An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?
Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.
A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.
Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.
No, you're not alone with this one, because I really really don't see the point in releasing this lens without IS.
Also I don't get why people are so reluctant towards this lens having IS, why is that exactly?
If the MkII is only optically improved, but without IS, I certainly wouldn't bother with it since the lens as it is now is optically not-that-bad to cough up the price difference. If it has IS, I'm much more interested in it.
I can see the argument that the IS system is difficult to design for this lens, but I bet there have been bigger obstacles along the way for Canon.
If it's the weight addition that concerns people, the old 100mm macro was 600g and the new L macro is 625g. Ok, it's a prime, but the weight addition is close to nothing. The 70-200mm 2.8 without IS is 1310g and the IS II is 1490g, a bit bigger difference, but it doesn't concern me a bit.
It's a bit harder to compare the 24-70L weight-wise, but it's now 950g, so add IS to it, ditch the metal construction (cold to hands, possible condensation & expansion when temperature changes, weight addition). If cars and boats can be made from other materials than metal, why should a lens be any different.
The people who are saying that IS is useless in focal lengths under 100mm must have solid steel hands since at least for me it's really easy to get blurry photos with this lens when hand holding (even on the wide end). Either that or they are not concerned about IQ they are getting.
Let's say it's a four stop IS and take away 1 stop since it's possible that four is "marketing speech". A cloudy day and I'd like to have f/8, so yes, it's possible to pump up the ISO to compensate and get a shutter speed to get sharp images, but why in the world would I want ISO 800 when I could have ISO 200 and get the same result? Maybe even ISO 100 if the IS worked really well.
Above is just an example, but I really don't get why people want an optically well behaving lens, but throw away the benefit of a greater resolving capability by not having IS and getting just that small amount of shake or bumping up the ISO so that it negates the resolution.
This is not a problem in studio or when you shoot moving subjects (although I would argue that when panning, IS is a great help). But as a walk-around lens it's not great unless it's a bright day.
And at briansquibb, why do you think that a 50mm 1.2 shouldn't have IS? Especially when shooting at 1.2, I think a hybrid IS could help a lot with a shallow depth of field and if you want more dof, then IS would definitely be a welcomed addition. All in all, why the hostility against IS?