With the 200mm micro lens being released back in 1993 it’s not surprising it lacks some of the features of the more recent 105mm lens i.e. silent wave motor (SWM) & vibration reduction (VR).   I purchased the 105mm version in 2008 to use with my first DSLR (APS-C, 2/3’s sensor) and straight away I noticed the image quality surpassed that from my zoom lens.   I’m sure the pleasure / success I had with the lens increased my  interest in world of insects,  particularly butterflies and dragonflies.  One of the first images was of a beetle no more than an inch long.  With the naked eye the beetle appeared to have a bronze mark to the top left of it’s thorax which I thought would help with it’s identification.  After thumbing through a few reference guides I couldn’t find a match.  So I enlarged the image only to find the distinguishing mark was in fact a parasite,  see below;  hover the mouse over the image to zoom in.  
The only issue I have found with the 105mm lens is the lack of reach when photographing smaller flighty insects in their natural surroundings.  This became even more apparent when I upgraded to a full frame DSLR.  I didn’t view either extension tubes or a teleconverter as the answer so opted to buy the 200mm micro lens.  Of the two technical advances, SWM & VR,  the 200mm lacks from the 105mm lens, it is the absence of the former I have most noticed.  Although with practice / getting use to the EF system I rarely have to switch to manual focusing and the 200mm micro is my lens of choice photographing bugs in the wild. Below are a series of images (unsharpened with only the light adjusted) taken with the two lenses,   from which I’m unable to detect any real difference between in image quality produced by either lens.
Conclusion  for macro photography the difference in terms of features/technical specifications, i.e. SWM and VR,  wouldn’t for me be a deciding factor.  For the best results a camera support such as a monopod or tripod should be used thus making VR less important and for real close-up work manually focusing can sometimes be easier with either focusing system; Image quality - in my opinion there’s no discernible difference; price - although now discontinued the 200mm lens still holds its price, approx. twice that of the 105mm in the UK; what the lens is to be used for is the key factor - for insects in their natural environment I would go for the 200mm even with an APS-C sensor camera;  for studio or still life I’d plumb for the 105mm which I also find quite versatile and a nice portrait lens.
105mm / AF-S micro G IF-ED
200mm / AF micro IF-ED
Max Aperture
f2.8
f4
Min Aperture
f32
f32
Reproduction Ratio
1:1
1:1
Min Focus Distance
1ft / 31cm
1.6ft / 49.6cm
Auto Focusing
Intenal AF-S silent wave motor
Internal EF
Image Stabilisation
Length & Weight
Released in
Vibration Reduction
16.6cm / 720g
2006
  
19.3cm / 1185g
1993
105mm vs 200mm Micro lens comparison
The only issue I have  with the 105mm lens is the lack of reach when photographing smaller flighty insects in their natural surroundings.  This became even more apparent when I upgraded to a full frame DSLR.  I didn’t view either extension tubes or a teleconverter as the answer so opted to buy the 200mm micro lens.  Of the two technical advances, SWM & VR,  the 200mm lacks from the 105mm lens, it is the absence of the former I have most noticed.  Although with practice / getting use to the EF system I rarely have to switch to manual focusing and the 200mm micro is my lens of choice photographing bugs in the wild.  Below are a series of images (unsharpened with only the light adjusted) taken with the two lenses,   from which I’m unable to detect any real difference between in image quality produced by either lens.
Conclusion  for macro photography the difference in terms of features/technical specifications, i.e. SWM and VR,  wouldn’t for me be a deciding factor.  For the best results a camera support such as a monopod or tripod should be used thus making VR less important and for real close-up work manually focusing can sometimes be easier with either focusing system; Image quality - in my opinion there’s no discernible difference; price - although now discontinued the 200mm lens still holds its price, approx. twice that of the 105mm in the UK; what the lens is to be used for is the key factor - for insects in their natural environment I would go for the 200mm even with an APS-C sensor camera;  for studio or still life I’d plumb for the 105mm which I also find quite versatile and a nice portrait lens.
Micro lens comparison 105mm vs 200mm  With the 200mm micro lens being released back in 1993 it’s not surprising it lacks some of the features of the more recent 105mm lens i.e. silent wave motor (SWM) & vibration reduction (VR).   I purchased the 105mm version in 2008 to use with my first DSLR (APS-C, 2/3’s sensor) and straight away I noticed the image quality surpassed that from my zoom lens.   I’m sure the pleasure / success I had with the lens increased my  interest in world of insects,  particularly butterflies and dragonflies.  One of the first images was of a beetle no more than an inch long.  With the naked eye the beetle appeared to have a bronze mark to the top left of it’s thorax which I thought would help with it’s identification.  After thumbing through a few reference guides I couldn’t find a match.  So I enlarged the image only to find the distinguishing mark was in fact a parasite,  see below;  hover the mouse over the image to zoom in.