Image quality seems to be no better than the Tamron and Sigma equivalents from what I have seen. If you're using it for more than macro the AF-S and VR might be nice to have but, it's a large price to pay for those features IMO.
You should be able to scoop up an old 105 AI for less than half the price of the new VR version.
I own the VR version of the 105 f/2.8 micro, but I don't have enough experiences to judge it. I was afraid of macro photography a lot, but this lens seems to be a good start to it. it's quite heavy, but balanced on my Nikon D300. I don't use a tripod, neither the VR of the lens, because almost all the time, you'll have to use very fast shutter. the VR might be useful in portrait photo, where it is performing nicely...
I own one and I'm very pleased with it! It was my first dedicated macro lens, so I can't compare the output with others.
Anyway, the lens is very solid, don't extend when it goes to 1:1 (always the same size). VR and AF-S is nice, but for macro I'm always on MF and VR Off. As you probably already know, VR looses efficiency when you focus closer and closer. At 1:1 I see no help at all!
But, sometimes I use the lens as a mid-tele and the AF-S/VR work just fine!
If you're on a budget (or you intend to use it only for macro), I would recommend a non VR version.
