Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Here is an interesting discussion regarding using prime lenses instead of zoom lenses.
I personally like zoom lenses as I can't always "Walk" up to my subjects like a subject across some barrier either fence or river etc.
But I do like the look of primes when done well by experienced photographers, of which we have a few like Bob in Tempe.
This made me think about trying some primes again once I get a new mirrorless that will fully utilize their optical qualities.
https://digital-photography-school.com/use-prime-lenses-for-better-photos/?fbclid=IwAR288YZdaACQmPcgWcBgefOhFhjmMH5zat8mVBtAFZ6TK-cXy26uC0rUc78

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Just my opinion, but if I were a DSLR shooter I would own both.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I use both - not either/or for me. And good quality zooms can match the quality of many primes.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Ditto.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have a zoom and a 50mm. I use the zoom 99+% of the time because I can do a lot of in-camera cropping with it.
But, that's me...

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I use both; but my preference is to use a prime.
Old school leanings

mcmama

Ditto

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There is no question that a properly designed prime will produce a better image than the best and most expensive zoom.

But our judgement is influenced by other factors that are not directly related to image quality - convenience, weight, price, low light capability and subject matter. A properly designed prime need not be heavy, expensive or new.

If I am going to use a 5 pound (2.2 kg) zoom because of its long focal length it will probably be the only lens I carry along with a tripod. But the subject matter will not be a significant challenge to the quality of the lens.

But for anything under 100mm I prefer a small number of prime lenses and may use only one of them all day. They each will weigh between only a half a pound and just over a pound (217 to 523 grams). My only zoom in that range weighs 691 grams (1.5 pounds) but its quality is good enough for casual subject matter.

The biggest mistake that zoom users overlook is that a super zoom cannot possibly compete with a decent prime lens or even with other zooms with modest ranges - around 4:1 down to 2:1.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I started photography in the late 50's and there were only primes. In fact, I never considered zooms to be a suitable alternative until the 90's when computer lens design had developed to the point were they could compete on a level with top quality primes. If I am taking a portrait for example, I want a lens that is tuned for that specific purpose and does not have various variabilities that can compromise performance as is inherent in any lens that of necessity contains many moving parts moving at different rates, each of which has either additive or subtractive tolerances that can alter performance from the straight line curve. Only a prime can 99% approach that degree of repeatability.

Today, I use both. But for a beginner, I think a zoom lens is a mistake. Learning photography with primes, facilitates learning the basics and forces the novice to explore and move around for perspective and framing. A beginner with a zoom may miss learning those important skills.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I got my first SLR while serving in South America. It had a 50mm f1.4 and I got a 28mm f2.8.
I used those lenses for some time before I got a 100-200mm zoom.
Even then the 50 was the most used lens until I went to AF in the mid 90's.

BebuLamar

Back in the film days I prefer the prime. They are smaller and faster that's for sure (don't know about sharper as I didn't do the test). There is a different between changing focal length of the lens and changing the camera to subject distance but with primes of close enough focal length to each other the effect is not that noticeable. So I rather carry several lenses and and change lenses in the field than using a zoom.
However, with the DSLR I am so afraid of getting dust on the sensor that I don't want to change lens in the field.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

For me its not either or...its both. Convenience and versatility vs size and weight. When making prudent lens choices image quality difference is less than what most people will notice.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is a very interesting, question, like many posted here. I was putting together a response built around some of my own history and with some supporting facts, but it really wasn't very interesting to read. So I deleted it and will offer this. We can discuss the whys and wherefores later, if anyone wants to do so, and I'll just offer this...

I currently shoot with older half-frame bodies (12-13 MP) and with very recent full frame bodies (36-46MP). I have good zooms and mediocre zooms, and some good prime lenses.

I have learned that the good zooms perform at least as well on the crop bodies as the good primes do on the full frame bodies, when the performance of the lenses is compared to the capabilities of the sensors. I have also learned that the good zooms perform completely adequately on the full frame bodies for probably 98% of what I do. So to me, there is generally not an issue with using any of the lenses anywhere. My mediocre zooms are an 18-200 Nikkor and a 18-35D full frame, both of which I use only on the crop bodies.

The full frame bodies offer enough resulotion that I can easily crop to 50% or 35% and have a perfectly usable image, printable to 16x20. This is the same result that a premium zoom would provide for me (2:1 or maybe 3:1). So I can get zoom lens benefits while usin a smaller prime lens in all cases except those which will call for large prints.

The resolution of the crop bodies is limited enough that there is no discernible difference in using the good zooms or the primes. (Yes, there are differences, just not differences that create a serious uncorrectable problem.)

If I had a 15 or 20MB full frame body, I doubt that there would be a serious, uncorrectable, visible difference between the "good" zooms and the primes. I can't test this, but would strongly suspect that it is true.

So to me, the answer to the question is that "it depends." Some cases you may have to seriously test for critical impacts. In others, you don't have to worry about it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I can't speak for all zooms but I find that my old 35-70 f/2.8D works adequately on my 16 MP Df and on my F100.

I would not use it on my D610 because I can start to see its shortcomings.

And it's heavy.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Exactly. There is a threshold somewhere after which it makes a difference. The trick is to either recognizd or find that threshold.