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.
Tripods are like flashes, any use of them in photography is 100% cheating.
OR, or, let me just throw this out there:
Maybe some people don't shoot with them for whatever reason and calling them lazy is as inane as calling using them cheating
+1 I hate dragging around a tripod (don't even have one anymore). It's always in the way. IS is fantastic in everywhich way and should, imo, be included in ALL lenses. the 14mm with 4 stops if IS? yes please. Will also help a lot with my handheld HDR. Not to mention video.