lot of truth in that for some folks needs.
For the true working pro, not.
For the keen enthusiast who is ‘into’ photography, still probably not, but the gap is definitely closing…
For most folks out there who are none of the above, almost certainly yes for no other reason than it’s so damn convenient.
Try as I might, for the last couple of years, I have tried to have a ‘personal camera’ but the reality is my phone is just more convenient.
I don’t know when, but at some point I am going to replace my: iphone8, personal camera (ZV1) and action camera (DJI Action 2) with one of the latest, probably Apple, phones with multiple lens options.
And never look back.

With zero hesitation, I’d recommend they stuck with the R6.
You can fiddle in camera with the ‘SOOC’ output and pretty easily and quickly do a light grade.
I don’t shoot log myself and also place a very high value on SOOC for my work.
Or rather, I want a consistent output I can quickly and consistently do a light grade to myself.
That light grade simply involves whizzing through the chosen footage and making adjustments made based on colour wheels and sliders for a combo of the graphs saying it is correct combined with my own opinion.
Single grade over over the whole thing based on Film Convert Nitrate.
Single further creative LUT at 20% over that and I’m done.
I may make a few further minor tweaks to some individual clips once the grade has been overlaid, but not much or often.
But back to choice of kit… unless you really didn’t like using and cannot get out of the R6 what you’d like and have exhausted all avenues, I wouldn’t change.
I hate changing kit myself. It’s always a PITA.
I only switched from Fuji after a decade as it was relatively easy and convenient for me to do so.
Prior to that, Nikon for the previous decade.
Will I switch again? Sure, one day…maybe/never. I would need a really good reason and business case to do so and that currently does not exist.
Like so many, it doesn’t stop me looking and pondering the subject though! 🤪

I am creating:
 
Videos for athletes  instructional - on a field, a track, and weight room performances - on a track (indoor/outdoor)  Videos for HS students how to read complex texts, writing strategies, organization, etc.  Videos for Family family parties, baby showers, birthday parties, holidays, trips  Videos for Travel my trips and experiences (mostly cinematic w/ music)  
Photos for athletes training and performance (indoor track/outdoor track)  Photos for Family family parties, baby showers, birthday parties, holidays, trips  Photos for Travel   my trips and experiences Photos for Friends their babies, portraits, family photos, etc. I've had a Fuji XT3 - LOVED the color but the ISO performance and autofocus made it not a good fit.  I'd be standing next to another person who had a Canon/Sony and they'd have the ISO/autofocus and get shots I missed (we even swapped bodies to try and they couldn't get a good shot or they would and the grain would look ugly at higher ISO or shutter speeds) so I decided to follow the next body.
Then I went to Sony A7III - LOVED that autofocus, liked the ISO performance compared to Fuji BUT it took too much work to get the color I wanted (love the fuji/canon colors bar none).  I am not a pro/paid hybrid shooter and may at some point learn to color grade but the reality is even then it will consume time that I really don't have so SOOC and/or minor tweeks like a drop-in LUT with a few curve moves for the whole video and done - not grading and matching 100s of clips.
Now ...
Canon R6 with adapter for EF lenses - this is my top move currently ... I can't think of a single body that will give me the ability to get the colors, ISO, and AF qualities I seek.  20mp is perfect for what I need and low enough to give me great to excellent ISO performance/low light performance.  I do like the colors from Panasonics S1H/S5 but the AF seems like a dealbreaker?  I could go with a Panasonic S1H/S5 for video on my documentary/narrative and get a significantly cheaper body for photos, but which body would be relatively cheap and have great ISO/AF?  Would they be able to share lenses?  If the Panasonics had AF equal to Sony/Canon then it may make it a closer choice with the R6 so that is my dilemma - go with the R6 or find 2 bodies ...

