IX Nikkor 60-180mm evaluation

[Ian R]

Following on from the quite successful adaptation of the IX Nikkor 20-160mm to my Z6 I thought I would try the next lens in the IX Nikkor series that I have to hand. The 60-180m - which equates to a 80-200mm on 35mm film.

Once again the rear collar needed careful modification but one this was done I was able to fit it to the FTX with no issues. The Z6 reported focal lengths and confirmed focus. It is a very light lens and is quite well built - nicer than the 70-300mm I think.

Performance wise it is 'nothing special' but I did enjoy using it. At 60mm on FX it corner shades a little at 60mm and close focus but the moment you zoom even a little the shading is gone. Decent sharpness, colour and contrast too.

I did order the correct hood for it to help give it a fighting chance. I took it to the wildlife park today to try it out and I was pleasantly pleased. I may use it when I really want to travel light. It is a mostly forgotten Nikon lens but it can work for you.

First photo was my car in case anyone was wondering.

[Ian R]

And the rest of the photos

[Akira]

I wouldn't be surprised if the longer zoom works well on Z6, knowing that your experiment with the shorter zoom came out successfully.

One interesting advantage of adapting an APS-C (DX) format lens on an FX body is that you can utilize the image circle more efficiently, i.e., for 1:1 or 9:16, although the framing is tricky.

[Ian R]

Akira, with the Nikon APS film lenses they are designed to fully cover 30.2 × 16.7 mm as opposed to Nikon APS DX of 23.6 x 15.8 mm. This larger native coverage makes a real difference - they cover FX much more easily with less heavy corner shadowing.

Of course the quality of these lenses is not as good as many of the classic Nikkors we know and love, but I have proved that the do work still and are better than many thought.

The next lens in my tests is the 30-60mm but this has been a headache to adapt. It is truly a cheaply produced item but it still gives good quality through the glass. I have a 24-70mm IX Nikkor with a relative. I will see if I can get that back for some testing.

[Akira]

Akira, with the Nikon APS film lenses they are designed to fully cover 30.2 × 16.7 mm as opposed to Nikon APS DX of 23.6 x 15.8 mm. This larger native coverage makes a real difference - they cover FX much more easily with less heavy corner shadowing.

Of course the quality of these lenses is not as good as many of the classic Nikkors we know and love, but I have proved that the do work still and are better than many thought.

The next lens in my tests is the 30-60mm but this has been a headache to adapt. It is truly a cheaply produced item but it still gives good quality through the glass. I have a 24-70mm IX Nikkor with a relative. I will see if I can get that back for some testing.

Oh, I've totally forgot about the APS-H size for which the IX lenses were designed for.  Thank you for the correction!

[Ian R]

Easy to forget! I remember shooting a lot of APS film and was always being told how by people how it was 'much worse quality' than 35mm film 'as the negative is so much smaller'  - which I never understood as for horizontal dimension (which dictates the print size) it was less than 6mm down from 35mm film. Using the Kodak High definition 100 film I was getting some really sharp clear photos on my Pronea 6i with a prime lens. I only ever shot H mode or sometimes P - I liked the 16:9 ratio for landscapes.

In fact losing the outer 3mm compared to 35mm film got me more even sharpness from my zoom lenses. It was always the edges / far corners that let the zooms down.