[Marc Sabatella]

In this case, however, aren't we are comparing photographers rather than lens'?

Sort of, but not exactly. We're comparing ways of shooting. One way is "shooting with primes, taking time on each shot", another is "shooting with zooms, taking time on each shot", and the other is "shooting with zooms but snapping from wherever you happen to be standing when you see the shot".

On the other hand my old ver 1 kit lens is just barely larger than my
FA35

Well, sure - because the 18-55 is much slower, and hence, it can't really replace the 35 in a lot of situations. You'll note the zooms I mention using - 18-55 and 50-200 - are both small and slow too. It's the settings where I know I can get away with this that I'll be most likely to take one of these.

I recently went out in the woods to get some spring shots. I brought
along the Sigma 105 macro and the FA35. I found a lovely potential shot
of a moss covered log covered with fungus and mushrooms. Deep saturated
colors with a soft mystical lighting that was perfect. I looked through
the 105mm and the lighting was perfect. I took a shot but decided I
needed more FOV so I changed to the 35mm. But by this time, no more
than two minutes, the light had changed slightly and the magic was gone. I had
lost the image.

Rob is correct that my (not as callous as it surely sounds) reply would be "such is life". But it's not that I wouldn't (briefly) mourn the loss of the shot. It's that I weigh that against the other shots I did get that I might not have otherwise. In other words, did you take any shots with the 105 macro that you couldn't have taken with the DA*16-50 because it isn't a macro? Or that you couldn't have taken with the DA*16-50 because it isn't long enough? Or, if you had used a lens like the DA18-135 specifically to cover more focal length range, how many shots might you have missed because it wasn't "fast" enough? Or in the case of the FA35 versus the DA*16-50, how many shots might you miss with the 16-50 because the extra size/weight of the lens caused you to not have the camera in your hand at that exact moment, or because you were too self-conscious to shoot with the larger lens in that setting, or because it focused too slowly, etc?

The point being, *every* lens is a compromise, with some shots it will get and some it will miss. I don't value the shots I get/miss because of that quick ability to change framing any more than the shots I get/miss because of any other attribute of a lens. I don't know that any of these numbers are quantifiable, but my gut feel is, they are all roughly the same, and they all pale in comparison to the number of great pictures I *do* manage to take. So there's just no sense that I get the feeling that I'm missing more shots with primes than with any given zoom, or that the shots I'm missing with the primes are somehow more worth having taken than the shots I'd be missing with any given zoom.

[robgo2]

The point being, *every* lens is a compromise, with some shots it will get and some it will miss. I don't value the shots I get/miss because of that quick ability to change framing any more than the shots I get/miss because of any other attribute of a lens. I don't know that any of these numbers are quantifiable, but my gut feel is, they are all roughly the same, and they all pale in comparison to the number of great pictures I *do* manage to take. So there's just no sense that I get the feeling that I'm missing more shots with primes than with any given zoom, or that the shots I'm missing with the primes are somehow more worth having taken than the shots I'd be missing with any given zoom.

This is exactly what I meant when I said earlier that choosing lenses involves tradeoffs. It is up to the individual to decide which tradeoffs to make under a given set of circumstances. The resultant choice may not always be the same.

Rob

[wildman]

But it's not that I wouldn't (briefly) mourn the loss of the shot. It's that I weigh that against the other shots I did get that I might not have otherwise.

And that's fine for you so go with it.
I am not so abstract and analytical about a missed shot and that's also fine for me.

I think we are talking more about our personal idiosyncratic psychological make up than about photo gear. If so this is an issue no one can "win".