What do you guys think? I know that zooms are nice on account that you don't have to swap out lenses but I like using my 2 primes right now. I'd have more lenses if I went with primes but I'd also have better low light lenses. So ya I guess I just want to have opinions from both sides. Lets get some debates going on!

Advantages:
Better image quality
Faster glass
Cheaper?
Lighter?

Disadvantages:
More glass to keep track of
More swapping --> More dust on sensor
Not as versatile - could miss shots while swapping

In my dream setup, I have a mix of primes and zooms. For shoots where you have a really good idea exactly what you'll be shooting, such as a portrait session, primes are the way to go. For travel, high quality zooms are usually a better choice. Whatever the situation, I feel keeping the lens swapping to a minimum is advantageous.

my experience is that a fast and good quality zoom is way heavier than a good prime, so, for convenience (carrying weight), I'd prefer to have the right primes with me.

That said, a mix of primes and good zooms can't hurt.

Yes, you have a point. Primes are much sharper. . . but they weigh more. . . handheld is a problem for old men. . . for a walk-around lens I use a 80-400 VR Nikkon. When you add the camera weight you are at 5 lbs. plus. For primes I use a tripod.I am looking for a 700mm, F.2.8 prime lens with VR that weighs no more then 3 lbs.

That's what I did. My next purchase will be another prime, 60mm f/2.8 Macro and possibly the 35mm f/2. I prefer the quality over convenience personally. Plus it forces me to think about the composition of the shot. Being new to dSLRs that's good for me. But when I can only carry one lens, the EF-S 17-85mm is my go to lens.

I might just stick with the 17-40L and then just have primes. Like what I have now but get a few more lenses.