Anyway, if you want to pull an Artie, don't come off like a jerk, and maybe actually teach something...your current approach is rather wanting.
As is yours. Wrapping an opinion up in lots of words and figures doesn't make it valid. As for being a dick, well I am on occasion, I have found in my many successful years of teaching headstrong and over opinionated intelligent people who talk utter rubbish it takes a bit of a slap around the face for them to even notice how absurd they are being.
Fair point about aperture, don't disagree with you there. However from the manufacturer's standpoint, I think THEY see it differently. I do believe that faster apertures are used more frequently with the fast primes (especially the fast portrait primes), and I believe that gives manufacturers less reason to invest in designing IS systems for those lenses. I'm not saying the reason is good, as I already pointed out before, the reasoning for why 85mm and shorter focal lengths is INVALID (that's what I've been saying the whole time...you seem to think I'm saying the opposite).
So that would be the reasoning they used in making the f2 35 IS? Even if you tried to dismiss the 24 and 28 IS lenses because they are f2.8's, which you can't for several reasons. The discussion was about the need for IS in short focal lengths, not IS in fast primes.
Your third point is exactly what I'm talking about. Today we definitely have enough resolution to resolve the blur from camera shake at 85mm. Probably at 50mm if your talking about stopping down to f/8 (personally, I've never had a problem with my 50mm f/1.4 up through around f/2.8 or so...I've used it to photograph a good number of nighttime car shows in years past. I don't generally use it at f/8, and I certainly don't try to use my camera at ISO 100 in the dark, personally I think that's a little unreasonable...but to each his own, I guess). If the 7D II comes out with a 24mp APS-C, that will only be even more true that IS on lenses with focal lengths shorter than 85mm will be increasingly necessary. That is exactly what I was saying...hence the reason I'm confused about your responses.
Duh, I just showed you a 24mm image that needed IS with 2003 tech, get pixel size out of your head, it is irrelevant to the discussion of IS in short focal lengths and has been since at least 2003.
That you haven't explored and pushed the capabilities of your bodies and lenses in this way doesn't mean nobody should, does it? I mean I have zero interest in astrophotography and don't push my gear in that direction one iota, but I respect that you do.
Regarding your first image...the kind of softening there looks like a small amount of camera shake blur and a lot of missfocus blur. I think the softness would have been significantly less if the guys head was fully in focus. I think camera holding technique can help there as well...that looks like a pretty well-lit scene to me for a fast prime, and it certainly appears as though you were using a wider aperture.
It might to you, but I know what I am talking about with my files and it is camera shake, 100%. I know my cameras focus and I know missfocus, I have several others in the series, some worse, and it is all camera shake. Sure it was very flat light with low DR and contrast, but there is no missfocus going on here.
As for the second image, it might be possible that IS would let you do what you describe, however your burning up three stops of hand-holdability just to reduce your ISO. That doesn't leave much room to reduce shutter speed any more to compensate for camera shake, and IS gets sketchy in that last stop (even the IS of the much-vaunted EF 600 gets borderline when you try to push it to a full four stops of hand-holdability unless you have wicked-stable hands.)
I, and everybody else that sees it know for a fact IS would have helped that image, it is only stubbornness that is preventing you from accepting that. It doesn't matter if I want to use the stops gained by IS on iso, aperture or shutterspeed, at least I would have them to choose what best to do with them. I don't understand why that is so hard to accept.
To me the thought of the mega money you'd spend on an astro mount is insanity, I just don't see the need for it, but when I see the images you link to that demonstrate its use I understand where you are coming from, would it be any use to me and my imaging? No, but that isn't the point, I well understand people saying they, personally, have no need or desire for IS in a lens of any length, just look at the continued sale of the 70-200 f2.8, but to try and argue there isn't a point, albeit with a pixel size proviso! for anybody to need it in a specified focal length even when shown images that demonstrate the opposite, is all the heavy handed wording I have previously used.