I realize that I lack the professional experience of most of the folks using this very knowledgeable web sight, and am little tuned in on certain other aspects of photography, with their relevant requirements, but while doing landscape, I am always a bit boggled by the frequent emphasis upon a necessity for having image stabilization. I would never consider shooting without a tripod for a number of reasons, (mostly already mentioned above), and personally perceive image stabilization to be a nuisance to be avoided whenever possible.
In my view, it adds totally unnecessary extra weight, complexity, and cost. Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that the constant movement of internal lens elements will not be a factor causing sooner degradation of the increasingly demanding specs of modern digital lenses.
I was delighted to find out that the Canon 24-70 2.8 ll was not stabilized; this is a factor which causes me to seriously consider it as a future purchase. If I were ever to need a fast 85, I would prefer the unstabilized Nikon 1.4 to the stabilized Canon 1.2., even though I would need an adapter for use on Canon cameras.
The Canon T/S 24 ll would appear to be an incredible lens, which I would prefer over any 24-70. I am fine being perceived as a Luddite, and very fine with the fact that the 24 T/S is not auto-focus. Medium format digital and large format are hardly suffering from any lack of bells and whistles, (excepting mf's need for cmos live view). Please!!--no forthcoming re-enactment of the small format vs medium format discussion.