Now if this lens had IS I would consider buying it since I use my camera to make/record videos as well. But $2399 USD? I would like the lens but way too expensive. What the hell were canon thinking?
For one, there is nothing that says IS will IMPROVE IQ. IS may help improve the keeper rate, but IS may also add defects to the lens in other areas.
Second, though the graphs are from Canon, what I have seen and the trickle of people who have played with it, this is a sharp lens, a very sharp lens and stellar performance through out from wide open to at both ends of the focal length. The CA performance I saw in some of the test images of this were fantastic. My personal belief is that IS is not the end all, be all. There are a lot of great benefits to it, but there can be many situations, as enumerated through out these threads where IS causes issues and is better to have off. Yes. Nice to have the option, but I think what we don't always see is is there a trade off on lenses WITH IS versus WITHOUT when it comes to IQ. This is extremely hard to measure, because even with say the 70-200 F/2.8L and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II... they are different generation lenses, so trying to compare the sharpness is not really relevant, but would be if Canon had produces say a 70-200 F/2.8L II (Non-IS) I don't see them doing that, because IS is extremely helpful at longer focal lengths... much more so than Wide Angle and Standard Zoom ranges.
The EF 85 F/1.2L II is over $2000 as well is the EF 14 F/2.8L II. These are just PRIME lenses, and they are over $2000. While the 24 is more reasonable at $1600, it still would cost you almost $5000 to purchase the 24, 50 and 85, and while some of these may go down to F/1.2, not one of those lenses has IS.
What I see Canon doing is creating a Standard Zoom lens that has favorable and comparable performance to their top prime lenses in a range. The primes will almost always be better, but also at least double the price to own across the range.
Canon really makes no L lens that is 70mm and below only. All the other L lenses with IS push to 100mm and beyond. You will find many of the EF-S lenses that will have IS in shorter ranges, but the IQ is poorer on these, and they are over all cheaper lenses focused on people who are more interested in just getting the shot that top image quality.
I pose you this question... Would you be happy to have the current 24-40 with IS and the same performance and defects, or would you prefer to have a much improved lens that seems to be a huge upgrade across the whole lens without IS for the same price.
In a long telephoto... Without a doubt I think IS makes a difference because of distance.
In a short lens, I will take sick IQ performance because IS is less needed up close in most situations.
That is what Canon was thinking.