Frankly....been interested in your posts.......I'm not a Nikon user but the 810 & 850 are more like the digital 'breakthrough' that i've been patiently waiting for.... Are you aware that the 40mm Ultron was updated for latest hi res Nikon bodies very recently including chips? Is that one in your pic as I could not find it on Cameraquest site marked like that, LH40N and with thin focus ring. Also, while probably too long, the new 58 Nokton is claimed as "best performing" 50 "made by any maker".
Yes I tried the 40/2 version 2 TWICE because I really wanted to like it. I also bought several generations of the the 50/1.8 AI and AIS, the 45/2.8P, the 28/2, 28/2.8, 24/2, 24/2.8, 20VC and have owned all the compact wide-normal primes in AF-D back in the D300/D700 era.
Thus my frustration.
I foolishly sold the 35/2 Milvus I had in favor of another 35/1.4G for a travel project... that was a nice lens, 58mm filter and not too large, clearly better than the more expensive Nikon but manual focus of course.
I bet the 58 Nokton is a good lens, it seems that once they go over 50mm it's easier to make lenses that perform well on DSLRs. But not all... I always wanted the 105/1.8 AIS in the old days but it was horrible on digital... Then again a comparable compact 300/4.5 AIS was just as sharp as my modern 300/2.8 and really quite a nice lens for it's price and size. I think that most of the longer AIS glass is pretty great.
I am just building a small lens kit for a F6 which I got recently.
I have the 40CV (which I once got as a small lens for the SL) but fully agree that the bokeh is ugly, so even though the focal length is nice and flexible and the lens small, I dont know if I would buy it again.
I probably end up with 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G (and / or Milvus 50/2.0), and still have 105DC and 180mm.
I also thpught about the zoom options (16-35/4.0 VR for example) but in the end I think I will o for primes.
The 28/1.8 has a good reputation and is a nice compromise between size, speed, price and quality IMO.
For the 50 I prefer the overall IQ I get with the 50 Milvus, but I am not sure yet if I want to give up AF and the small size of the 50/1.8.Maybe there is room for 2 50s......
Back in the day I carried the National Geographic photographer's kit... a Domke F2 with two Nikon F3hps (with MD4s) and the 24/2, 85/1.4, and 180/2.8. And a Forscher ProBack with a FM body lol. Also had a 35/2 and 55/2.8 Micro, and I made a good living with it. But when I look at tear sheets from that era, especially larger reproductions, they are awful, focus is off, color is weird, distortion is a given, fringing, etc... digital pixel peeping has made us perfectionists.
Film lets you get away with a lot so I'd probably look at bokeh more than anything else. Maybe try a mix of manual and AF lenses? Some of the Zeiss ZF lenses are compact and good performers, I just didn't like the 25/2.8 because of the curvature.
~~~
It's better to be promiscuous with lenses than people ;-p Seriously the market is such you can buy a lens and try it for a while, sell it at a slight loss and try something else. I haven't found the perfect compact wide prime yet but it's been fun looking. And I made some good images with "not the best" lenses that really I have to look at the EXIF data to tell.
With tourist travel coming up for me I will most likely just take one camera and one lens, I am rather fond of the Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 solo but am considering getting the beastly 35/1.4 Milvus (it's huge). I wouldn't want to carry a set of three or four heavy metal Zeiss lenses but one isn't too bad.
Last year I went to China and took the Nikon 35/1.4G that I complain about above, it made perfectly fine images and having AF was a boon... and you just accept that you have to sacrifice some other aspect. My only compliant then is that for an expensive lens ($1600 new) you shouldn't have to feel that you've compromised.