On my last trip the wind was so intense above timberline that I had to default to shooting a 6X9 rangefinder handheld at high speed, with about 50% success. I could hardly even stand up in that wind. Lower down the P67 and teles worked fine. But up high on the ridges and passes, again, only about 50% success with P67 teles due to the wind, no matter how solid the support below the camera. That's fine. I got plenty of good shots to work with, and am still printing some of them. It's not like working with 8x10, and having the wind pick up the whole camera and toss it twenty feet, huge Ries tripod n' all. Fortunately, every time that's happened there was a soft landing in foliage. But now I simply don't gamble with a view camera in those conditions. Been there, done that for decades. Now I'm getting old and lazy, and sheet film is getting too expensive to gamble with too. I reserve it for more predictable situations.
The biggest problem with long teles in terms of sharpness is always the intervening atmosphere itself, at least in infinity distance shots. Heat waves, atmospheric haze from pollen, air pollution, wrong time of day, etc. A deep red filter can cut through quite a bit of haze, but certainly not all of it.
The EDIF teles are designed to focus wavelengths past red, so have no hard infinity stop. It's vital to always check actual acute focus using an accessory magnifier with the filter in place. The older Takumar lenses do have a hard stop, but can't rein in red wavelengths as tightly. I find a deep green filter provides the greatest sharpness with the Takumar 300 (a nice travel lens for less stringent applications because today those are dirt cheap to replace if stolen or damaged).
In this area I frequently run into professional wildlife photographers and filmmakers with their modern digital gear, often around $40,000 worth. They can certainly capture momentary wildlife activity way faster than I can. But if a critter is more predictable, and I bag the shot with my Pentax 67 300EDIF instead, I certainly have a far richer picture worthy of being framed on a wall. I also have a high quality Nikon adapter for that if I want even more reach; it's fun, but I rarely use it. I don't have the patience to be a true wildlife photographer, but am an opportunist. I was recently talking to a couple who had made a one-hour PBS wildlife documentary. I asked them if it took them ten years to make. They answered No - Twenty years.
Back down to earth - I replaced my 200 P67 lens with the 165 version quite some time back. It is not only faster with a larger maximum aperture, but better optically corrected. It also fits in a smaller shoulder bag when I want to move around ultralight.