I'd take it... I can use the help with my shaky hands! Seems as I've aged my hands just don't hold my gear as still as they used too. I just don't see them charging $700 more for it. $250 more, maybe... $700? I don't think it would be that much additional money.. After all, it's still not an L lens... as far as we know...IS on a 50mm? Why?
Because it'll let you shoot static scenes down to probably 1/13 or so. Two stops of extra exposure is a huge deal in low-light situations.
I was in the middle of writing how 1/15 is too slow for shooting people (unless they're exceptional at holding still) when I noticed you said "statics scenes". That begs the question: are people so lazy as to pay an extra ~$700 for IS (over the current f/1.8 ) simply to avoid having to bring/carry a tripod when they do night photography?
IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.