Landscape lens odyssey Part IV - Primes or zooms?

The 4th post in a series looking at how I arrived at a stable of lenses for my landscape photography as a Canon 1Ds3 owner and dedicated tripod user. 

For all practical purposes a lens imposes a field of view constraint on a landscape, the camera viewfinder/digital sensor imposes an aspect ratio, the height of the tripod will determine the view point. It is the landscape photographer who positions a tripod, chooses an aspect ratio and selects a lens field of view to compose the scenery and when the lighting is right, make an image. It is also the landscape photographer who has to schlep their camera gear on top of an outdoor walking kit, food and water, into the landscape and they alone will make a judgement call based on their fitness, nature of the terrain, weather, distance walked and most tellingly the height ascended from the car boot.

Snowfall, Glen Affric, 2013 ~ 80-200mm

It is also worth reflecting on the amount of fine detail (high spatial frequency subject matter) present in landscape scenery, I can think of flora, geology, geology structures, fences, rime and that's about it, there are no eye lashes, fur, hair, feathers etc.  At the other extreme are woodland landscapes, with bark, branches, twigs, leaves, stems, grasses, flowers, ferns, moss, lichens etc. fine detail all over the image, well into the corners and woodland landscapes are usually made when there is minimal wind and diffuse light, which encourages the viewer to concentrate on the fine detail, colour and textures.

Squall light, NW Highlands, 2011 ~ 45mm TS

There's an almost undercurrent of elitism when it comes to making an image with a prime, compared to a zoom lens. Zooms are perceived to encourage a fast and loose approach to framing a composition, whereas a fixed field of view, forces the landscape photographer to use their feet to 'zoom' in the field, exploring the scene until finding the composition which works and the warm glow of satisfaction from having made an image with a fixed field of view prime lens. Well, adopting a pragmatic approach, there's nothing stopping the zoom user using the same principles and disciplines required to compose a scene to that of a fixed focal length.

Clearing rain,Snowdonia, 2009 ~ 24mm TS II

There seems a consensus that zooms are close to the performance of primes when stopped down,  though there are still weakness in many zooms, the variability and inconsistency over the range of focal lengths, with 'sweet spot(s)' which can be the middle of the range, the extremes of the range or just an end only. I'm also of the opinion that prime lenses optimised for infinity and stopped down performance are superior to an equivalent zoom focal length, due to the higher resolution of fine detail.  Would I like to use a set of primes in the hills? Yes. Am I prepared to carry a set of primes into the hills? Nope. Would I use a mix of zooms and primes in the hills? Maybe, depending on the nature of the landscape. Is it a disconcerting experience to change primes in inclement weather? Yes. Am I prepared to cart a set of primes for woodland landscapes into the woods? Yes. Would I use zooms in a wood? It depends on the woodland and season.

Squall sunset, Glamorgan, 2009 ~ 17-40mm

So, some years ago I decided my landscape lens needs would be best met by adopting a horses for courses selection.

EDIT : Oh, I forgot the environmental factors such as dust, pollen, spores, spindrift, driven rain and sensor contamination. A zoom lens means far less lens changes, which may or may not be an issue depending on season, weather or the environment you are out in.