In article <4t0cdv$sg6@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>, gates@cs.ubc.ca says...
>I think I'm slowly moving from zooms to primes
>and am considering an all prime setup. I take
>mostly landscape, portrait, and travel shots.
>I know this is a religious matter, but I'd
>like hear from people who use an all or mostly
>prime setup. In particular:
> 1. What lenses do you favor and why?
> 2. Is there a focal length gap in your setup
> that you find especially inconvenient?
>I think I'm aware of all the issues in the zoom vs. prime
>debate, so I'm more interested in hearing personal experiences
>with primes than rehashing this debate.

Uh, it IS a religious matter....! ;-)
For my commercial work with people, it's the 20, 35, 85, 80-200 (f2.8).
For my commercial work with buildings, it's the 16, 15, 20, 28PC, 35PC.
For my work with bugs, it's the 90, 200 + converters, tubes, and achromats.
For my travel photography, it's the 20, 35-105 (and a pair of light bodies).
For my own fun work, it's the 20, 20, 20, and MAYBE a couple of others. ;-)
(The above are supplimented occasionally with other lenses from my
too-large collection [confession of a lens-nut ;-], but THE lens that
could cover 80% of my needs is a good, fast 35mm.)
I favor primes for most work, but I find tele zooms can be first-rate,
and are more useful than shorter zooms and less awkward than multiple
tele primes (you can often "zoom" with your feet with short primes
[which are optically superior to short zooms], but not with long primes,
and switching tele primes is more awkward than dealing with the weight
and size of a good, fast tele zoom).
Hope This Helps