In article <4vgl0c$cll@zot.io.org>, sdong@zot.io.org says...

>I am considering purchasing this lens. How does it perform when not using
>the macro mode (ie., for portraits or cropped scenics)? How is it
>optically, compared to a non-micro lens?
>I am also considering 80-200 f2.8 ED AF D, and use extension tubes for
>macro. Any experience with this, anyone?

Others have said this, but I will repeat it from my own experience:
The Nikkor 105mm AF Micro is excellent throughout its range (though with
some minor optical misalignment evident in two samples near infinity),
though it is hard to focus near infinity due to a too-fast focus rate.
Both the MF 105mm Micro and the 105mm f2.5 may be better choices for
landscape work (they are VERY sharp near infinity-focus at f2.8), though
the AF version is a bit better than the MF Micro for macro at 1:2 -> 1:1).
All are about equally useful for portrait work (though the f2.5 is noticeably
less sharp near its minimum focus distance at wide apertures). I would
not use the Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 AF on tubes - performance at wider
apertures on tubes is not good, especially at the long end (though it
is excellent wide-open at most distances). It would also be more awkward
to use for your purposes than most other options.
Hope This Helps