I think there's one incorrect assumption in the discussion I
snipped: that there is one perfect perspective and composition for
any given scene. Even with a prime, there are many, many good ways
of shooting it. This explains the possibility of individual styles
of photography. Just a though...
Oftentimes, timing is everything and a split-second zoom action
from 28mm to 135mm gets you a shot you will otherwise miss while
zooming with your feet or changing 28mm prime to 135mm prime.
OTOH, and this is my experience, having a zoom introduces one more
variable into the equation: this may complicate the picture-taking
process so much that the extra time taken to deal with it may make
you miss your timing. It works both ways.
My approach is to change lenses only as a last resort: instead, I
try to make the scene work with the lens I have on the camera. It
helps me focus on the composition and timing.
I'm pretty sure, though, that experience matters a lot. If you have
rock-solid technique and highly developed photographic vision (you
can visualize a scene effectively before shooting at a variety of
different focal lengths), a zoom will work better. Speaking only
for myself, I'm just not a good enough photographer to make zooms
work for me. I need a few more years with my primes: switching
between the 17, 35, and 50 may eventually teach me the skills I
need to shoot effectively with a 17-40 or thereabouts.
Again, I'm not trying to argue some inherent superiority of primes
over zooms: just that there are different techniques that adapt to
different tools; superb results can be had either way.
One thing worth considering, though, is price. For amateurs, where
missing a shot isn't critical (unlike for pros, who feel it
immediately in their pocketbook), it may make more sense to get a
small set of primes -- you get pro-level quality at a much lower
price. If a few shots slip through the cracks, who cares?
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]