>>4196364Both of those would be ideal for different people; they are for shooting slightly different things.
Given how good zooms are these days; theres really only two *good* reasons *I* would feel to need primes:
1) to shoot ultrawide/fisheye <16mm, or to shoot ultra telephoto at 500mm+.
2) to shoot macro, in which case an actual 100mm macro is nice.
Buying a 50 or 35 prime is just succumbing to the the most common examples, the tropes, of strongly opinionated people...who all seem to shoot pretty much the same things, but get offended when anyone dares point that out.
I've owned dozens of different lenses on 35mm film and aps-c digital, and my preference is now:
17-50mm/2.8
70-200mm/2.8
500mm/6.3 catadioptric
If i was shooting fullframe I'd probably bias those preferences to include an ultrawide and not an ultratele. But given how wide zooms can be on FF, maybe I wouldn't feel the need for a prime. I'd only know by using them for a while.
teleconverters are essentially shit, but you will need to own one to see why, first hand.
Youd probably get better value from an apsc sensor and one of the 10-Xmm zooms, plus a bigger zoom.
