Nikon AF-S 55-200mm VR vs Nikon 55-300mm VR?

Not concerned about an extra 100mm but what about Photo Quality?

THe 55-200 is apparently ever-so slightly sharper than the 55-300, but it's not a difference you would notice in your photos.

Assuming contributor "Taylor" knows what he is talking about. Then I would consider weight! I recently sold a Tamron 28-200 lens at a loss simply because it was too heavy to carry around for more than 20 minutes. I ordered the 50-200 lens (made by Pentax) which is about the same size as the 28-55mm lens that came with the camera! Believe me I'm much happier and am taking more pictures than I ever did with 28-200mm lens.

I recently bought a 55-200mm after my 55-300mm got broken in an accident. I plan to go back to Idaho Camera today to return the 55-200mm. I don't know if it was a bad sample or typical, but the sharpness of the 55-200mm was disappointing at 200mm for distant objects using a very good tripod. It was very sharp at 55mm. At shorter distances (across a room) the 55-200mm seems to be pretty sharp at 200mm, so that makes me suspect that maybe it is a typical sample that could match the wonderful resolution results seen in the reviews when tested at that kind of distance.
The 55-300mm I had seemed to match the reviews with good center sharpness at 300mm but not such great edge sharpness at that focal length.

BTW, I discovered that it's not a good idea to try to take pictures with a DSLR while iceskating backwards.