There are a couple of head-to-head comparison videos out there. I will link to one (or two) below.
I think that pretty much any and every ND filter is going to have color / tint shifts. I have been using a three-stop Hoya MC (HMC) ND filter and it definitely results in a blue temp / magenta tint shift. I always have to adjust my white balance slightly amber and slightly green. That's a filter that costs amount $45 for a 77mm size, so it is what I would guess you would call "mid-tier" in terms of pricing.
In doesn't seem to affect sharpness in any noticeable way.
Haven't noticed any vignette with the filter and there isn't too much added flare, but there is some increased blue ghosting when the sun is in frame or just out of frame. 
I use it outdoors when shooting in LOG (which requires ISO 640) so that I can open the aperture from f/22(where diffraction would be heavy) to f/8 (the sharpest aperture for my lens). 
Three stops isn't all that heavy of an ND, so maybe others who have shot with heavier ND filters will provide better information for you.
Slightly Off Topic: For cameras that DON'T have a built in IR filter (or have a very weak one) you will want to get an ND filter with IR filtering, too. I know that Tiffen makes some. I am not sure what the R6 IR filter situation is. It might be great (most likely it is).
I based my choice of the Hoya MC based on Griffin Hammond's video directly below.
Also, I just watched the slanted lens review of some of the more expensive variable ND filters (Polar Pro, Syrup, B+W, and Tiffen) and their conclusion was that the best variable ND was to... use a couple of non-variable ND filters stacked. In THEIR conclusion, cheap Amazon single-density ND filters looked better than the most expensive variable ND filters.
 
 

Generally, lenses with an STM motor are optimized for video shooting, so the might be slightly slower than other lenses, but the focus is smoother, and I believe they are quieter. I don't know which RF mount lenses have STM motors though. 
I guess the only way to really know for sure though is to see if anyone has experience using that particular lens for video.
 

Very much!
 
How can I determine which lenses are silent/don't make noise during video?  I like the RF 35 f/1.8 but i think i saw it makes some noise during focusing in video mode that is a dealbreaker despite being so afforadable!

How's this: https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-g2-canon-ef-fit/sku-1219845/
 
 
New: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1317271-REG/tamron_afa025c_700_sp_70_200mm_f_2_8_di.html
 

This is a really good point. 

One benefit of refurbished cameras over even NEW cameras is that they have had someone from the offical repair center go over the cameras thoroughly.
When a new camera comes off the production line, they are going to give it a quick diagnostic test, maybe take a few frames with it, and that's about it.
When you buy refurbished, it means someone has really taken the time to look into the camera. (At leas more so than when it rolled off the assembly line.)
Back in my Nikon aps-c days about 6 years ago, I would buy refurbished from Cametta cameras (RIP). I was always happy with how the gear worked. (Bought two bodies and a couple of lenses form them). They used to have a lot of officially refurbished Nikon gear and it carried the same Nikon refurbished warranty.
I also bought my Nikon D750 straight from Nikon Refurbished for about $1,400 or so when they were selling new around $1,800 and it worked fine. Nikon DID have some shutter recall programs where they replacing shutter boxes on ALL Nikon D750 cameras, whether they were having shutter problems or not. And they were perfectly happy to do the shutter replacement on my D750.
BTW: I think Sigma has a good warranty / service on used lenses. I bought an old Sigma 10-20 used and it didn't have LiveView AF capabilities since the lens was made before Nikon had implemented LiveView (contrast-detect) AF.
They said that even though I had bought it off of craislist, to send it in and they would update the firmware to get it to work with Nikon LiveView.  

Indeed! 
Yes, those are the places where I get most of my used gear. I know they'll meticulously check everything over, grade it accordingly and if I'm unhappy with it I can return it, no questions asked. To me that's worth paying a little extra than buying it from someone I don't know on eBay or Facebook. 

I buy them with mixed of used/new, normally buying new if there is no used yet and price is not crazy.
 
I save quite a lot on buying used though, and can usally resell with minimum depreciation.

