>>3212182>But to have the same flexibility I would need 16, 35, 50, 70, 85, 135, 200 ... that's sevenI think the Zooms vs. Primes debate is stupid and you should just carry what you want, but I just want to point out that someone shooting with primes wouldn't carry seven lenses. They'd carry a 16mm, one of (35,50) for something normal-ish, and one of (85,135,200) for something telephoto. Most of the focal lengths in your list are close enough that you can zoom with your feet without a significant change in perspective, so you give up a smidgen of compositional flexibility for lower weight (three primes is gonna weigh a lot less than three zooms that cover that range) and better low-light ability (zooms in that range are going to be f/2.8 at best, primes are very likely going to be two stops faster at f/1.4, and sometimes you really need the extra stops).
All that being said, the normal set I carry is a 17-40 f/4L, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8. Both zooms and primes, because they're useful for different things and this debate is stupid. I've also got a 28-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L that I don't use as much but which are amazing for those times I do need them.
