* IS does not make a lens less sharp or otherwise optically inferior ... e.,g. the EF 70-200 4 L IS is sharper than the non-IS variant
* IS is dirt cheap ... I bet it costs Canon less than 50 $/€ on a non-supertele lens like e.g. the 24-70
I find the 24-70 II at a price tag of € 2299 just ludicrous without IS.
Lets deal with this point at a time:
* IS does not make a lens less sharp or otherwise optically inferior
An IS lens is a different design from a non IS. It is not just a question of slapping on a gizmo. Precedent of the 70-200 f/2.8 meant that the non IS version was market leading when introduced. The IS version had significantly worse IQ.
* IS is dirt cheap
Manufacturing cost may be low - but R&D is very high per unit sold. It is a brand new lens design.
* I find the 24-70 II at a price tag of € 2299 just ludicrous without IS
The price tag is Canon's top dollar price, street price will be significantly lower
This lens in a pro lens - if the quality is at the level indicated in the published MTF charts then there will be a move away from prime lens to this zoom. This has already happened with the 70-200 f/2.8II (which I believe will be about the same street price as the 24-70II)
In the pro world $2000 does not make it an expensive lens. Look at a sports event at the large whites which are probably well over $5000 each.
IS is not such an issue for the majority of the intended market for this lens. If they get 95% of market penetration then that will be a sucess for them.
I suggest we wait for the reviews to come through before we judge and come to any conclusions. History is littered with prejudgements that have proved unfounded in the harsh light of day