Fiddlefye

We have our fireworks a bit earlier here! The view from my house - nowhere near the best shot of the lot in a traditional sense, but I like it. DSC_4745 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

Never question success! As I mentioned, I never particularly liked or used the lens on film, but on my D750 it just shines.

My tech here in Windsor, ON has service both my II and IIa quite nicely.

I still have and occasionally use my Olympus XA. All things considered it is easy to carry, a lot of fun and produces fine quality images. Apart from that the closest I come to a compact film camera is a Voigtländer Vito III. The f2 Ultron in it is marvelous! Photo from the web...

I always find that in my own work I do several checks when it comes to horizons. 1) Is it relevant? 2) Can I see a horizon that would match to a grid? If not then- 3) Is there some horizon to be perceived? For this I will turn away from an image and then quickly turn back. I find that sometimes in a case of images where it is difficult to decide this will resolve the issue for me.

Pause? Wass ist dis "pause" you speak of? Solenoids were supposed to negate the need I guess? The SL66 and 500C/M could hardly be more different but for the quality of the end result. The SL66 is the more easily flexible camera (mount a lens in reverse for close-up work?, lens boards for using alternative lenses? lens tilt?), but one pays a bit in complexity and weight - not that in thirty years I've ever complained when lugging it over fields and through woods. After three decades it remains a real favourite and mine has been incredibly reliable.

Interesting you mention both the 500 C/M and Revox A77 in the same post as I own and use both. I grew up with the A77 so using them has long been second nature I own two; an early one and a later with internal Dolby as well as a B77. Recapped them and they still work perfectly. All gear needs service and not just "eventually" if it is to work as designed throughout its life. I've long used Rolleis - a Rolleiflex TLR and a SL66, but a friend gave me some of his 'blad gear when he retired from portrait photography due to failing eyesight. Two 500C/M bodies, two backs, 45º prism and waist-level finders and (the nicest bit) a 100 f3.5 Planar. What a lovely lens that is! Going from working with Rolleis to a Hasselblad took a wee change in approach, but not so much after a few frames.

Good question. As far as I'm aware the meter functions are all within the body, no?

The adjustments in the inserts can shift over time and use (or not), but a good tech can get them back to proper function without too much trouble.

I gor the prism in my SL-2 resilvered last summer. Pain finding anyone to do a proper job these days, but it worked out nicely. The SL has no issues so far, nor does my OM-1. Plenty of Canons with similar issues according to my tech (who sees them all)....

Pretty much my take on the lens and how I use it as well. I have a little Lowepro Adventura bag and if I have the 24-85 VR on the 750 body, the hood in one little side compartment I can just fit the 200 Q in the other if I put the bigger base end down. It makes for a light carry and covers most of what I might want to do quite well. The odd thing is that I never really found a used for the 200Q until I started full-frame digital. Now it gets a lot of use. If I'm shooting one of my film Nikons (F2, FE, F4) it is a whole 'nother game, mind you. Back in my strictly film days I had (have) a Tamron 70-210 f3.5 SP that did a lovely job and still does, but it is a lot longer and heavier to cart around. I do a fair amount of professional head-shot portrait work and awhile ago I did a series with one of my more patient clients using various lenses I had available. Odd as it might seem, their preference and mine was the 200 f4 shot wide open. Hmmm... In the end it is "horses for courses" and focus accuracy counts for more than the lens ofttimes.

I had my close-relative Vito III out for some shooting last week. The f2 Ultron is a lovely lens! My shooting friend this past weekend was my Leicaflex SL-2. Leicaflex SL and SL-2 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

I realize this is an ancient thread, but I thought I'd weigh in on the 200 f4 Q. I got my AI'ed lens as a free alternative to a body cap when I bought my F2 three decades ago. I languished in a drawer until recently as I was never all that crazy about how it looked on film. A year or two back I decided to give it a try on my D750 and liked the results enough that I carry it in my small walk-around bag. Focused carefully it makes a marvelous candid portrait lens when shot wide open (lovely bokeh). I took a few shots of wife yesterday came out quite lovely. Even when stopped down a bit it does a far more than adequate job. Yesterday I shot some frames at f8 of a freighter several miles out in Lake Erie and even with the hazy of a hot day at 200% "pixel peeping" I can still see with precision all of the rigging on the ship and clearly read the name. How much better does a lens have to be not to be considered a "dog"? I own (or have owned) some truly great glass (Zeiss, Leitz etc) over the years and I honestly don't see where the 200 f4 Q has anything to be deeply ashamed of.