This is all very amusing, but it doesn't seem as though anyone is answering the OP's question. As I understand it, he/she is asking if the addition of optical image stabilization negatively impacts the sharpness of a lens.
I'm like the least technical person on this whole forum, so I'm certainly not qualified to answer this. But it does seem like a good question. I might expand on it a bit.
First, the idea that adding lens elements would degrade an image seems irrelevant because, as I understand it, stabilized lenses don't have any more or less elements. (That doesn't mean there aren't a different number of lens elements in a stabilized lens vs. an stabilized lens, just that the two are not related to one another.)
I think a more relevant question might be whether or not the construction of a stabilized lens sacrifices sharpness under certain conditions. From what I have read, the difference between stabilized and non-stabilized lenses is in how a group of lens elements are mounted within the lens – not the actual design of the lens elements. In a stabilized lens, a group of elements are mounted in a housing that uses gyroscopes to keep the elements stable when the housing shifts or moves. So, I guess the question really would be: since the lens elements effectively "float" within the IS housing, is there a reason why they might not be as sharp as elements that are solidly mounted within a lens tube?
One reason this seems like a logical question is that Canon recommends turning off stabilization when a lens is mounted on a tripod. If you get a sharper image without stabilization on, when the camera is firmly mounted, it does at least raise the possibility that a non-stabilized lens would be sharper than a stabilized lens.
Okay, all you tech geeks, have at it.
