Nikon 105mm or 135mm as a practical, all-around lens?

I rarely shoot telephoto but would like to have some fun with a manual prime that extends beyond my usual 35mm equivalent focal lengths of 35-50. I feel like I'm missing out by not exploring a narrower angle view. Would the 135 be a bit much for general use? The extra 30 might make or break everything I might shoot try to shoot some sports for fun and do some street photography. I'm not into shooting flowers, as I find the genre rather cliche, boring and mediocre no matter how clever the photographer is, or portraits.

A bit narrow angle, 50mm would be more all around. Way too confining for me. My last film slr had a 28mm-210mm zoom, I could do anything with that.

All around? Not hardly. They are far too long to shoot group shots, full body shots.

The 135 mm is a leftover lens from the days of rangefinder cameras and it was the longest lens available and was used in the same way we now use 200 mm and 300 mm lenses but standing closer to our subjects.

My colleagues who shoot "street" photography use older rangefinder 35 mm cameras and a 35 mm lens. The can preset the exposure and use the hyper-focal distance to assure reasonably sharp images. The reason for this is you want to capture the street without alerting those being photographed to that fact.

When they do see you holding a 35 mm SLR up to your face, they will either turn away or start acting for the camera, neither will produce the amazing street photography like that of Elisabeth Everson's Retrospective of New Orleans before Katrina

Sports using a 35 mm camera? Probably a nice 300 mm f/4 will do the trick, a 135 mm is just too short

There isn't a huge amount of difference there… Only a couple degrees field of view.

Neither is an "all around" lens, but you can have fun with either. I have an old Nikkor 105 I use on an even older F body… And also as a reversed macro on my Sony. Had a 135 on my Minolta SRT-101… Very nice lens, but too long for general use. Gorgeous portrait lens though.

On 35mm format I find 135mm just a bit too long for regular use. 80-110mm is perfect especially as some rangefinder 80/90mm or 100 lenses are quite small. On a Braun Paxette the 85mm Telexon only protrudes 1.25". My favourite combination for street shooting has to be a Werra with 100mm Cardinar on. Discreet enough but if noticed, it starts a conversation not a fight.
I think Henri Cartier-Bresson referred to a 100mm as 'the lense for cutting out the foreground". Memory fades, I'm not sure of the exact focal length but we all know what he was talking about!

Remembering that in digital there's a 1.5x factor on lenses, a 105 becomes a 157.5 and a 135 becomes a 202.5 equivalent lens.
.
135 menses are generally cheaper, even 2.8 ones and 3.5 are almost given away. However, 105's remain more top dollar…
.
All things said and done, I myself prefer my 105 f/2.5 (don't have a 135) but in reality, my 85 f/1.8 is the cat's meow, and on my D-SLR it looks like a 127.5 but still at f/1.8 if wanted wide open for depth of field control.

I'd say rent a 70-200 f2.8. That way you can discover which focal length works for you and you're testing with the best zoom there's so optical quality will be about equal. If you're in the US, I've heard good things about http://www.lensrentals.com/