And everybody complained about the price if 24-70LmkII and lack of IS, but I don't see price dropping that much - because it IS the best 24-70 in every mount. Bought one, didn't regret it.
I wanted one. Because it doesn't have IS, I didn't buy one or consider buying one, and I never will. I have too many 1 second to 1/4 second shots on my 24-105 to give up the IQ that goes with being forced to shoot at three stops higher ISO because of this glaring error.
I have never once thought my 24-70 2.8Mk2 needs IS. Does all photography before the advent of IS suck? Technology may help your work but it isn't necessary. You are the greatest piece of gear.
Which would you prefer, an ISO 3200 shot or an ISO 25,600 shot?
I'd prefer carrying my tripod. For static subjects and slower shutter speeds I wouldn't reach for IS. I do find IS useful with longer focal lengths BUT when image quality is a priority then I carry tripod - it allows you to turn that 3200 down to 100. It is "a must" photographic tool and is a must when image quality is a must.
Each to his own.
Most of what I shoot can't be shot with tripod or is in places where tripods are not allowed. I own many tripods but they are largely impractical tools for almost everything I shoot or because I can't carry them where I'm going.
Well I haven't thought of that, never had any problems with tripod but I guess it must be the subjects.