Zoom versus Prime lenses

I know how I stand on the whole "Zooms versus Primes" debate: I prefer primes.

A "zoom" lens has the ability to change its focal length; a "prime" lens does not.  Here is a link to my son's incredible Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L zoom lens.  Here is a link to my incredible Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens.  In terms of image quality, it is arguable that these two lenses, at 50mm, are quite similar.

	Zoom	Prime
PROS	Variable focal length You can often get a decent zoom lenses with image stabilization for a reasonable price.  For example, this new kit lens from Canon. Heavier lens is sometimes easier to hold steady. It seems that the newest technologies appear on zoom lenses first (like the kit lens linked to, above).	Great IQ for not much money Small and light (in most cases) Usually, primes are faster (have a larger maximum aperture) than zooms Many artistic photographers like the constraint of a single focal length (and I am one of them).  It forces you to look at the scene carefully and find the interesting perspectives. Only one moving part (focus) Some primes are incredibly small (e.g., this Canon 40mm pancake lens).
CONS	To get comparable image quality to a prime, you have to spend a lot of money Large and heavy Usually, zooms are slower (have a smaller maximum aperture) than primes Lots of moving parts (focus, zoom and (often) image stabilization)	Cannot change the focal length Image stabilization is not common.  When you can get it, it is quite expensive (at this time).

So, I prefer primes for the reasons I state here.

The bottom line for me is stated as Image Quality/Price--you can't beat that ratio in primes.

IMHO.