I'm not sure, but I think the cheaper lens has a plastic lens mount.  You
should probably check this as it would make a difference to me.  And there
have been several threads here that claim there is little difference between
the two lenses.  It is small and compact, but if you plan on using manual
focus a lot, neither lens has much to grab onto, compared to the kit lens.

BTW, I do not own either lens.  I use an older 80~200 with the single
focus/zoom ring.  I just use it in manual mode and it works great for me.
It is however much heavier and longer than the digital lenses.

I own one and use it in my lightweight travel kit.  It's a reasonably
good compromise of weight, optical performance and price.  But unless
you know and stay with its limits, you're going to be disappointed.

The first limit is aperture.  Few lenses are at their best wide open,
and this isn't one of them.  Plan on stopping down at least one stop,
preferably a bit more.

The second limit is camera shake.  The 70-300ED is fairly small and
light for its focal length, making handholding very tempting.  But
especially at the long end, you need shutter speeds of about 1/500th
or better to avoid obvious softness from shake.  When combined with
the need to stop down, this excludes shooting an EI of less than 200
except under perfect lighting conditions.

Nor does this lens doesn't have a tripod mount.  You can use the mount
on your camera, but that puts the center of gravity in the wrong place.
A light bean bag placed on top of the lens helps, but too much weight
and lens mount stress comes into play.

I feel these two factors account for much of the "long-end softness"
reported in reviews of the 70-300ED.  But my own shots with it and
a 300mm f/4 do show a little residual softness in the zoom even at
f/11.

The Tamron 70-300mm LD uses an extremely similar optical formula,
but permits focusing down to 1:2.  There have been persistent rumors
that Nikkor 70-300mm models are designed and/or built by Tamron, but
Nikon USA explicitly denied this.