Shooting with prime lenses only?

Just curious if anyone here shoots with primes only? Granted you carry around more gear, spend more on gear, but the photo quality is better with a prime correct?

While quality primes have a slight advantage in IQ over quality zooms, the difference is more than made up in versatility. Unless your subjects are relatively static, the time it takes to change lenses will cause you to miss a LOT of shoots. You have to decide on the tradeoff.
So much will depend on WHAT you shoot.

That's all I use except in a point 'n shoot on occasion. It depends on what you photograph and your style I think.

Love primes, but would always need to have my zooms

The Canon 24-70 2.8L II and 70-200 2.8L IS II
and
The Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200

All are "prime quality" when it comes to sharpness (there's more like that I'm sure)

The only reason to shoot primes is for something faster or perhaps longer than 200mm (and cheaper than the 70-200).

You can't shoot a 24-70 2.8 at 35mm and expect it to be the same as a Sigma 35 1.4 at 1.4 (for example).

Primes are great, but you need to have the zooms. It would cost way to much IMO to have all primes.

Foggy wrote: Primes are great, but you need to have the zooms. It would cost way to much IMO to have all primes.

Mmm if you should Nikon you can get the 28mm 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for pretty cheap. The 50 1.8 is fantastic, one of the best lenses for the price. The 85 1.8 is freakin' amazing. One of the best lenses I've had the pleasure to own. The 28 1.8 is also pretty good (I owned that too). Scotty owns the 50 1.8, but I never got around to getting that lens.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Foggy wrote: Primes are great, but you need to have the zooms. It would cost way to much IMO to have all primes.

Mmm if you should Nikon you can get the 28mm 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for pretty cheap. The 50 1.8 is fantastic, one of the best lenses for the price. The 85 1.8 is freakin' amazing. One of the best lenses I've had the pleasure to own. The 28 1.8 is also pretty good (I owned that too). Scotty owns the 50 1.8, but I never got around to getting that lens.

Never really use the 50 to be honest. I do mainly landscape and fine art though, so YRMV.

Scotty wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Foggy wrote: Primes are great, but you need to have the zooms. It would cost way to much IMO to have all primes.

Mmm if you should Nikon you can get the 28mm 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for pretty cheap. The 50 1.8 is fantastic, one of the best lenses for the price. The 85 1.8 is freakin' amazing. One of the best lenses I've had the pleasure to own. The 28 1.8 is also pretty good (I owned that too). Scotty owns the 50 1.8, but I never got around to getting that lens.

Never really use the 50 to be honest. I do mainly landscape and fine art though, so YRMV.

Which was used for that image?

Vahrenkamp wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Foggy wrote: Primes are great, but you need to have the zooms. It would cost way to much IMO to have all primes.

Mmm if you should Nikon you can get the 28mm 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for pretty cheap. The 50 1.8 is fantastic, one of the best lenses for the price. The 85 1.8 is freakin' amazing. One of the best lenses I've had the pleasure to own. The 28 1.8 is also pretty good (I owned that too). Scotty owns the 50 1.8, but I never got around to getting that lens.

Never really use the 50 to be honest. I do mainly landscape and fine art though, so YRMV.

Which was used for that image?

Probably 70-200 2.8VR II knowing Scotty.

Wouldn't mind, but would miss the zooms