Well my experience is with the ZF/ZE lenses, not the CPs, and Zeiss claims they're made to "higher mechanical standards." I bet that just means tighter tolerances on focus/DoF markings and not better glass, but I can't be sure.
The 21 is gloriously sharp, the only wide angle lens I've ever seen better than the 14-24.
I shouldn't have called the 35 crap (although the 28 is. Horrible.), it's very good, comparable to Nikon's new 35 1.4. But not in the same league as the 21 which is something special. Not a bad lens but not worth the "Zeiss premium."
Depends which 50 you mean.
My feelings on the 50 1.4 are about the same as on the 35 2. Not horrible but nothing special. It's worse than Nikon's new 50 1.4 and better than Nikon's old 50 1.4 (and Canon's current 50 1.4). Interestingly note that the max f-stop on the CP version has been changed from 1.4 to 2, perhaps to address it being unimpressive at 1.4.
The 50 2 Macro is frakkin amazing. Only 50 I've used that's as good is the old manual focus (and with an aperture ring!!) Nikon 50 1.2.
The 85 isn't nearly as weak as the 28 but it is not impressive. Better than Nikon's old 85 1.4 which was garbage, not from the same frakkin PLANET as Nikon's mind-blowingly-awesome new 85 1.4.
The only lenses from this series I'd want are the 21, 50 2, and 100 2. Unfortunately, the new 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 Nikons I mentioned lack aperture rings
