Right! Since Canon and Nikon refuse to implement in-camera IS, and tout the "vastly superior" in-lens version, you really have to cry foul when they leave it out of any lens design, save maybe the widest of angles.
For composition purposes is it vastly superior.
And at 24mm and 28mm there is no reason for IS at all. I have no problem at all buying a non-IS lens that is below 100mm. Now I suppose I'll hear from the video people about that.
No reason for IS at 24? Really? Why do you think it is in the 24-105? The 17-50?
IS is really quite helpful even at wider focal lengths. To be sure, not the same as at 600mm, but, still helpful.
I think IS is in the 24-105 because it zooms to 105mm...
I think the 17-55mm (I assume that's what you meant) has IS because on APS-C 55mm is 88mm. Though back in the day I had a 18-55 IS and I never noticed the effect at 55mm. I'd argue that the 17-55mm doesn't really need IS either.
I certainly don't think they included IS because of the short end of the focal range. It was because of the long end.
Helpful? Oh, of course IS is always helpful. What I think we should steer clear of is whining, complaining, and declaring that any lens without IS unfit for use by a photographer. I do have to remind myself of this often, honestly. Sometimes I really want better ISO performance or a higher ISO range and then I remember that people shot weddings and all kinds of events on cameras with a top ISO of 1600 or less. If they can do it I can do it. IS didn't always exist. Feel free to smite me, but that's what I think.