In article <4ao2or$6ph@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cthorste@sdcc13.ucsd.edu says...
>Just curious, how do you like the 105f1.8? I've been looking for a >fast short telephoto, mostly for portraits and available light. But >how do you like the general handling and also the optics? I've heard >it's a really good performer, but I don't know anyone who has it and >one salesman has said the 105f2.5 is better (not that that means much >to me). The extra stop of speed might be worth it to me, though. I >use an F3 so autofocus isn't a concern, and I prefer the feel of the >manual focus lenses anyway.

The Nikkor 105mm f2.5 and 1.8 MF lenses are excellent, though I would rate the f1.8 subtly inferior to the f2.5 at wider apertures. If you
need f2, one lens is infinitely better than the other! By f4, they are hard to tell apart, but at f2.8, the slower lens is a bit sharper
(though, again, at f2, the faster lens totally wipes out the f2.5 ;-).
Neither lens is very good near minimum focus. Both lenses are a
pleasure to use (and carry, relative to an 80-200mm f2.8 zoom). If you
want the extra stop for focusing, or for dim light shooting, pay the
extra bucks for the faster lens. Otherwise, save with the slower lens.
No big difference in quality.
Hope this helps.