200mm lens with VR or 300mm lens without VR?

OK so i need some help right now. I found online lens that are in my budget one is the nikon 300mm without VR and the other is nikon 200mm with VR.
http://www.ebay.com/...1001217811

http://www.ebay.com/...0499808003

I'm an amateur photographer and i'm wondering which one i should choose and is the VR in the 200mm compenste for the extra zoom on the 300mm

The description of the 70-300 doesn't match up with the lens itself. They describe it as a 75-300. Sounds like a cut and paste job gone wrong.

There's actually a 70-300 Nikon 4.5-5.6 with VR (which is the best of both worlds).It may be a little more than the two you linked, but it is an excellent lens. I've used it before, and it's a great performer for its price.

Here's an example on ebay

http://www.ebay.com/...0908516827

If that's over your budget, then I'd choose depending on what you plan on shooting. If you're going for a lot of "distance" stuff like sports and wildlife, and you'll mainly be shooting in the daytime, then the longer reach of the 70-300 (that you linked to) is going to work. If you're going to shoot in lower light where VR would be useful, then grab the 55-200. But I'd seriously look into the 70-300 VR. It seems to be an ideal mix of the two lenses you've linked to here.

The VR can't compensate for the zoom!
The 300mm lens is a FX lens without the AF motor. So it won't AF on nikon dslr's that don't have AF motor in the camera body, which is a blessing! As it gives an opportunity to play with manual focus. For its price it is a good buy.
The 200mm one is a DX lens and has that AF motor built in and also the VR.
If one can do photography without VR and is not a slave to AF, 300mm seems to be a better lens to experiment and learn.