Oh no. The effect with a 200 plus teleconverter would be distinctly inferior. Been there, done that. The EDIF series, of which the 300 is the shortest example, are much better corrected. Like I earlier insinuated, every complaint I've read about these lenses was due to insufficient tripod and head support for something this bulky and heavy. But due to the rotating tripod collar, it is easier to balance the 300 EDIF than the previous 300 Takumar.
The EDIF's are distinctly sharper too, and significantly, don't have any halo with certain black and white contrast filters due to their nearly apo degree of correction. The older 300 Takumar style isn't a shabby lens at all, but does exhibit a bit of halo around high contrast edges with red filters; it works best with deep green filters instead. Color images also have a bit of halo (or "color fringing" in that case), not enough to be distracting in a magazine or book reproduction, but potentially evident in larger prints. Let's just say that the 300 Takumar is like a reliable ordinary Ford or Chevy, while the EDIF is a Ferrari.
I happen to print very precisely, and don't subscribe to that "normal viewing distance" BS. You can print any image as big as you want; but I like em crisp nose-up with reading glasses on. I'm fine with esthetic exceptions to that, but not as an excuse for sloppy camera use or haphazard enlarging technique. These 300 6X7 lenses will separate the men from the boys when it comes to tripod stability, in a manner shorter teles up to 200mm will not. Nor should 6x6 teles like for Hassie be compared with respect to tripod needs, which are significantly lighter.
