Does OPTICAL IS still make sense in mirrorless camera?

EvokeEmotion wrote:

Canon wants us to spend $800+ just for IS 'per lens', ka-ching, money in the bank!

That can't be true for three of my IS lenses: EF-M 18-55, 11-22, and EF 24-105 because the entire lens costs less than $800. If you're thinking the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200s, you need to take into account that Canon didn't just slap on the IS and sell for $800 more; the IS versions have different optical designs to go along with the IS, so you can't attribute all the price difference to the IS.

I think the problem is that the IS price premium permeates across the entire EF range. All the new IS variants of their primes that Canon have recently introduced are approx double the price of their non-IS equivalents.

They may have new and different optics, because they are newer designs all round, but Canon seem to have taken the opportunity to significantly increase their prices along the way.

That said, it is very hard to make direct comparisons to other manufacturers lenses because they are not necessarily directly equivalent in other regards, and may not have the same optical qualities.  And other manufacturer's non-IS 'premium' prime lenses are not necessarily cheaper than Canon's IS prime lenses, which are also generally of 'premium' quality (even if not marked with an L).

e.g. can you compare a Olympus M.ZUIKO 17mm f1.8 Lens @ £359 in the UK, against a Canon Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM @£459?  They might give you a similar FoV, but is it a fair optical comparison (I don't know. I am asking the question.)

And importantly, whilst the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM is designed to work on both FF and APS-C, including the MILC M, the same can't be said of the Olympus which is only designed for M43.

So price comparisons are hard to make just on the basis on the IS price premium Canon may charge.