In article <59bgld$aj3@news.nstn.ca>, chefurka@fox.nstn.ns.ca says...
>In article <01bbed8f$334cd480$4e1e0cce@in2net>, "Alex" > says:

>>(1) Which one is the best for general use (portrait and landscape)?
>>(2) Which one you'd choose if you had AIS 50/1.4 and will buy AIS 180/2.8ED
>>someday?
>> (please do not concern about using the filters of same size.)
>>(3) Is there really in need for bigger aperture?
>>(4) Which one has the most great C/P value?
>>
>>[1] AIS 105/1.8
>>[2] AIS 105/2.5
>>[3] AIS 135/2
>>[4] AIS 135/2.8

>Of that selection, my vote would goto the 105/2.5. The 1.8 is too heavy,
>and unless you shoot lots of available light, the 2.5 is fast enough.
>If you're planning to get a 180, then the 135s are out of the running,
>since they're too close in focal length (I find the 180 to feel like a
>"long 135". The 135 tends to be a bit too long for a portrait lens, IMO,
>and not quite long enough when you need a "real" telephoto.
>The 105/2.5 is also a great "bang for the buck" lens (especially used).
>I use a 50/1.8, a 105/2.5 and a 180/2.8, and I've found the combination
>to be very satisfying.

I agree with the above, but the original poster omitted my first choice
for his requirements, the AIS 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, which is the
sharpest of the 105's at infinity (the f2.5 is VERY close, and cheaper),
noticeably sharper than the other 105's at wide apertures at focus
distances under about 5' (sharper for portraits/close-up shooting), has
built-in close-focus capability, and is much easier to focus accurately
near infinity than the AF versions of the 105M.
Hope This Helps