Voigtlander 90/3.5 or Nikkor 85/1.8G?

Apologies to all for responding slowly, but I am am in and out of hospitals these days and am mostly off line. Many thanks you for all your useful contributions.

This is what I assumed. But since Diglloyd recently fell in love with this lens, just had to double check.

But then I am still on the hunt for a lens shorter than a 135, 125 or 100 mm (existing or future magic-makers), that has similar optical potential. (As expected, someone did ask me to define "magic". LOL. I agree, its far from being a scientific term, but if lens lust has ever bitten you, you should know what "magic" means.)  So I was sympathising for a long while with the 90 mm Leica R APO with a Leitax converter, but its price went out of this galaxy and I gave up, because I live on planet Earth.

Yes, the 85/1.4G is probably is somewhere there with the m-factor. I had the D version, but my copy was kind of a dud. It occasionally made brilliant images, but had a very unreliable AF. After selling it, I never bothered to go after the 85/1.4 G because for that price the 24-70 zoom seemed a more attractive pie in the sky. Agree the 24-70 is not the same thing, but probably close enough and way more practical than a prime.

So here is a question: under this 100-125-135 category of great primes, and disregarding the 85/1.4 G, is the 24-70 zoom the next in line in the range above 50 mms? In the pure sense, a magic lens it is probably not, but a "workman's lens" at its best it probably is. Anything else?

Oh yes. My eyes also went round when it was announced, but with the Voight 125 in my arsenal, the Apo-Sonnar can only be Platonic love for me. I'd like to be less Platonic about the 55/1.4 that Zeiss also announced, but given its expected 3000 USD price, I am afraid I will have to use my funds to a go FF finally. The IQ difference between FF and DX is too obvious to be neglected, simply because it's more than just buying a good lens.