In article
>Another interesting discrepancy is that the older manual lens still is
>selling at a premium- about $850 from B&H in New York. The AF (non-D)
>version sells for quite a bit less- $599.
>Question 1- Why?
---The Nikkor MF's in general are more expensive than the AF's, but ---comparing the AF D price with the MF narrows the difference.
---If you want the AF 180, BUY IT NOW at the bargain price, while the
---non-D is still available (the "D" features are subtle in practice,
---at best - save some money!).
>Question 2- Has anyone noticed any optical/mechanical discrepancies
>between the two lens designs?
---The AF is an amazingly good lens. The MF is an excellent lens.
---The biggest differences you will see between them are near minimum
---focus, and on tubes - the AF is better there. The AF is IF, which
---may make MF more pleasant for you. The metal aperture ring on MF
---lenses feels distinctly better than the cheapo plastic rings on
---the AF lenses, and it is often easier to select fractional stops
---using the better-made aperture ring on the MF lenses.
>I'm not trying to rag on the polycarbonate design, in fact, I actually
>kind of like the cosmetics better.
---I can see it....! BTW, don't forget the excellent 80-200mm f2.8!
---I sold my AF 180 and kept the zoom, though a friend did the reverse ---(the choice depends on what you ---shoot).
>I just would hate to purchase the lens without investigating what >appear to me to be rather large material differences between these
>two designs.
---Hope this helps.