Not having image stabilization on an all-around lens like the 24-70 is an absolute mystery. My guess is that the particular lens design used did not allow for an IS element, and the reason the chose the current lens design is to excel in resolution. But why do that in an all-around lens, where resolution freaks (like myself) would use primes anyway?
It all will come down to how it performs optically. If it indeed is extremely sharp, competitive with primes, I could find it useful as a landscape lens for hiking tours to save weight. I don't think I want to leave my tilt-shift back home though...
As an all-around lens for hand-held shooting it will be weak, with my shooting style at least. I have time and time again seen that image stabilization is far more important to gain sharpness than high resolving power of the lens. Yes, with say 1/40 shutter people may be blurred occasionally, but often gives a nice look of the final image, sharp environment and some people blur suggesting movement. Without IS everything just becomes blurry, especially for me which does not have clockmaker's hands.