I guess most sports photographers are blinkered then
Sports photographers aren't close, they're far away. Perspective changes a lot less the further away you are, relatively. Like to see how well ultra wide users get on using a prime compared to a zoom...
I'm not saying that either of them are better for one person over another, they can choose what they want, I couldn't care less. My point is, in theory unless you're carrying a bag of primes for every mm (and half mm!) of focal length, the 'perfect' picture will not be obtainable without a zoom.
Here's something that should hopefully help people make their mind up:
How should you be correctly taking a photo?
1. Find the correct perspective and angle. This involves using your feet to physically move yourself and your camera to the correct location. Nothing about this step changes from using a zoom than using a prime. It's THE SAME.
2. Frame the picture correctly - using focal length. Considerably easier to utilise the full resolution of your camera if you're using a zoom, otherwise you're having to crop via post proc. afterwards and lose resolution.
So there we go - for the composition arguers, I can't see how they have a valid argument (except for training really, and then again you could tape up the zoom ring). I bet you after a training, a prime user is even more potent with a zoom than a prime.
Compromise step 1, and you compromise the composition that you really want, the one that's 'in your head'. No ifs or buts.
Compromise step 2, and you compromise resolution. I fail to see how this is an advantage.
This is purely from a theoretical composition point of view...
Weight, DoF and possibly image quality (on cheaper zooms) will be the only other valid arguments for a prime. But really only DoF is the killer. Weight - one zoom vs many primes, zoom wins, unless you plan to carry only one or two primes. IQ - again, negligible with decent glass on both ends stopped down.