In article <32e4b5d2.1242616@news.pacific.net.sg>, dominic@pacific.net.sg says...

>I was wondering what are the advantages of owning a fixed focal lens
>over a zoom lens. While zooms may cost more, a zoom would allow the
>photographer more flexibility in determining composition ie. allow for
>easier cropping. Without a zoom, the photographer would have to
>physically move himself...

Primes: FASTER (particularly at the widest high-image-quality aperture),
SHARPER (especially at the edges/corners), LIGHTER, SMALLER, OFTEN CHEAPER, USUALLY LOWER IN DISTORTION AND FLARE (makes problem-free subject matter
choice wider/easier), and GENERALLY EASIER TO FOCUS (manually).

>Am I correct to say that fixed focals are generally cheaper and faster
>than zooms? Can someone point out more advantages? And can someone
>recommend (preferably a non-prime lens) one such good lens to invest
>in, for the amateur photographer?

The one non-prime that may be the most useful, given speed/size/weight/
image-quality considerations is the 70/80-200/210(maybe 300)mm - it is
harder to "zoom with your feet" with a longer lens, and quality at
wider apertures is usually higher than it is with other types of zooms.
Hope This Helps