Well, in truth no one should kiss off a whole lens line up, nor tout that just because it's Zeiss it has to be better.
A few observations from a dual user:
Since I use both Nikon and Sony at weddings, I cherry picked lenses for both. The Nikon 14-24/2.8 is one essential Nikon, and my favorite from Nikon is the 200/1.8. (freakin' LOVE that lens!)
To be fair, the Nikon 85/1.4 is an okay lens, but sorely in need of updating (AFS, Nano coating, APO? ... not holding my breath). By comparison, the Sony/Zeiss 85/1.4 is a better lens, but no world beater ... the Canon 85/1.2 is a better lens @ f/1.4.
Same for the 135s ... the Nikon was pretty good 10 years ago, but long in the tooth and is falling behind as the resolution of these cameras moves up ... the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8 is a world class lens .... the equal to the Canon 135/2 in clarity, while beating it for color rendition, micro detail and bokeh.
The mainstay lens for my wedding work is a 24-70/2.8 ... it's here that the Sony/Zeiss walks away from the pack ... IS is one contributing factor to that over-all impression which neither the Nikon or Canon version offer ... but even with the camera's IS turned off, the lens clearly out performs both the Nikon and Canon versions in all respects concerning IQ. However, it still exhibits visible distortion at the wide end, so is far from perfect.
IMO, the stand out lens from Sony isn't a Zeiss optic! The 70-200/2.8G APO is without a doubt the best version of that focal length zoom I've ever encountered.
The Sony doesn't have the IS advantage here as both Canon and Nikon offer IS and VR. Both competing lenses are excellent performers but the edge goes to the Sony IMHO.
Why Nikon refuses to produce at least 3 fast primes baffels me. A 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 with AFS and Nano coatings, and a new 85/1.4 ED, AFS, Nano-Nano would be most welcome.
I personally don't care if they don't do a fasterer wide angle ... the 14-24/2.8 is a world class lens (except for flare), and if size is an issue there's always the often forgotten Nikon 18/2.8 ( a lens I haven't used for years, so I don't really know how it would stack up today on a high res. DSLR)
Lastly, when the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 hits the shelves, it should be conmpared with the Nikon 17-35 and Canon 16-35 ... not the 14-24/2.8. I can already guess how that comparison will shake out since the Nikon version is also quite long in the tooth.
When Sony produces a camera that shoots to dual cards and is better weather sealed with a wider array of AF points ... the game will be over for Nikon and me. Until then I'm content to cherry pick the best for both. Being a gear whore, if I could hack it financially, I'd like a 5DMKII and 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2 to cherry pick from also.:ROTFL: