Primes vs zoom?

[ehasler]

I've been a big fan of zooms up till now, but having used my XPAN which only has 3 primes available for it, and also having recently used several of my primes on my 1Ds which I've really enjoyed, I've started to question whether it's worth going for more zooms, and instead going for some more primes instead...

I've got a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 on order, but for slightly less money I could get the following instead:

24mm f1.4
135mm f2
200mm f2.8

Seeing as I've already got 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8, I'm now thinking that I should go with the 3 primes instead of the two zooms as these would cover the same range with better quality and larger apertures (plus I've got the 1.4 and 2 x converters for any inbetween sizes).

Any thoughts from anyone who's got any of these lenses? Is it worth taking a bit of hit on weight (extra 850ish grams for the 6 primes vs the 2 zooms) and space for the extra quality and speed?

Also, any comments on the argument that the quality of a good prime is much better than a good zoom? Some people insist it is, but others say this is based on arguments from 20-30 years ago and there's nothing in it these days...

[ehasler]

Hmm - been doing a bit of research, and some thinking and have decided to stick with the two zooms.

The quality of the two Canon zooms is very good from everything I've read, and not much less than the primes - in fact, slightly better in some cases. Then another very good point is the dust problem when changing lenses which I hadn't really considered... The final point is that usually primes are faster than zooms, but in the case of the 135 and 200 primes, the 70-200 actually beats them with it's image stabilisation.

[ehasler]

GetCarter said:

oooooh digital blending... gotta try it.

1 minute to fit and line up an ND grad filter, or an hour stuck in front of my PC driving Photoshop... I know what I'd prefer

[ehasler]

GetCarter said:

can't do this with a filter though

I'm sure you could if you cut it out very carefully with a pair of scissors

I was just referring to the article on LL which was referring just to using it instead of ND filters - I can see his point, but in most cases surely it would be quicker to do manually "in the field".

While I think PS is great, and love seeing what it can do, I still try to get the photos as good as it can be before it even goes near my PC. Maybe I'm just old fashioned though...