Brad I agreed with you that I would buy the 20-34/4 over the 24/2 but not because they are equal and that modern zooms are equal to primes. Life is a compromise and so too are lenses. The problem photographers get into (I think) is getting too anal about the quality of the lenses. You can have the greatest lens in the world but if you don't use it, it is not much good. (Bear with me here folks) An average performing lens in the hands of a capable photographer with good technique will result in better pictures than a great lens with poor technique. In addition, if you are taking pictures for yourself, or even for publication at no bigger than say 11 by 14, I don't think it really matters. Good technique is the more important factor than the quality of the lens. Okay, the 24/2 will give a better image (all else being equal) than the 20-35f4. But I doubt anyone could really see the difference anyway so who cares. Now the zoom is much more useful than the straight 24, so in my book it wins out. I will use it more than the straight 24 and I wouldn't care about the slight increase in quality I would get from the 24mm. But to say the zoom is equal to the 24 is going too far. It might be as sharp but distortion would likely be more, contrast probably would not be as good etc etc. Does it matter, in 95 per cent of the time no, in 5 per cent --maybe.
Now the other issue is photographers always wanting the best possible lens. Why? Because we feel that, all else being equal, we do not want inferior images because we cheaped out on the glass. It's a good argument providing the photographer's technique is flawless. If technique is not perfect we might as well use cheap, third rate glass. The final argument of course is the whole low light argument where the 24 gives you that extra stop. I say fine if you want to shoot wide open and accept softer images great. The main reason I like fast lenses is not to shoot them wide open, but the nice bright view through the camera's finder... My rambling is getting out of hand... Vic
