I still can't understand your reluctance towards image stabilization systems.
Again you make the argument about motion blur and yes, you're correct, IS doesn't help with that. Guess what though, some of us don't have to worry about that because we don't shoot moving subjects and for us IS is nothing but good.
I went to the Helsinki Boat Show a few days ago and I have one frame from that whole day of a subject that can move. That subject is a photo of my dad who was with me, asked him to stay still for a while and took the photo. 7D, 24-105L (borrowed my moms lens for the day instead of my own 24-70L because it doesn't have IS), @24mm, ISO320, f/4 which gave me 1/13s shutter speed. The photo is sharp at 1:1 which would have been a struggle with my 24-70 even with 1 stop faster at f/2.8.
The slowest shot of the day was at @55mm, ISO640, f/4 which resulted in 1/5s shutter speed and yes, the photo is perfectly sharp.
One could probably argue that I could push the ISO up from 640, but I don't like the results of the 7D even at that ISO let alone higher. Increased high ISO is available like you said, but at a cost. What I mean is that I'd rather invest in lenses than in a new camera body every time one comes out. And on top of that the results might be good and getting better at high ISOs, but I'd still try to take the photo at lowest possible ISO because I don't like noise at all.
I guess it's down to what you shoot, but arguing that IS in shorter focal lengths is useless because you shoot only moving subjects really doesn't apply to all photographers. Including me.
I have no aversion to IS lens. Most of my lens have IS
I am saying that for low shutter speeds hand movement will not be counteracted by the IS. Therefore you will get motion blur from handmovement - irrespective of whether the subject is moving or not.
If you are trying to get the lowest possible ISO then support the camera on a tripod, monopod, beanbag or whatever and then you can always shoot at iso100. If the camera is supported then you will have to turn off the IS to get the sharpest picture
IS is not the golden bullet for sharp pictures especially when used with wa lens pushing the IS to the limit.
I did understand your "handshake" argument wrong in the earlier message, so you meant the movement caused by the photographer, right?
In that case, sure, there is a limit where even IS doesn't cut it anymore, but isn't hand movement (and other vibrations etc.) of a photographer just the thing IS is meant to counteract?
So what would have been the alternative in my example case if I wanted to keep f/4 for the DOF, but use the 24-70L instead. So I was at 1/5s @ ISO640, 1/10s @ ISO1250, 1/20s @ ISO2500 and 1/40 @ ISO5000 so even at ISO5000 which is nothing but useless when it comes to IQ I still wouldn't be even at 1/focal length (which was 55mm). I can't see how IS wasn't useful during this trip.
If I'm shooting for a purpose, at the studio or in the nature with a print in mind, I'll surely use a tripod, but when I just want to cover an event like this, there just isn't space, time or patience to be screwing around with a tripod. Monopod maybe, but I've tried a few and didn't like them too much.
IS is never a "golden bullet" like you said, but I can't argue with the results from this trip (or any other trip for that matter). For the time I used the 24-105L I shot pretty much with all focal lengths, never went over ISO640 and almost all shots were under the 1/focal length rule and still almost all of them were sharp at 1:1. A few I had to bin but I knew that even when I was shooting so I took a few extra photos of the most difficult subjects. That means camera shake because I was shooting from a weird position etc.
For full frame cameras the wide end of the 24-70L (II) is in fact wide, but not superwide. The tele end at 70mm isn't "that long", but a no-brainer for me to want IS on such a focal length. When coupled with a crop camera it becomes effectively much longer and add to that a high-resolution sensor which needs more than 1x1.6/focal length to get sharp images so yes, I do think IS would be useful feature. Same goes without a doubt if they bring out a full frame camera to compete with the 36Mp of the D800. 1/fl rule probably goes out the window at that point even for FF shooters.