When it comes to cameras, it depends. My main camera I always buy new. People often tell me it's a waste of money but I always buy the extended warranty... It gives me peace of mind. I will entertain refurbished and open box deals as long as they come with a warranty. 
Every other camera though? I buy used with a focus on older cameras. My B-cam and C-cams are both used and were bought for under $400 each after I sold the lenses they came with. The G85 was about $350 and the GX85 was $250ish after doing that, and both are in excellent condition. Assuming I stay with Panasonic, the GH5 that I bought new will slide into the B-cam slot for whatever I buy new, assuming they are easy to match for by multicamera work. 
I don't see much value in buying newish cameras used unless I'm getting a good deal and know the seller, for the reasons @Mark Romero 2kind of gave. For the $200 extra I'd rather have gotten the ability to get the warranty and all the benefits you get from buying something new. That's just my preference though.
Lenses though? I've bought one new lens in my life. I tend to stick to established sellers and people I know, but if I see a real bargain I'll take the chance. I've been very fortunate in that it has worked out well for me every time. I don't care at all about getting the new model of a lens unless there's a significant difference; gimme your old lenses as long as they work! 🙂
Well used/loved gear is a great way to build up your arsenal. I highly recommend it! 

Refurbished items often come with warrantees of their own making them a bit safer than just straight up used copies. I definitely recommend buying used or refurbished from any of those retailers in addition to Adorama. I've had great experiences with all of them. The used prices are often a little higher than you'd pay buying direct from another person, but you get the security of solid return policies and reputations.

I basically bought all of my camera and lenses used, with the exception of my first dslr (a Canon 550D)  and the Pocket 4K I placed a Preorder for, right after it was announced. I don´t need all my gear to look brand new or to be the latest and greatest. For example, I just got a Sony a7rii as an alternative to my 5Diii. I bought the 5Diii for 580€ and the a7rii for 700€ via ebay/a photography forum. 
But refurbished could be a great option as well. Depends on what you´re looking for and how big your budget is.

Hmmm... they might have something on their website.
I would look in to their professional service plans. It MIGHT be overkill for you, but if you are dropping some serious $$$'s on equipment, you might feel better about having a service plan.
But I am just saying this based on MY experience with Panasonic, and how if I had realized there was only about a $200 difference between a new S5 and the used one I got, and that there was the service plan for new bodies (and the free lens), I would have gone with new.

When I say “if I wasn’t a pro”, I really do mean me personally as in everything & anything I do that is not paid, I never use my ‘work cameras’ but instead, much prefer to use smaller & lighter stuff.
Sony ZV1 is my current ‘personal’ camera and even that doesn’t get much use next to the iPhone 8 and that is far from cutting edge these days.
I think next year I am going to trade both and combine for the first time properly, phone, stills, video, all in one single unit.
But as above, this is not me ‘advising’ anyone else, just stating personal use/opinion and that’s not going to be for everyone for sure 🙂

EF 85 1.8 I had that it is ok but too short for most sports, I sold it as it was mostly collecting dust. If you find a really cheap used ok but if not stay away as there is a new RF 85 2.0 so the EF 85 1.8 value is tanking... 200 $ max

If it would be me:

EF 70-200 IS II used (1000 usd), Adapter EF-R (100 usd), RF 24-105 4-7.1 used (220 usd)

When you have some more money left add

RF 35 1.8 used (350 usd) or RF 50 1.8 used (180 usd) by looking at the focal length that you will use the most out of your experience with the RF 24-105 4-7.1......

If you did not buy yet the R6 I believe is sold in kit with the RF 24-105 4-7.1  (this is why there are so many used one on the market selling out of the kit, I got mine for 190 usd)

 

My point exactly. Those DXO charts don't give you the full picture. Maybe Schott likes an optical viewfinder, DSLR ergonomics, no AA filter etc? Maybe he doesn't like to use adapted EF lenses on a RF mirrorless (I can tell you first-handed the performance isn't the same). Like I said some people even still shoot film. DXO charts are irrelevant when it comes to subjective preferences! In any case the 5DS at 50.6MP is hardly a camera to shrug at even by 2021 standards.
 
