Looking to replace my Nikon 55-200mm non-VR kit lens. Have looked at the Sigma 18-300mm 3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM Contemporary lens. Even though the lens gets pretty good reviews, and is on sale now for $400, I'm concerned about some of the comments I read re inconsistent sharpness, distortion, zoom creep, mediocre bokeh, etc. And I've taken note of Gene's and other's comments re the design compromises inherent in large range zooms.

So I'm also looking at a used Nikon AF-P DX Nikkor 70-300mm 4.5-6.3G ED VR, thinking that this lens might give me the reach with better image quality than the Sigma.

In addition to the 55-200mm I have a Nikon 18-55mm and a Nikon 35mm. I want to replace the 55-200 with a lens giving me more reach, better image quality, and VR. I will keep the other two.

I'd like to keep the wallet drain to less than approx $500. I've done some research but find conflicting and confusing info.

Wise words of wisdom will be very much appreciated.

Simply not a long enough stretch to spend the money. The first thing I would do, If I were in your predicament is put a 300 on your camera to see just how much more reach you get. Admittedly, I am not a long lens person now, but the difference from 200 to 300mm is just NOT enough extra reach to spend any amount on. If a 200 doesn't do it for you, then I submit that a 300mm lens will simply be a disappointment for the money spent. Furthermore, if the reviews and subsequent reports from users are inconsistent, there is risk involved in value received.

If you are set on one lens, pick a time when you can wring out your newly considered lens and rent it for a month. My choice was to revert to "sneaker" zoom, which worked well for me and still does. Only time that is not a solution is standing on the lip of the Grand Canyon. But, who is going to use a long lens from the edge of the Grand Canyon. That's wide angle territory.

My longest lens now, and for some time has been about 80mm and that's just fine for me.

After all that, here is what Ken Rockwell says about one of your considerations, the Nikon:

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300mm-vr-afp.htm

I do my research when shopping, but I never make a purchase without at least checking with Ken R.

I bought a sigma 18-300 3.5 6.3 for a d3400 mainly because I didn't know what was doing but instantly knew it was far and away better than the two kit lenses that came with the camera. For the 400 I paid for it, I knew I wasn't getting something that was world class because I had no way of knowing which direction I would take this new hobby. BTW, it does have a zoom lock on it so zoom creep isn't an issue. I sometimes wish I could get better sharpness but then I also think it's more the Indian and less the arrow; still trying to learn it all. In any event it's an excellent all around lens that never has to leave the body until you get to the point that you know you need the thousand dollar specific lens for where you're headed. To me, I got the perfect lens to allow me enough latitude to learn this new hobby and then I'll go from there. Before I ever spend another cent in glass, I already know I'll upgrade the body first. I dont think any of the lenses mentioned will hurt you dollar for dollar, I just happened to get a sigma and couldn't be happier, knowing I couldn't be happier with the purchase.