This is obvious, but have you decided on the focal length? You get different
perspective at same magnification with different focal lengths, because of the different working distance. I think this has the biggest impact on the image.
The second thing to consider is the
working distance, and that depends somewhat on your subjects. The 200/4D offers about minimum working distance for butterflies or dragonflies, for example, because the critters are a bit skittish. (Actually, I prefer a 300/2.8 VR with a TC for these.)
Nikon's lineup currently has the 60/2.8G, 105/2.8G and the 200/4D Micro-Nikkors. I don't own any of those because I like to use manual focusing, macro rails, stepping rails and/or bellows. Instead I have the AI 55/3.5, AI-S 105/2.8 and AI-S 200/4, along with a handful of enlarger lenses, extension rings and reversal tubes and stuff.
I love the StackShot for stacking macros:
https://www.cognisys-inc.com/products/stackshot/stackshot.php
About image quality - well there is no meaningful difference. Every Micro-Nikkor ever manufactured has excellent image quality and won't disappoint. The biggest hurdles are camera support, lighting, and focusing accuracy, not lens sharpness.