Canon EOS R7 performance with EF 300mm f2.8 (1st version)

I have an original, non IS, EF 300mm F/2.8L and have used it on an R6, R5 and R3's. Most of my use is on R3's. I don't shoot sports and have no idea about frame rates in mechanical shutter as I don't use mechanical shutter much and don't care about high frame rates in mechanical shutter. I put the camera in electronic or electronic first curtain if I want higher frame rates which are good for catching expressions. I mostly use the lens to photograph public speaking in big dark rooms. The focusing accuracy is good, not as good as an EF 70-200 F/2.8 III, but a very high percentage are perfectly in focus on the correct eyeball. The focusing mechanism makes a lot of noise compared to all other EF lenses. It's loud enough that people next to me turn their heads at the noise on occasion. I suspect that it might not move in as fine an increment as some other lenses and that it takes time to change focus directions. I would suspect even a version I IS would have smoother and faster focusing.  A few other notes. Some of the first version lenses had a two-piece lens hood, very frustrating and slow to mount. I have a late model one with a large one-piece hood. Also the older ones, I shot one for years, sometimes have the screws that hold the mount points for the hood bayonet mechanism work loose. I used one of those lenses for years and one screw fell out and was never found. Gaffer tape on that and all the other exposed screw heads after that. Mine doesn't have that issue. I believe it's a redesign of the hood mounting mechanism that was later used on the first IS version. The rubber covered front ring of the actual lens is very very soft. Mine has a slight dent from rolling off my lap over my ankle and onto a basketball floor. Also there are two versions of the rear filter holder. Some take gels, others take 43mm screw ins like mine. I think the gels are the early ones.  I'm told the AF motors can't be fixed or replaced if they go. The older lenses are heavier than the IS versions. I find mine to be critically sharp, but I've never had an opportunity to compare it to an IS version of any type. If I were to replace it now I would buy an IS version. A lot of my work is wide open at ISO 3200-6400 at 1/250th and I'm pretty sure the limiting factor on sharp images is camera wobble. That's cured by my R3. It was an issue on my Mark IV's.