Quote: Who's a (mostly) prime only shooter?
Not me. The DA*60-250 is the lens my collection of lenses is built around. It doesn't make any sense for me to carry lenses in that range. We've compared with our prime lenses and it's as sharp as any prime. I favour primes for macro. I doubt there's much available for macro zooms that compares with primes.
On a recent outing to Niagara Falls, I shot
60- 60-250 images.
20 FA 50 macro and DA*200 images.
10 FAJ 18-35 images
10 DA*200 and 50 macro images.
60 images A one lens hike with the 18-135
10 Tamron 300 images.
Of the keepers, 130 zooms, 40 prime images.
24% primes, 76% zooms.
On the bird side of things...over the same time period,
10 60-250. (birds in flight)
Then 70 DA*200s with the F 1.7 AF adapter.
Then 20 with the Tamron 300 and 1.7x
Then 10 more with the 60-250.
For birds, more than 70% prime.
I never even think about zoom or prime. Just "what's the best lens for the job." But for the focal lengths I shoot, shooting prime only would seriously crimp my style. It makes me wonder, what do you guys shoot, where you can get away just shooting primes?
The question I would ask would be, do you actually own any DA* quality zooms. Obviously if you don't own good quality zooms, you can't shoot with them, appropriate or not. I assume a preference for primes extends to not actually owning the zooms that might replace them in a particular circumstance.
My 28-105 and 60-250 are so good they only come off the camera for particular instances where length or macro are necessary.