Can't say I agree with this. We were all amateurs/hobbyist before becoming pros (not to mention none of us are pros 24/7). Thank god I didn't limit myself to compact p&s or smartphones. 
Nothing wrong with hobbyist/amateurs going FF. An R6 or A7IV is mid-tier prosumer gear anyways. Just saying.

I'm not really sure that those are the best combinations of lenses.
For sports, it will depend on where you sit, but there is likely to be a large difference in distance between someone being on your side/end of the ground and the other side/end of the ground, and you'll need to zoom to compensate for this (as you can't walk onto the court/field).  In this sense, I'd suggest a 70-200, or perhaps even 100-400, but you'll know better what you're shooting and what focal lengths work best for that.
For non-sports, you are likely to have more flexibility in where you can walk, so you can zoom with your feet a lot more, but there are compromises here too.  I shoot with a 35mm prime for my travel and events coverage, and find it's in the sweet spot, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't get a better shot if I was able to go wider or longer.  In this sense a 24-105 would be the best range of focal lengths and would give you the focal length you'd want for most situations.
Now, the question is you can afford.  Ideally you'd buy a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8, but I'm guessing that's not in your budget.  So, the question is what can you compromise?
You could compromise the wider zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for docs / events.
You could compromise the sports zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for sports.
You could compromise the speed of the wider zoom and go for a cheaper zoom (kit lens), but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of image quality (although kit lenses are actually very good these days).
You could compromise the speed of the sports zoom and go for a cheaper one, but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of low light performance.
Essentially these are things you'd have to try for yourself and find out.  I have invested in very nice lenses but only did that over time and with much trial and error, mostly trying out cheaper alternatives and only buying really expensive glass once I had confirmed that the focal length was right and that the aperture was actually required.
Perhaps the alternative is to buy a second hand 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 and a 75-300/4-5.6 and try them out and see what focal lengths you actually use.  Then sell them and buy what you have actually used when filming real situations you find yourself in.  For the wider lens, try and set it to a particular focal length and just use it like that without zooming, that will tell you if you can work around having a fixed focal length for that kind of work.

Not ad hominem.
I think the challenge was that you did give the impression that your budget was limited, and I was also with @Mark Romero 2 in thinking that taking photographs of students likely meant you were a teacher and therefore on low pay.
So the discussion was about what you could get the biggest value from, with the assumption that you'd probably not have enough to get what you needed at first, and it was about getting good basic coverage to get you up and running and then you could improve things down the line when you'd been able to set more money aside.
To put it rather bluntly, your whole argument about Sony colours not being minimum standard combined with your lack of colour grading skill or knowledge really just points out that you don't have much experience in making the types of videos you're talking about making.  
One of the first videos I ever tried to grade was on a Canon 700D and it was a panning shot of my daughters birthday party with my wife carrying the cake about 4 meters from the kitchen to the table as we all sung happy birthday.  What I didn't know at the time was the kitchen light and dining table light were different brands of compact fluorescents, and that even with that glorious Canon colour science (to be praised above all else!!!) the shot was unusable.  I would have begged to even get Sony colours.  I have been teaching myself colour grading in Resolve for about 5 years now, and I've only just recently gotten to the point where I can deal with difficult mixed lighting situations like that and get good results.
So when you post saying you want recommendations, say things that indicate you're very budget constrained, indicate you want glorious Canon colours but don't know anything about colour grading in the real world and don't want to learn, and then turn around and insist that the fastest professional zoom lens is your minimum standard, well.  I'd challenge that assertion.
Someone else pointed out that f2.8 gives a level of background blur and that's a reasonable argument, but it's a nice-to-have with a limited budget, and I was talking about low-light performance in a low-light environment with faster shutter speeds, not about background blur.
Maybe as Mark has suggested, if you could share your real budget then we'd be better able to help, although to be honest, the best equipment still makes images that look like crap if the person using them doesn't have the required levels of skill, and shooting in uncontrolled conditions requires more skill than grading Hollywood films.