But the amount added can vary from lens to lens:
a) 70-200 f/4 without and with IS: 705 to 760 g
b) 100 f/2.8 macro without and with IS: 600 to 625 g
In the two examples listed above, the increase is very slight (about 4 to 8%).
Don't know about the 70-200 f/4, but in the case of 100 f/2.8, I have experienced the dilimma of choosing between IS or none-IS (Thanks for mentioning this one... I almost forgot about the first H-IS update).
While it may not be that significant in terms of weight, there's a notable jump in filter size (58mm to 67mm) and size (the barrel is considerably thicker). I must admit, the H-IS helps handheld macro shots a lot, but the size expansion is a real factor when your backpack is only so big.
It makes all the difference in deciding whether it's a regular starter or bench role, and in this case I chose size/cost over H-IS/L quality...
And definitely that's one thing I hope won't happen to the assumed 17-40 update (unless Canon markets it as a completely seperate option)