First, IS is wonderful when it's needed. That is ONLY when shutter speeds dip below your ability to hold the camera steady. That means...the long lenses (100MM) or slow (f4 or slower) lenses are going to benefit from IS in less than reasonable lighting the most. It's when the lights go down, such as shooting a dimly lit church or outside at dawn/dusk that IS really benefits the user.
The mistake many people make is thinking that somehow IS is going to stop motion blur from the subject. Neither in camera nor in lens IS does anything to stop subject motion. Get a faster lens for that. I owned a Canon 70-200mm f4IS lens. It's raved to be one of the best telephoto zoom lenses period. For me, it didn't work as well for what I was using it for than a faster non-IS lens. A non IS f2.8 is grabbing tons of shots I would have missed with the f4IS.
In camera IS does not mean it's better...only cheaper if you have the need/desire for more than one lens with IS (which is pretty much all of us). From what I've read of the technology there can be negatives with in camera IS that in lens IS doesn't have. Also, $600 is like you said "roughly" close but over exagerated to what it costs extra in many instances (if not most). Two of the most popular telephoto zoom Canon lenses that benefit well from IS are the 70-200mm f4 and f2.8 versions. Retail pricing MAY mean you add $600 for the IS version over the non-IS version. Both versions were easily obtainable for $400 more than their non-IS cousins from HIGHLY regarded authorized dealers because of instant rebates this spring. $400 is a good chunk of change.
I decided not to go with an IS lens because of that, but it's not $600. JFYI i chose to keep the $400 hoping to have it to spend on another lens (which supports the idea of in camera IS). Most all of the lenses I'm considering next aren't IS either. I would like to have at least one IS lens that will work well for still shots in low light, but I don't need it for the majority of the shots I take.
Would I like in camera IS...maybe. would I like IS lenses cheaper...SURELY. Neither are perfect, and don't let anything I've stop you from jumping on the IS bandwagon. IS can be wonderful when useful. Just understand it isn't a magic pill that's going to make you a good photographer. The last thing to consider is that camera sensors will likely get much better capturing light and processors will take out noise much better. It could be common place to shoot at ISO 800-1600, and ISO 3200 could result in perfectly beautiful shots when needed. This would make IS needed much less. I hope this rant was worth at least what you were charged.
Facebook
Twitter