The image does look soft and dull. I use Canon myself but a friend gets really good results with this lens. Have you tried any handheld? Have you tried taking shots less than 50 ft. away? Sometimes atmosphere can really mess with a long lens. Take closeups of something near to you at maybe 7.1 or 8.0 with a shutter of 1/800. Set ISO to get it. You should be able to get crisp images handheld. Try 400, 500 and 600. Some long zooms get softer at the maximum. Reviews would tell you if that's the case.

Initial hands on reviews look very good. Google them.

You can find plenty of speculative criticism in another thread here.

B&H already lists it as #1 best seller. Expect a long wait if you preorder.

I like the asylum seeker idea!

You wouldn't owe any tax. I don't know how this will be reported on your tax return. You can visit IRS.gov and see if they have info yet. BTW, as an individual, you cannot claim a loss. The Feds only want to be a partner when you do well.

This is a new law. It was supposed to take effect in 2022 but got put off to 2023 because of logistical issues I believe. If you sell 600. or more on ebay or any number of other sites, you will receive form 1099 and you will have to report it on your tax return. How they plan to verify what Grandma claims she paid for her used dishes, I don't know.

There was a similar measure in Obamacare that would have required businesses to collect SS #s or EINs from any person or business they did 600. or more of business a year and issue 1099s! I had my own business at the time. Compliance would have been impossible. Can you imagine how it would go when I asked an airline clerk for their EIN so I could give them a 1099? Even the IRS was opposed. When it was discovered, the outcry was big enough that even democrats wanted that section repealed but Obama refused. It was supposed to raise X number of dollars to pay for Obamacare. After the 2010 election where dems got creamed, Obama relented.

In either case, you can bet the estimated amount of tax to be collected is greatly exaggerated and does not take into account the increased paperwork burden on businesses and individuals.

I forgot to mention another factor. Stabilization. I can shoot the 100-500 handheld down to 1/50 with ease, even 1/30. No good for BIF I know but I can't really shoot BIF in really low light even with my 300 2.8. I'm well aware of the exposure triangle and tradeoffs. My point is that you can now push ISO with far less of a tradeoff than in years past and the latest AF systems can handle long focal lengths and small apertures far better than just a few years ago.

I don't consider a maximum aperture of f/9 @ 800mm a problem at all. I like big aperture lenses that allow more creativity but for shooting birds at closer ranges, I use f/8-10 at 500mm. I need the smaller apertures for adequate DOF. It used to be that small apertures had AF issues and high ISO noise issues. AF is no longer an issue and noise can be eliminated in post with newer programs. Canon took advantage of these facts to produce the 200-800 which is relatively light and inexpensive for far more potential customers. I watched a video yesterday where it was field tested and the images were pretty impressive as well.

Bottom line: this is a groundbreaking lens. It's not for me, but it will, no doubt, be a huge hit.

Judging by the reaction on Canon rumors, the 24-105 will be a big hit.

The 200-800 will also be a big seller. It should now be obvious why Canon did not want Tamron or others front running this lens with their 150-600s.

Wait a couple of years and prices will be lower too!

I switched from a 5D4 to R5 two years ago. I had a dozen or so EF lenses at the time. All the EF lenses work better on the R5 to varying degrees. The main benefit is improved AF. I gradually replaced the ones I use most over two years.

The EF 24-70 2.8L II was my workhorse for years. If you are familiar with this lens, you know it is one of the best, if not the best, EF zoom made. Reviews of the RF version were uniform in saying there is little IQ improvement though you get IS. It weighs about an ounce less than the EF version plus adapter but is better balanced. Recently, B&H had a promotion with a 600. discount on this lens so I bought it. Subjectively, I like the way the images are rendered a little better. They seem to have a more 3D look for lack of a better description. The shorter MFD and better magnification make it more versatile too. Either of these lenses would be a big improvement over your f/4 version.

I owned the EF 70-200 4L II IS and it was a really good zoom. I reluctantly replaced it mainly for the lighter weight and shorter length. It also has shorter MFD and better magnification which is important for my purposes. Over the course of a year, I've grown very fond of this lens. I own some of the sharpest primes and this lens compares favorably with them even at 200mm where a lot of others get soft. I carry equipment on long hikes and climbs and this one's light weight and small size make it a joy. I use it a lot more than I did the EF version. I have seen a number of comparison reviews with the 2.8 version and none of them find the 2.8 to perform any better. Weight is important to me, so I have the f/4. If I used it for events, especially indoor, I would have the 2.8.

