I've owned them all, so here's my summary:
* First off, I am pretty sure the spot metering only is only on the AFD-3 body. IIRC, the AFD-2 body allowed you to select spot or average, but not the blend.
* Re the point above, the blended metering on the AFD-3 body is VERY accurate, so having to use spot for an MF lens is one of my biggest gripes about using MF glass on my camera. That said, there are a few lenses that I use only occasionally and where the extra hassle is worth it, and the 200/2.8 APO is one of them.
* 210 f4 AF ULD IF: Outstadingly sharp wide open and a laser as you stop down. Only downside is it's an F4 lens AND Mamiya has not made an AF tele-converter.
* 105-210 f4.5 AF ULD Zoom: I actually sold my 210 ULD prime when I got this lens since at 210 after f5.6, there was no difference between the two and the zoom offered a lot more flexibility.
* 200 f2.8 APO MF: As has been said, excellent performer, very sharp even at f2.8, getting even better down a few. I own the 75-150 AF-D zoom, so really only used the 105-210 fully extended and only occasionally at that. So I looked at the 200 APO as a faster option -- moreover, there is a 2x converter for the 200 APO and it works pretty well, at least stopped down a few, so you can get a usable 400 if you ever need it with relatively little added room to your bag. BUT, the closest focus distance of the 200 APO is a rather long 2 meters where the other lenses are 1.5. This is a BIG difference in use as I cannot tell you how many times I had to back off just a tad further than I wanted to for a head-shot -- IOW the 200 APO is a head-and-shoulders lens where the others are headshot lenses, unless you add the number 1 tube to the APO. Note also that the DoF is so razor-thin at f2.8 and head-shot distances, it is difficult to nail focus reliably; even a few mm of subject or camera position will throw the PoF visibly off target. For some, this is so prominent it may well render f2.8 unusable, and I suspect this and cost are the primary reason the 210 AF ULD is an f4 offering.
* All three of these lenses are similar size fit vertically in a typical camera pack lens slot (I use a ThinkTank Antidote and they all fit). Also, all 3 of these lenses are essentially the same price, so not really a consideration.
* If I did not have the 75-150 zoom, I would keep the 105-210 AF zoom and forget about the 200 manual.
* If I really didn't like zooms, and planned on using the 210 length with any regularity, OR did not have the 150/2.8 AF-D prime, I would get the 210 AF ULD prime.
* If I felt I had to have the shallowest DoF possible regardless of the relative inconveniences in use or felt I wanted 400 on occasion, I would get the 200 APO, the number 1 tube (the AF one works) and the hard-to-find matching 2xN converter.
* So for me, the real issue was only needing the 200 focal and only needing it occasionally so dealing with MF and spot metering is okay. I use the 150/2.8 as my head-shot lens, so the 200 really only comes out for landscape when I need the extra reach over my 75-150 zoom. Then the 2x is a plus and gives me an extra reach should I ever need it.
Hope this helps,