Try the sigma 150 macro. It is a very good lens for the price... Or even better, look for a used Ai, or Ai-s 200mm f/4 IF Micro. They can be bought used for a rather low price, mine for around 1/3 of the current asking price of the 105VR. And, the glass is in great shape!

The Micro Nikkor 105VR is a great lens thus you won't regret your decision.

thanks everyone. I think i am pretty much decided. I guess i will keep saving up for 105VR. skip 60.

105 should be better mainly because it has longer working distance.

thanks

Both lens' are an excellent choice, both are super sharp and AF-S. If you can afford the 105mm VR, then get that. It's further working distance and the VR really help a ton.

@adamz - most likely 200mm with 1.7 TC ... great shots
As for macro, if you have static subject, clocks, coins or similar Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nano Crystal coat lens is great value for DX (ideal for portraits too) and very good for FX, wildlife and insects are something else.

@nikonian - as for taking animals pictures in the zoo, 105mm will be insufficient for most of the snaps (maybe apart from insects and some overall situations when You want to show the whole animals and the surroundings). For animal portraits You need at least 300mm, and still You will have to crop a little bit (of course if You are using DX, on FX you need around 500mm) - here's the link to my zoo images (most of them taken at 340mm)

Majority of the macro lenses in the range of 90mm to 105mm are very good, I have not heard any bad one yet (they're all sharp), the same can be said about 50mm lens.
You can't really go wrong with any of them.
Unless you're a hard-core Macro and want the best, I believe the Lester A Dine is the one.

It is discontinued and was used mainly by the dentists for their dental works.
It is a true Macro 1:1 lens without teleconverter, built solid on a heavy side.

This lens was actually manufactured by Kino Precision Optics (no longer existed).
Kiron or Vivitar 105mm f/2.8 are other versions of the Dine,they are all identicle.
Here is a discussion about this lens:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00HsSA

The only drawback of this lens is MF, but for macro works you don't need AF anyway.

I own top caliber Nikon zooms w/ AF, yes they are convenience but I like MF.
MF will make you aware of where you are and what you're doing, you have to move around to compose the picture.
You will gradually master the MF and become a better photographer (I'm learning the technique as well).

For macro, I have the Sigma 105mm f/2.8. I find it really good and really sharp. When shopping I tried the Nikon 105mmm AFS VR and it was awesome. Focus speed was SO fast and VR helps a lot. VR will help you a lot in all situations. With a 105mm you'll need fast shutter speed which may not always be easy to get. The focus speed on the 105mm is okay, but it's one of my slower lens (it's a screw type). The good thing it has is a limit switch where you can limit to the focus range you are currently working with (close or far). I find this switch better than other because other will just stop the lens from going too near. On the sigma you can tell it to stay in the near focus range.

The only reason I didn't buy the Nikon 105mm AFS VR was because of the price. It's 300$ more for VR and lighting fast focus speed.

I'd definitely suggest the 105mm focal length for both portrait and insect work. You don't mention what body you have, if you're okay with AIS — MF or MF and Manual exposure depending on body — then I would certainly suggest the 105mm f/4 AIS Macro which you can get for under $200, or the faster, but overall not quite as well regarded 105mm f/2.8 AIS. If you go with either of those, you need to pick up a PN-11 Extension tube or TC-200 teleconverter to get to 1:1

Otherwise I'd suggest the 105mm AF (no S), which isn't as good as the AF-S, but you can get cheaper, and I'd easily take it over the 60mm for bugs/portrait.

I am interested in the Lester A Dine lens, may have to pick one up to test.

Well nau, you've just answered the question.
The 60mm doesn't really leave much spaces between lens and subject, especially when you incorporate flashes in the shooting.
When you get that close, the insect will fly or move away.
The sharpness between the two would be about the same, giving a little edges to the 60mm.

There is one lens that has been neglected and because the name is unfamilar to most, it's Lester A Dine 105mm f/2.8 AIS. The image quality is unsurpassed by any lenses, sharp (and cheap, $250-$400 on eBay).
It is mainly used by the hardcore Macro people (I own one, but I'm not one of them).
The Lester A Dine gives smooth Bokeh for portrait (it has 9 blades and it's MF).

im not really in to macro (had a go at it but I guess its not for me)...
problem is getting enf light to your subject (i have 55 micro) and its soooooooooooooo hard to get enf light coz u have to be so damn close to the subject

Consider the tamron 90.. should do what you want. or the new tamron 60 F2.0

PS: I have a sigma 150mm F2.8 Macro

105 would be better for portraits than 60.

oh, i also forget to mention that I also want to do portraits with these macro lenses. I know someone maybe suggesting 85 1.8 or 50 1.8. But I do want to save money and one lens that can do 2 jobs for me is fine.

so for portraits , is 105 still good option?

can you use 105VR for taking animal pics in the zoo?

as for macro and especially for photographing wildlife (insect is a part of it :)) I'll go for the longer one, as it gives You space, You can also consider the 200mm micro nikkor

hi guys , i am contemplating of getting one of these 2 or maybe get 2 of them in the future.

first of all, i love and want to take pictures of insect. do you think i can do it with 60 micro afs?

I want 105VR but its so expensive now (esp after price increase) and i am thinking maybe i can settle with 60 since its more affordable.

should I get 60 or 105??

is there anyone who got both of them? if yes, whats the reason? is 60 afs sharper than 105? which one focus faster?

thanks everyone.