Warren and Albert, I don't think anyone is disputing the excellence of the Zeiss lenses. I'd guess that we're all here because of that excellence.
I've already shown in tests, that the Zeiss N wides are superior to the Canon L counterparts. But in some cases the Canon glass is as good or better. While the Canon 50/1.4 is not built as nicely as the Contax N 50/1.4, the Canon is just as sharp and has much nicer Bokeh. The Canon 35/1.4L is pretty close to the Contax 35/1.4 I once owned which still isn't even available in the N series. The Canon 85/1.2L is a monster, but it is unequalled in performance to anything available today. The Canon 100/2.8 Macro should have been an L lens with the level of performance it delivers. And nothing Zeiss has equals the Canon long lenses. The 70-200/2.8L IS is stunning, while the 200/1.8 is acknowledged industry wide as the best 200mm ever produced by anyone. Then above 200mm is strictly Canon territory all the way.
The ND is still an okay camera ( I have two ; -), and the N-1 is also just fine. But as a professional, I can hang my reputation on a camera that may or may not work, that may or may not focus fast enough, that may or may not suddenly die due to battery issues/power consumption. When shooting for pleasure I like to use the Contax gear, but it is all so big compared to say my Leica M stuff which I have no doubt performs from 21mm through 90mm without distortion or any other issue.
The Contax 645 IS A GREAT CAMERA, and I still use it. But IF Hasselblad had used Zeiss glass with the H1, Contax 645s would be history. The H1 focuses faster than a N-1 and does it in lower light. I don't know how their new sales are, but half of the professionals I know paid the price, and have switched over to the H1 ... especially for digital capture. I would have too IF the glass would've been Zeiss. Hasselblad has finally come out with the adapter to use the Zeiss glass, so that's looking better these days.