Taking a step back, what they've kinda done is taken wattle and daub (but not really) and worked it to industrial standards. And wattle and daub got used in all kinds of ways all over the world.
Obv wattle and daub to structural standards and firecode and such so that your building can meet modern specifications is actually quite a handy thing? But yeah there's an overall myopia to steampunk-leaning researchers to focus on a singular feedstock instead of working to create a spectrum of materials based on local availability.
This can get very expensive very fast. Okay, so 20 years ago concert photographers shot on 800 film pushed to 1600 or 3200 and shot on f/2.8 constant lenses, sometimes f/1.8 primes and then walked naked through the snow to milk the developer rodent for the C-41 chemicals. And now 6400 looks pretty darn good on a small sensor even. But it just means that concert photographers want more more more more!
200mm at f/5.6 is going to be really really hard to work with. Or whatever the Sony is at the same zoom setting.
I shoot a lot of smaller dance and circus shows and I use the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro, which is about 24-80 in full-frame terms. If I wanted to do larger arenas where I'd be farther away ... I'd probably get the longer brother of my 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro and put it on a second body or just swap lenses regularly. If you are going to be fairly far from the stage in an arena, I'd probably suggest you get something that's got a shorter zoom range but is faster and then use even just the kit lens for the wide shots because the longer the lens, the more problems you will have both with your hands shaking the lens and the subject moving.