Primes are smaller, cheaper, and faster, but a lot of people opt for either of the f2.8 zooms. I don't have either zoom but might be getting one. Below is me just remembering what I've read. Feel free to agree or disagree: At f2.8, which produces better images, the prime or the zoom? By how much? 12/2 - at 2.8 it seems the 12 is only marginally better and not worth buying if you already have a zoom 14/2.5 - size/price has a lot to do with this lens, but again, the 14 is only a touch better, if at all 17/1.8 - again, the prime seems only marginally better at f2.8 and up 19/2.8 - ?? ------------ 20/1.7 - I don't think the zooms can match this lens at any aperture 25/1.4 - ditto 30/1.8 - Phenomenally sharp, even corners, wide open. I don't think the zooms can match this 45/1.8 - From samples I'd say the 45 would beat the 12-40 @ 40mm and f2.8 and up by a noticeable margin Do you guys agree with the above? (Below is just me babbling again :tongue: ) Wide: based on this, if I'm right, if you don't need shallow DOF or small size, you might want to forgo buying the wider primes if you can get an f2.8 fast zoom. Normal: but from 20-45mm you might want to get a couple primes (Oly and Panny, how about a 37mm f1.4, huh? ). (Tele: it's funny that for anything 50mm and up, because of the crop factor, you'd do good buying nothing but adapted lenses, selling the plastic zoom(s), and getting a 2.8 zoom.) Finally, come to think of it, a 12-35, 25, 45, and an adapted 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 135/2.8 is pretty much all most of us would need. That's under $3000. Eat your heart out DSLRs!