Zeiss 21 with Nikon K1

[wildflower art]

<p>Dear Photo.net,<br>

Great photographers are always improving technique, equipment, and composition with a limited set of subjects, demonstrating a paradox of limitless possibilities, making the breath taking world expressively sharable. Expression is what photography says, and photo.neters break limits of expression. <br>

Does the Nikon K1 ring mount with the Zeiss 21 2.8? Does it hinder exterior focus? Does it compare with the 20 3.5 AIS mounted with this extension ring? Does it damage the lens? Is this a superior method for wide angle closeups? <br>

Pictures here really show me any work can be stunning. The most important point is to display it. I love that you always have the answers to questions of pushing limits. <br>

I am interested in wide angle close-ups of small flowers, they seem to say "gift" or "pop" when photographed in mass. You have known for years that flat field is ideal for macro work, and yet flowers wish for reverse field curvature to put stigma and petal tip in focus. This makes close-focus among lenses of all focal lengths of value to the macro shooter, opening up perspectives with flower portraits merging with landscape. The flower photograph often shows habitat to express movement with science.<br>

Thank you for sharing your input. <br>

Matthew Smith</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Matthew, I have no experience with the K1 ring, so I'm not working from experience here. But there is one thing to look out for: the current model Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZF.2 has the electronic contacts (and are essentially "AI-P" lenses); the older Zeiss 21mm ZF is basically an AiS lens. According to <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00Ci5J">this older thread</a>, the K1 ring could damage the electronic contacts, so if you get a ZF.2 version, it could be a bad idea to use these rings. You'd need the ZF version, and then it should be OK.<br>

Plus, frankly, my AiS 20mm f/3.5 is pretty fabulous on closer ranges, I'd really first check in reviews whether the Zeiss is showing its top performance at close ranges as well (note: no dout the Zeiss is the better lens of the two, but each lens is optimised towards a certain focus distance, and the 20mm f/3.5 clearly is optimised for performance close to its MFD).</p>

[Albins images]

Am I going to help you with my response. .?

Hardly..

For what's worth, I'll just add that the K1 is fine with my 24/2.8 & 20/3.5.. but you knew that already..

Why would you suspect the Zeiss? It has no AF contacts.

[keirst]

<p>Zeiss ZF.2 lenses do have data contacts like AI-P Nikkors, which send info to AF or DSLR cameras’ CPUs. Older Zeiss ZF (without the “.2” suffix lenses do not have contacts, and are essentially the same as AIs Nilkkors. See: http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-ZF-vs-ZF2.html</p>

[Albins images]

A ha! Indeed those contacts could be an issue.

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have used my K-1 ring on almost every Nikon lens that I own and I have yet to run into any problems. 20mm is about as wide as you want to go as wider then that moves the point of focus inside the lens. That sounds kind of confusing so let me try to explain. If I mount my 14mm f/2.8 on the K-1 and put it on my D4 to be able to achive focus the subject is touching the front element. I don't mind that if it is a flower petal but I am not going to let anything hard touch the front element. When I tried it with an 8mm even touching the front element did not bring the subject into focus.</p>

<p>I have never had an issue with the contacts on any of the AF lenses I have used on my K-1.</p>