No need for image stabilization below 100mm?

I was reading through reviews of the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 G lens when I came across a reply to a review stating that one does not need vibration reduction (IS in canon-ese) for lenses at or below 100mm in focal length. Any truth to that statment? I'm assuming this statement was made under the assumption that the camera and attached lens would be hand held.

"1/<focal length>" still applies at all focal lengths. Presumably the respondent has never found themselves trying to shoot at F/11 ISO800 @ 24mm inside a dim church? Trust me, you need more than 1/25th for that, and so IS is of use.

Also, I get quite annoyed at "shutter lag bravado". You know, people who say "I can hold a billion kilos stock still for an aeon: IS is for wimps!" It just makes me . Some of us are not so steady.

Thanks! That what it seemed like to me. This person seems to reply to reviews where the Nikon products receive less than 4 stars.

I would think IS would still be very helpful below 100mm. You might be in an instant where you need 1/4 second shutter speed to get a good exposure but if you were to hand-hold without IS you'd want a 1/60 second shutter speed. And if you don't have any more room to spare in aperture or ISO you are likely to be stuck.

Quite.

Look at this shot, from my Gallery:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Nah....you're just that good.
I have done a fair amount of theater shooting. High ISO, low speed, wait for actors to naturally pause. IS boosts the number of keepers.

I can't hold my 24-60 f/2.8 any lower than 1/30 or so (on a good day). There is a reason people pay $1000 for a 17-55 f/2.8 IS which isn't even "L".