You know, I would be less than genuine when I say I don't feel inclined to
attack your honesty. I see in one of your Ebay ads, for a non-IS 300f/4,
you say "Yes, there's a newer, IS version. No, it's not nearly as sharp
as
this one, check it out on photodo or photo.net or anywhere else...".
Perhaps Photodo had a bad sample of the IS?

I'm sure we could argue the finer points of honesty for hours. But you need
to go back to photodo and look at their numbers, the 300 f/4 was rated 4.3,
the IS version 3.4. So I think I'll stick by my claim that the non IS I had
for sale is sharper, I can read the charts just fine. And I can also look at
my own results, which concur with MOST others that when based solely on
sharpness, the older lens is better. And at the time of the auction, I owned
both lenses, here's where I bought the IS one a few weeks earlier.

http://tinyurl.com/4zuyf

As far as I know, 4.3 is quite a bit higher than 3.4. I'm sure you have some
other way of putting it so 3.4 is actually better, if so, let's hear it.

Tom P.