#Landscapes #People #Food #Polaroids
Same of the 180/2,8, just a stop slower, but a lot smaller (it fits into a large pocket).
In short, compared to the 80-200/2,8 or the 70/200 AF, it is a lot smaller, lighter, a bit (or not so bit, again depending of your zoom sample, and remember the sample variation is stronger in zooms) sharper (but from f/5,6 and below), just a little darker.
A great travel companion, and you may find one of this for the price of the 80-200 hood alone.
Rating: 
No doubt one of the sharpest lenses I ever owned. Period.
Just a trace of softness / veiling haze at full aperture, than from f/2 to f/11 it really shines. From f/11 the diffraction start to wreck his performance.
On infrared the only problem is to achieve correct focus at wide apertures, but if you use Live View or guess or stop down a bit you will regarded with a perfect rendition.
Full image:
100% crops:
In short a real Nikon legend. And did I mention that is 5 times cheaper than the Canon equivalent? (but keep in mind: the Canon is AF, and sharper at full aperture)
Rating: visible light & infrared
Marvellous and dirty, dirty cheap (obviously used).
In visible light is an excellent performer, but it shines in infrared.
The images taken in IR with this lens are just superb, and literally “pops out” from the display.
In a single sentence: get it! (especially if you shot a lot in IR)
Rating: visible light & infrared
Better built than most of today pro lenses this little gem was one of the E Series glasses.
This series has been produced by Nikon in the ’70s to compete in the market with a bunch of low priced lenses (“E” stands for “Economical”).
Nevertheless a few of this glasses have become jewels. This 100 Ai is one of them.
It is as sharp, or often sharper, than the 70-180 Micro Nikkor, a great lens per se. But the Micro Nikkor costs 1200 USD or more, while the 100 Ai 100 USD in mint condition.
If you find one get it, except if you shoot portraits; in this case the 85/1,8 will better fit your needs because the largest maximum aperture.
Rating:
Amazing for macro shots, but damn ugly and soft for distant subjects like landscapes.
Good for portraits, but it is too slow for my tastes.
Others reports a much better behaviour for distance shots, so maybe is the eternal lottery of sample variation.
Tested only on digital.
Rating: close up
Rating: 
distant