Which lens is worthy, nikkor 70-300G or Tamron LD 70-300 macro?

I'm considering to add an inexpensive zoom lens for my Nikon D80, but I'm stuck on the choice of these two lens: "Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G" and "Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro". A part of me is inclined to Nikkor for its name and optical quality and another one is inclined to Macro of Tamron. I'm on Tamron only because of Macro. Please suggest how much it is valued and worthy to choose Tamron instead of Nikkor.

Added (1). Please also provide the link if any available with regards to comparison between these lenses and also sample pictures.

First, the Tamron 70-300mm is NOT a real macro lens. It may have close-focusing ability but that's all it is. A true macro lens is always a prime (fixed focal length, no zoom) lens and will give you a true 1:1 (life-sized) reproduction ratio. About the best a close-focusing zoom lens can do is a 1:4 (1/4 life-sized) reproduction ratio.

Nikon 70-300mm close-focusing distance of 4'-6'' with a 1:4 reproduction ratio. $479.95.

Tamron 70-300mm close-focusing distance of 4'-11'' with a 1:4 reproduction ratio. $399.00 after a $50.00 mail-in rebate. Rebate offer ends 4-30-2011.

Nikon 60mm f2.8G ED Macro lens with 1:1 reproduction ratio, $559.95.

Above prices from B&H - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...ovideo.com

I've only put a dozen or so pics trough that tamron. Found it OK, it's slightly better than the nikon. I ended up buying a sigma 70-300 apo (you can often find the unmotorized version of that for really good prices). I did manage a rough, non-scientific comparison between the sigma and the nikon.

At the end of the day, all of these are budget zooms. Forget about any sharpness wide open after 200mm. Stop down to f8 and if you have the light you can still produce some decent images.

The macro on both the sigma and the tamron is more a marketing term than any indication of practical useability.

If you can afford the Nikkor, you will never be satisfied with the Tamron.