I think I'm better with primes because I use my head and feet rather than my wrist to compose. Zoom quality is approaching, or perhaps exceeding prime quality. Something tells me good prime quality continues to be better than the best zooms. Has anyone really tested this? For example: 180mm prime vs. 70-200 or 80-200 at 180mm. 50mm primes vs. 17-55 or 28-70 zooms. 20 or 24mm primes vs. 12-24mm or 17-35mm. 85 or 105 DC vs. 70-200. I'll try to get a comparison of my 300f4 vs. my 70-200+TC put together. The prime is better I'm pretty sure. The 1.7 TC makes this a bit unfair though. If I assert were are inherently better photographers with primes I suspect many or most would agree. Perhaps not. How about quality of the image itself. Anybody got side-by-side testing to post? No way we'll get a definitive answer to satisfy all...but I'm sure wondering. Healthy debate would be most welcome. If the primes are better it's gonna' cost me because I'm migrating that way already, lusting for 20mm and 180mm and DC as I am!