Now we see through a glass, darkly...
- Apr 5, 2016
I think you argue fairly convincingly that no one has conclusively shown that IS makes all lenses made for non-IBIS cameras systems more expensive than comparable non-IS lenses designed for IBIS systems.You may even go a step further and make the argument that lenses designed for a system with IBIS are likely to be more expensive. The reason for that is that the sensor moves, therefore the lens has to have a greater image circle and has to be more optimized towards even performance across the frame, unless IBIS is allowed to degrade the image quality.
Nonetheless, the inability to point out the lenses you're asking for is no counter evidence for the point you were arguing against. Pricing is influenced by so many factors, we really can't draw much from it. One big factor is how many units are expected to be sold, and with the market leader not having any IBIS cameras, any comparison between their prices and the ones for systems with IBIS are already muddied. Maybe it could be said that IS is unlikely to have a big impact on production cost based on such evidence.
I agree that making absolute statements is often not a good idea, and in this particular case I believe we simply lack the knowledge about the involved topics (markets as well as the technological side of things) to prove or falsify them.
Which is the same thing I'm saying:
The notion that all non-IS lenses with otherwise equivalent optical performance made by companies that have IBIS are always cheaper than IS lenses with otherwise equivalent optical performance made by companies that do not have IBIS in their camera bodies is a myth.