In article <19970117184901.NAA22142@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mperetz303@aol.com says...

>Are prime lenses still significantly better than zooms in comparable
>categories? This is big issue because if it is "only" a matter of speed
>I may re-think my possible purchase of say, a Nikon 105 2.8D-micro AF as
>an addition to my Nikon 28-85 3.5/4.5 If I will not get better results
>than the speed is not worth the overlap and I may as well build at the
>"ends" of my system which now includes the above zoom and a Sigma APO
>75-300. Thanks for all help! Matthew - e-mail me at suzmatt@ix.netcom.com

With good zooms used at f11 or so, it would be hard to tell the images
from those of good primes (except, perhaps, under flare-inducing
conditions, or if there are prominent subject straight lines near a
frame edge), though the prime is generally easier to use. At f5.6 or so,
most good primes will surpass most good zooms in image quality, though
the few very best zooms can be close to the primes. At f2.8 or so, there
is no contest - the few zooms that have this aperture will be inferior to
most decent primes around f2.8 (though the Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 is close,
under some conditions...). With mediocre zooms, there is no contest -
most primes will be better.

The answer to your question is a little above the middle of the above paragraph...;-)
Hope This Helps