Finally, I did replace my EF 50 1.8 with RF version. I can't say it performs better but I do think it is built better.

Someone else mentioned the 16 2.8. This would be a 26mm equivalent on your R7 and seems like a no brainer. It's been on sale for 199. a couple of times. I just stick it in my pocket when I use the 24-70. I was able to sell my 16-35 4L.

Enjoy your search!

I only use a tripod when I want to use a very slow shutter speed to produce a desired effect. With equipment produced in the last ten years or so, you can shoot handheld at slow speeds that were undreamed of in years past. Newer cameras don't produce as much noise as before permitting using higher ISO values not to mention there are better noise reduction tools available in post.

Every year at an annual crane festival near here, I see most photographers using tripods. Meanwhile, I can quickly move around, go from standing to crouching or move side to side to get better perspectives. Tripod users are basically stuck in the mud. When it comes to shooting BIF, a tripod makes no sense. I would miss 95% of my shots. Duck hunters don't use tripods. Neither should photographers.

There are many reasons to go mirrorless but weight saving will be nominal in this scenario. Using an adapter for your lenses will negate the saving.

You may want to try out full frame cameras since they are now much lighter than their DSLR counterparts and you'll get the full benefit from your lenses which are designed for full frame. Both the RP and R8 weigh about 1 lb. I switched from a 77D to a RP two years ago for hiking and climbing. With either a RF 24-105 4L or RF 70-200 4L, it weighs less than 3 lbs. Both these lenses are quite a bit lighter and somewhat better than the EF versions.

Based on my experience, you will get a big bump in quality with the RF 24-70 2.8L. You don't mention if you have version I or II of the (I assume) 70-200. If it is version I, then you should definitely upgrade. You might consider the RF f/4 version in that case. I went with the RF 70-200 4L because of the light weight, small size, pretty short MFD and decent magnification. It has become my go to hiking lens and I have carried it to summits over 14K. You mentioned flowers. I take a lot of wildflower shots and this lens is so good at it, I don't use my 100 macro much anymore. Of course, with a R7, your field of view is actually 112-320 which is less versatile. I used to have a 77D for hiking and most of the time attached a Ef 24-70 2.8L II which gave me excellent results. In any event, spend some time reading pro reviews of all the lenses you consider.

Odds are when you get familiar with the R5, the 5D4 will collect dust. But that's not a reason to replace all of your EF glass.

I had a dozen or so EF lenses when I bought a R5 two years ago. I have been slow to replace them. When considering a RF lens, the first question I ask myself is "would I buy it if it were just an EF upgrade?" Second question is "how much do I use the EF version?" Third, "is it worth the cost?" For example, I replaced my 100-400L II with the 100-500L. It's longer, lighter, sharper and has much better AF, so I would have bought it as an EF lens and I use it a lot. The cost did hurt, however. Conversely, I have yet to replace my EF 24-70 2.8L II. Reviews all conclude there is little IQ improvement and it doesn't save any weight. The swap would cost around 1500. and all I would get is the addition of IS.

Rather than replace your EF lenses, you can buy RF lenses that add to your arsenal instead.

Bottom line: no rush.

For years I used a Canon 77D for hiking to save weight and cost. I never used a lens designed for crop frame on it. Canon nver produced much in the way of quality lenses for APS-C cameras. Most of the time, I used an EF 24-70 2.8L II. In good light, it was difficult to tell any IQ difference vs the 5D4 I had at the time. Longer focal lengths did present AF challenges. The biggest disadvantage is the cropping itself. The aforementioned 24-70 translates to 38-112 on the 77D so I gave up wide angle use. My 50mm becomes 80mm which made it far less useful. When mirrorless arrived, I bought the very light, full frame RP to replace the 77D.

I confess to being cursed with an eye for detail. This has lead me to own a few of Canon's sharpest primes, including the 300 2.8L IS II. However, I consider AF performance and color rendition equally important. Also, resolution diminishes with distance as atmospheric haze and/or thermal distortion takes a toll.

The biggest improvements have been in zoom lenses. The best ones can now rival primes in resolution much of the time. I confess to using zooms more than primes but when I want to produce "special" images, I still reach for a prime.

I do own two 20th century primes: EF 85 1.8 and EF 135 2L. Both can compete with the newest lenses in terms of resolution. However, as much as I love the 135, the AF had a lot of "near misses" on a 5D4. I was pleasantly surprised when the AF improved a lot on a R5.

So, I'm not surprised the latest camera bodies can breath new life into some older prime lenses.