Where the vehemence in your post comes from I don't know, but you must care enough about this to revive a month-old thread which itself is a continuation of another thread. In any case, I use zooms and primes. Mostly zooms, these days, except when the light is low or I want to travel really light. But when I have gone for a while using only primes, my mind
does tend to see images that fit this frame, and I can capture them in less than half the time it might take for me to find the right framing with a zoom. You can think this is rubbish if you want to, but unless you've shot for a long time with just one or two primes (weeks or more, I'd say), you don't know the value of what you are dismissing.
Of course it's also true that in that same period of time I might have shot an equal number of other images with a zoom that I framed as I was shooting them. But it's simply a choice, not "snobbish" or "FOOLISH" to choose to frame in my mind and then shoot with the focal length of the lens I've trained my eye to see through.
What is snobbish and foolish is to assume that the choices you make are right for everybody -- or even anybody -- else, whether in photography or in any other area of life.
I don't know if primes are "overrated", but I will say that there is an insecure, snobbish, and FOOLISH, arrogance that often accompanies the photographer that is a die-hard user of them.
Here are two of the many negatives of primes, as I see it anyway.
[snip]
2) I have heard some photographers say that you can see shots easier if you consistently use one size prime and you get used to it's field of view. This is rubbish also, as what you are doing subconsciously is mentally forcing the shot to fit into a predetermined cubbyhole, thereby limiting your creativity before you even started visualizing the shot.
C
