I don't think so.
Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.
They also won't need IS.
I'm just curious what this lens was meant for, landscapes? Portraits? Walkabout?
It just doesn't seem to fall in anywhere at that price.
For walkabouts, i stil think the 24-105 is a better deal with more range and almost half the price now. Yes it's not as sharp BUT for walkabouts, sharpness isn't a priority.
For people who want the ultimate in sharpness, pay a little more for the F2.8 version
For videographers, sharpness also isn't that great a deal rigth? After all, at 1080P, i believe even the 24-105 does very well.
If this lens was closer to $1k, i can see how it can be for people who want similar f2.8 performance at a fraction of the price. But at this price…it's a little out of reach for people wanting their first L lens and it's also not stellar to go for this instead of the f2.8.