TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I agree. I started with (good quality) zooms as well, but find that I’m using primes more and more. Here’s an example. I regularly shoot indoor sports for the HS where my son teaches. The first few years, my go to lens was the 70-200 f2.8L, but holding that up (plus 3 lbs of FF camera and grip) can really wear you down after a 2-3 hour match. Last year, I started taking my 135 f2L instead, and the difference in weight was just tremendous. I stuck a 1.4x MKII extender in my pocket for those situations where I needed 200mm @f2.8. Not quite as versatile as the 70-200, but sharper, half the weight and at 135, a stop faster which is well worthwhile in low light gyms - you just learn to “zoom with your feet”. Another prime that’s getting a workout is my 85 f1.8. I’ve shot weddings, portraits and small groups indoors in low light with it so often, that I’m seriously considering upgrading to the 85 f1.4L or f1.2L. That extra stop or two is worth it’s weight in gold in low light and being able to isolate your subject. As an instructor at a recent seminar put on by 6 photojournalists of our local paper said recently “learn to shoot wide open”.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The problem with "zooming with your feet" is that you are changing perspective; sometimes that is OK, but sometimes it actually matters. The other problem is that sometimes you simply cannot do it; I know a guy who reported he couldn't take a certain picture because he limits himself to Nikon lenses, and {at the time at least} Nikon didn't produce a lens wide enough for him to get the entire scene in. Zoom telephoto lenses were my primary reason for going from rangefinder to SLR camera; on several occasions I was thwarted by a fence or gully from taking a photo I dearly wanted. (*). I believe in the future, narrow DoF will be the only reason for 'fast' lenses, because camera bodies are starting to handle higher ISO values so incredibly well.(**)

(*) on several other occasions I was thwarted from taking a picture by my inability to photograph something by my inability to step back {I was using slide film so I really needed a collection of wide angle lengths}

(**) I limited my last camera, a K-30, to ISO 800. Most of the time I limit my KP to ISO 12800, but I've been known to go as high as 25600 if that is the only way to get the shot I want.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I certainly take your points about changing perspective, and at one point in my photographic life, when cropping was an issue (grain with film, noise with digital), I felt that “filling the frame” was paramount. Now, as lots of my shooting seems to be in low light and the type of work I do causes me to want to isolate the subject, a wide aperture tends to be the most important characteristic (and the weight and sharpness doesn’t hurt either). I’m not afraid of high ISOs (which is primarily what drove me to FF), but I prefer not to go beyond 12,800, and in the ultra low light of some of the venues I mentioned, the difference in 1 stop is critical. It may mean the difference between 1/250 and 1/500 or the difference between ISO 12,800 and 25,600. I’m by no means selling or not using my zooms, and a 70-200 f2.8 is one of the most versatile lenses in my bag, but more and more, I’m mounting a prime. Horses for courses...