[BeeShooter]

I shoot mostly in Tv mode. I only just started playing with the TaV mode and using a zoom means a changing aperture with the different focal lengths. I still need more education on using the aperture setting and adjusting to where it needs to be. Wouldn't a prime eliminate the need to adjust aperture as often since your not changing the focal lengths?

I mostly do insect macros with a 100mm prime, and so depth of focus vs sharpness is the most difficult thing.
I end up shooting handheld in TaV almost all the time, and I rarely leave f-6.3 because that is a the smallest DOF I can tolerate. If I switch to shooting a bird or something then I might change the aperture, but usually not.

I was surprised when I learned many cameras don't have TaV!

[Wasp]

I am a prime kind of guy, or at least I was in my film days. These days I have a select of manual focus primes and auto focus zooms in K mount. It just worked out that way - mainly because used K mount auto focus primes are very hard impossible to find in South Africa. I have only seen a 24 and two 50s in all the years that I have been looking. Two of them sold within an hour of the ad appearing and other the seller rejected my low ball kind offer.

There are no hard and fast answers but in general a prime gives you more control if shallow depth of field is your thing. There is a world of difference in bokeh between say an 85/1.4 prime and a 70-210/4-5.6 at the short end.

My best zooms are the Samsung 16-50/2-2.8 and 50-150/2.8 in NX mount. The IQ they produce are absolutely stellar - the equivalent of any prime that I have (or better). I was lucky to get them for cheap. I even have two copies of the 16-50. I don't know of anything from Canon or Nikon that can do f/2 at 16mm. Not too small but for their images one can make the effort. These bad boys sure changed my cynical view of zooms!

One thing I find a little puzzling is the fuss over things like a 24-70/2.8. I have such a Sigma in K mount - the first generation. Big and heavy and TBH not that great. Buyer's remorse on that one, then. A 24/2.8 prime is way smaller. And a 70/2.8 prime would be a bit meh. So why bother?

[Cerebum]

I have had the odd wow moment from my 55-300mm we but the only zoom that blew me away consistently was the 20-40mm limited. My budget is small so da* are out of the question

[VictorDA]

Don't feel you need to spend money, when investing time in better technique, or a better understanding of your current gear will improve your results.

+1 to that!