I'm real tempted by the Nikkor 200 f/4 micro but I have a 70-200 2.8 VR
and I'm wondering if this lens will also be useful for normal range
shooting or it's a wash quality-wise. The 70-200 is really nice, will
the macro be even better sharpness, color & bokeh given it's a prime or
worse at long range and it's really only useful for macro work?

I understand the 200 gets a certain amount of polygonal bladed aperture
highlights in the bokeh under certain conditions. Are there other Nikon
macros that don't have this problem or with softer out-of-focus rendering?

Also, this is going on a D70 so that's like a 300mm macro and perhaps
impractical hand held. I would appreciate the extra reach for
butterflies & such but not if I need a tripod. I'm not clear if
hand-holdability is really different at 1:1 whether at 6mm or 200mm?

I expect to upgrade to a D200 in time so if there's an old lens which
performs well like the MF 200 micro maybe that's an option. If this lens
is really only for macro work, AF isn't much of an issue. If
hand-holding is only possible with a 60mm or 105 and the image quality
is there, I'd rather not spend the premium on a 200 because I'm not a
big tripod fan. I've got a nice 2-element +2 diopter closeup lens for
the 70-200 VR which is useful for stabilized hand held butterfly shots
but of course the image quality does suffer, so maybe a shorter 'true'
macro would fill the gaps in my setup better... but then that needs an
extension ring to get to 1:1. Could I put an extension ring on the
70-200 & maybe even have VR with a D200? I know that won't work on a D70.

OK enough questions <grin>. I want the very best quality since I can
already get to 1:1 with the diopter setup.